le

linlave

Supply chainIndustrial relationships

emnsurtly). Tent-to-business (B2B) sectors relatively unexplored and to-date little is known about:

ships vess-to-d trust

Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 609620

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketirelationships can have signicant implications for the implementationof green supply chain management (GSCM) (Cruz, 2008; Vachon &Klassen, 2007). Firms in B2B markets often have few incentives to en-gage inGSCMand hence their practices are relatively reactive comparedto rms in the B2C sector (Gonzlez Benito & Gonzlez Benito, 2006).There is, however, increasing pressure for marketing and supply chainpractitioners in B2B settings to improve their environmental practices.Not only to respond to external pressure, but also because it is generallyaccepted that GSCM can improve rm performance and its competitive

cluding total qualitymanagement (Klassen &McLaughlin, 1993; Porter &van der Linde, 1995), lean supply chain management (Kleindorfer,Singhal, & Wassenhove, 2005; Rothenberg, Pil, & Maxwell, 2001;Simpson & Power, 2005), reverse logistics (Chan, 2007; Guide &Van Wassenhove, 2002; Wu & Dunn, 1995), life cycle assessment(Beamon, 1999; Hagelaar, van der Vorst, & Marcelis, 2004; Stewart,Collins, Anderson, & Murphy, 1999), and product stewardship(Michaelis, 1995; Verghese & Lewis, 2007). Although such ap-proaches have highlighted the dynamics and complexities of imple-position (Sharma, Iyer, Mehrotra, & Krishnan,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1225 384763.E-mail addresses: S.U.Hoejmose@bath.ac.uk (S. Hoej

Stephen.Brammer@wbs.ac.uk (S. Brammer), A.I.Millingt(A. Millington).

1 Tel.: +44 2476 524541.2 Tel.: +44 1225 383068.

0019-8501/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. Alldoi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.04.008have been suggested todersen & Kumar, 2006;s of B2B and B2C supply

agement of the product after its useful life (Srivastava, 2007, p. 54).Existing research within the eld has focused on a number of aspectsthat often encompass the entire supply chain (see Srivastava, 2007), in-play an important role in B2B settings (AnArnott, 2007), and the different characteristic1. Introduction

The nature of supply chain relationbusiness-to-business (B2B) and businFor example, personal relationships an2) the conditions that are necessary for successful implementation of green practices in B2B supply chains. Thisstudy addresses these issues within the context of 340 buyersupplier relationships in the United Kingdom,using an innovative researchmethodology that captures rms' engagement with GSCMpractices andminimizessocial desirability and common source biases. Our results show that GSCM is relatively limited among rms inB2B markets compared to rms in B2C markets. At the same time, we show that developing trust with supplychain partners, while also having top management support, is a crucial driver of engagement with GSCMamong rms in B2B sector but less important among rms in B2C sector. These ndings provide considerable in-sights tomanagers andmarketers of B2B supply chains that seek to respond to a growing interest of environmen-tal performance of supply chain.

2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

aries signicantly acrossconsumer (B2C) sectors.

Green supply chain management has been dened as integratingenvironmental thinking into supply-chainmanagement, including prod-uct design, material sourcing and selection, manufacturing processes,delivery of the nal product to the consumers aswell as end-of-lifeman-Environmental managementTrust1) the relative engagement with GSCM among rms in business-to-consumer and business-to-business sectors;

Keywords: the role of GSCM in businessGreen supply chain management: The roB2C markets

Stefan Hoejmose , Stephen Brammer 1, Andrew MilCentre for Business Organisations and Society, School of Management, University of Bath, C

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 May 2011Received in revised form 18 December 2011Accepted 16 February 2012Available online 22 May 2012

Green supply chain manag2000) and rms within co1996). As such, GSCM has pamon, 1999; Zhu et al., 2005strong incentives to implem2010).

mose),on@management.bath.ac.uk

rights reserved.of trust and top management in B2B and

gton 2

rton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

ent (GSCM) has often been associated with highly visible companies (Bowen,mer-focused industries (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003; Hall, 2000; Roht-Arriaza,been led by development of consumer awareness of environmental issues (Bea-his suggest that rms operating in business-to-consumer (B2C) markets haveGSCM, due to both institutional and stakeholder pressure. However, this leaves

ng Managementmenting GSCM, they tell us little about implementing GSCM withinindividual buyersupplier relationships. At the rst-tier supplychain level, research has shown that the implementation of GSCMis often driven by regulation (Walker, Di Sisto, &McBain, 2008), cus-tomers (Lamming & Hampson, 1996), and requires the support oftop management (Lee, 2008) and employees (Drumwright, 1994).Nonetheless, little is known about the comparative engagement withGSCM among rms in B2B and B2C sectors, but it is generally

610 S. Hoejmose et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 609620anticipated that rms in B2C sectors are more involved with GSCM be-cause of greater consumer pressure, media scrutiny and their more im-mediate visibility to stakeholders (Bowen, 2000; Hall, 2000).

In this studywe use a novel data collection approach to capture buyerengagement with GSCM activities within the context of 340 buyersupplier relationships. Our rst aim is to understand and compare the ex-tent of GSCM across rms in B2B and B2C sectors. In addition, we seek toexamine the conditions under which rms in the B2B sector implementenvironmental processes into their individual buyersupplier relation-ships. We focus in particular on two drivers: The buyer's perceived trustin its supplier, which has been shown to be a signicant predictor of sup-ply chain outcomes in B2B settings (del Bosque Rodriguez, Agudo, & SanMartinGutierrez, 2006; King&Burgess, 2008); and topmanagement sup-port which has consistently been found to be a major driver of GSCM(Drumwright, 1994; Lee, 2008; Walker et al., 2008; Zhu & Sarkis, 2006).

Given the nature of this study, we make three contributions: First,we provide one of the most comprehensive analyses of green supplychain management in the U.K. and we explicitly relate and compareGSCM across rms in B2B and B2C sectors. As such, this study extendsour understanding of the degree to which GSCM is context dependent.Second, our study furthers existing research in the eld of GSCM,which suggests that trust is an important factor for its successful imple-mentation (e.g. Boyd et al., 2007; Cheng, Yeh, & Tu, 2008).We thereforecontribute to an emerging literature, which suggests that the implemen-tation of GSCM is sensitive to the characteristics of buyersupplier rela-tionships. Third, we distinguish between industrial, i.e. B2B, and nalconsumer-oriented, i.e. B2C, supply chains, and compare the extent towhich trust, combined with top management support, plays a role inshaping GSCM in both settings.

In the following section we briey review the literature on GSCM andits relationship with both trust and top management support. We thendevelop a set of testable hypotheses,which encompass trust, topmanage-ment support and a set of moderating effects. Subsequently, we outlineourmethodology before presenting a set of results which incorporate de-scriptive statistics on the relative engagementwith GSCM among rms inB2B andB2C sectors, and a set of hierarchical ordinary least square regres-sions, which explains the role of trust and top management in shapingGSCM. Finally, we discuss the managerial and research implications ofour study.

2. Green supply chain management and trust

Green supply chain management is an increasingly importantissue for business (Sarkis, Zhu, & Lai, 2011; Vachon & Klassen, 2008).Such practices are expected by employees (Carter & Jennings, 2004;Salam, 2009) and governments (Lee, 2008; Walker et al., 2008), andrms are realizing the benets of GSCM, including cost reduction(Carter & Dresner, 2001; Zhu & Sarkis, 2006), improved product andprocess quality (Lamming & Hampson, 1996), risk reduction (Welford& Frost, 2006) and improved nancial performance (Rao & Holt,2005). GSCM therefore has the potential tomake a signicant contribu-tion to the rm's competitive position and improve both nancial andnon-nancial performance (Carter, Kale, & Grimm, 2000; Lamming &Hampson, 1996; Walker et al., 2008). Nonetheless, GSCM is also drivenby a number of external factors, including legislation (Green, Morton, &New, 1996; Hall, 2000) and customer expectations and demands (Lee,2008; Min & Galle, 2001). The current empirical work has thereforecontributed towards our understanding of the driving factors behindGSCM, but few studies have considered the nature of the relationshipsbetween buyers and supplier that may facilitate GSCM. Some researchhas suggested that the power advantage of the buyer can aid the imple-mentation of GSCM (Carter & Carter, 1998; Hall, 2000), and that powerhas the potential to create a multiplier effect (Preuss, 2001). Other re-search has found that GSCM is contingent on supplier coordination(Carter & Carter, 1998), supplier capabilities (Zhu & Sarkis, 2006), and

it has also been noted that trust between buyers and suppliers is apositive inuence on the extent to which a rm is able to green thesupply chain (Vachon & Klassen, 2006a).

Earlier work has also suggested that trust is an important elementof successful buyersupplier relationships, particularly in B2B sectors,as supply chain management has moved away from the traditionaltransactional, and arms-length, view to one where close and reliablesupply chain partnerships are seen as a critical element in the rm'ssuccess (Cater & Cater, 2010; Finch, Wagner, & Hynes, 2010). For ex-ample, Leenders and Fearon (2008) and Lummus and Vokurka (1999)note how supply chain practices used to be fairly standardized andthat costs were the main differentiator. However, these practiceshave changed over time in order to respond to demands for greaterexibility and more complex supply chains. As such, there has beena development in strategic supply chain relationships (Bechtel &Jayaram, 1997; Hult, Ketchen, & Arrfelt, 2007), and it has been suggestedthat trust is a crucial element of strategic supply relationships (Ireland &Webb, 2007). Empirical evidence has also indicated that trust is essentialfor successful supply chain relationships as it can make the supply chainmore agile and responsive (Handeld & Bechtel, 2002), improve commit-ment and the collaborative nature of the relationship (Kwon & Suh,2005), which in turn improves performance (Johnston et al., 2004).

In addition to being fundamental in developing strategic supplychain relationships, trust has several other facilitating roles in inter-organizational relationships. First, from a transaction cost perspective,trust between buyers and suppliers can limit opportunistic behav-ior, resulting in greater adaptability and reduced governance costs(Williamson, 1979, 1993). Second, trust has been directly linked to socialcapital theory (Bowles & Gintis, 2002; Putnam, 2001), where it has of-fered a relatively complex framework, compared to transaction cost the-ory, for understanding supply chain relationships. Social capital in supplychains is important because itmay allow supply chain partners to benetfrom assessing [one's and another's] present and future resources(Batt, 2008, p. 488), and in the context of B2B supply chains, evidencesuggests that social capital will inuence cost, quality, delivery and ex-ibility (Krause, Handeld, & Tyler, 2007). Given these two perspectiveson trust, it can be anticipated that the role of trust in green supplychains is of particular importance, because it can reduce the monitoringcosts of implementing green practices in the supply chain, and becauseit can improve the dynamic and shared value of GSCM in relationships.

Much of the supply chain literature suggests that trust is multifacetedand a particular focus has been placed on two distinctive features: credi-bility and benevolence (e.g. Hawes, 1994; Skarmeas & Katsikeas, 2001).Although these features may not be easily translated into other cultures(see Wang, 2007), they have consistently been considered as vital com-ponents of successful B2B supply chains. Ganesan (1994, p. 3) arguesthat the issue of trust, in terms of credibility, has a signicant inuenceon long-termorientation and is based on the extent towhich the retailerbelieves that the vendor has the required expertise to perform the jobeffectively and reliably. As such Ganesan's (1994 , p. 3) denition ofcredibility encompasses [] consistency, stability and control. In con-trast, benevolence is concerned with genuine interest in one's welfare(Andersen & Kumar, 2006, p. 523; Doney and Cannon, 1997, p. 36).Benevolence is based on the extent to which the retailer believes thatthe vendor has intentions and motives benecial to the retailer whennew conditions arise, condition for which a commitment was notmade (Ganesan, 1994; p. 3). Furthermore, Ganesan (1994) notes thatbenevolence is not focused on trust in the overall supplier, but ratherwith the individual supplier representative. Therefore, from a conceptualperspective, credibility is closer to the term reliance than benevolence,because benevolence captures trust at a personal level, rather than atan organizational level (Blois, 1999).

3. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

This study is concerned with the phenomena of green supply

chain management (GSCM). We view GSCM as being concerned

with a rm's active engagement with environmentally friendly andsound supply chain processes. Therefore, in terms of this study, ourconcern is with actual, rather than desired, engagement with GSCM,and we examine green activities in the individual buyersupplierrelationship, rather than corporate policies themselves. Our studyviews GSCM as being inuenced by trust and top managementsupport, and therefore views GSCM through the conceptual lens oftrust; specically credibility and benevolence. This body of literaturehas strong roots in B2B supply chains (e.g. Handeld & Bechtel,2002; Hingley, 2005) where trust has been suggested to play animportant role in supply chain success and performance (Handeld& Bechtel, 2002; Johnston et al., 2004). In addition, trust leads tostronger supply chain relationships (Naud & Buttle, 2000), as itimproves stability (Suh & Kwon, 2006) and encourages collaboration(Ploetner & Ehret, 2006), while also reducing transaction costs(Bunduchi, 2008) and supporting social capital development(Harvey, Novicevic, Hench, & Myers, 2003). Hence, we argue thattrust is important in implementing green supply chain practices,and improves GSCM engagement.

Nonetheless, we acknowledge the contribution of the existingGSCM literature, and argue that green supply chain managementbegins with a green desire, hence the importance of top manage-ment support as a direct facilitator of GSCM (e.g. Lee, 2008; Salam,

611S. Hoejmose et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 6096202009; Walker et al., 2008). However, we suggest that having a desirefor GSCM performance is not sufcient. Rather, such desire needs tobe complemented with trust, and therefore we argue that the combi-nation of trust at the relationship-level and top management supportat the rm-level, improves the likelihood that GSCM will prosperwithin buyersupplier relationships.

Given this, our conceptual model (Fig. 1) suggests that top manage-ment support, which is an indication of organizational green desire,directly inuences GSCM. In addition, we argue that trust in the buyersupplier relationships directly inuences GSCM. However, the modelsuggests that the combination of top management support and trustimproves GSCM behavior and hence we argue that trust moderates therole of top management support on a rm's ability to implement GSCM.Furthermore, we suggest that GSCM, trust, and topmanagement supportare inuenced by the type of supply chain relationship. More specically,we argue that the characteristics of B2B and B2C supply chains are signif-icantly different (Claro, Hagelaar, & Omta, 2003; Vargo & Lusch, 2011),and that these differences not only inuence overall GSCM performance,but also the nature and role of trust and top management support inFig. 1. Conceptual framework.shaping GSCM. These arguments are further developed in the detaileddiscussion below.

3.1. GSCM in B2B and B2C supply chains

As the starting point of our analysis we seek to understand the gen-eral engagementwith GSCM in both B2B and B2C supply chains. Broadlyspeaking, GSCM has been identied as an important issue within con-sumer product industries (and supply chains) (e.g. Carter & Carter,1998; Roberts, 2003;White, De Smet, Owens, & Hindle, 1995). The liter-ature suggests that such initiatives are often driven by environmentalconsumerism (Buysse & Verbeke, 2003; Hall, 2000), and while individ-ual consumers have relatively little bargaining power, the threat of boy-cotts can still inuence rm environmental performance (Bansal &Bogner, 2002). Bowen (2000) also notes that rms with greater visibil-ity, i.e.rmswith high consumer recognition and advertising spend,willbe subject to greater levels of pressure for environmentally responsibleperformance. It is thus clear that consumers often drive GSCM, at leastpartially. Walker and Phillips (2009) note that respondents, from focusgroups consisting of policy-makers, academics and practitioners, dis-cussed the importance of nal household consumers and ethical stake-holders in shaping environmentally responsible supply chain practices,but ignored industrial consumption and their related supply chains.

Rivera-Camino (2007) also notes how the focus of environmentalmanagement has been geared towards B2C markets, while such issueshave been virtually ignored in B2B sectors, whichmay be because thereis a lack of understanding about integrating greenpracticeswith oper-ational strategy in such settings (SAT, 2003; cited in Rivera-Camino,2007). Gonzlez Benito and Gonzlez Benito (2006) further argue thatenvironmental performance is inuenced by the position in the supplychain, and that the supply chain buffers not only environmental con-sumer pressure but also a rm's environmental effort on public opinion.Although Haddock Fraser and Fraser (2008) nd empirical support forGonzlez Benito and Gonzlez Benito's (2006) claims, in terms of envi-ronmental reporting, both authors note that there is limited evidenceregarding the relative engagement with green practices across B2Band B2C settings. Nonetheless, the discussion above suggests that thegreen supply chain management among rms in B2B sectors is likelyto be relatively low compared to rms that predominately operate inB2C sectors. Hence:

Hypothesis 1. The level of engagement with GSCM will be higheramong rms in B2C sectors than among rms in B2B sectors.

3.2. GSCM and trust

Trust is an important element of successful B2B supply chains(Cheng et al., 2008; Mariotti, 1999; Seppanen, Blomqvist, & Sundqvist,2007), and has the potential to enhance a rm's performance and itscompetitive advantage (Barney & Hansen, 1994; Seppanen et al.,2007). This link is likely to exist because trust, as an informal mecha-nism, often leads to coordinated joint-efforts that lead to outcomesthat exceed what the rm can achieve acting solely in its own interest(Ballou, Gilbert, & Mukherjee, 2000; p. 16). Furthermore, some authorshave emphasized the importance of trust in shifting the paradigm ofsupply chain management from one that is based on a transaction-and domestically-orientated approach towards one that is relationshipand globally orientated (Sheth & Sharma, 1997).

Existing studies have often considered trust from an end-consumerperspective, where it represents trust in the (buying) rm and the roleof codes of conduct, monitoring, auditing and other activities that signaltrustworthiness and credibility to end-consumers (e.g. Lee & Kim, 2009;Pedersens & Andersen, 2006). Nonetheless, there is an increasing bodyof literature thatmentions trust as being a paramount factor in successfulGSCM because it represents a signicant inter-organizational resource

that encourages sustainability (Gold, Seuring, & Beske, 2010), creates

adhere to environmental requirements (Canning & Hanmer Lloyd,

612 S. Hoejmose et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 6096202001; p.1076). Similarly Tate, Dooley, and Ellram (2011) propose thatas long as the adoption of the buyer's environmental requirements areperceived as an additional cost to maintaining the ongoing andlong-term relationship, then suppliers are more likely to adhere tothese requirements.

Credibility can also be associated with the development of sup-pliers and their GSCM practices. Credible commitment betweenbuyers and suppliers may be strengthened if there are clear mutualbenets to be gained, such as clear evidence of responding to institu-tional and stakeholder pressure, or if it allows suppliers to signal theircommitment to the buyer, thereby ensuring future orders (Nyaga,Whipple, & Lynch, 2010). Credibilitymay also facilitate cooperation be-tween agents/partners and it may reduce relationship tensions(Rondinelli & London, 2003). However, lack of credibility may pose abarrier for the successful development of suppliers (Lo & Yeung, 2004).For environmentalmanagement, credibility between partners can createan invaluable resource, which cannot be easily imitated (Sharma &Vredenburg, 1998) and is important for green alliances (Hartman &Stafford, 1997). Indeed, for rms that have strong GSCM credentials,such as the Body Shop, credibility in suppliers has been suggested to op-erate as a source of condence that reassures the buyer that the suppliersare willing to improve their environmental efforts (Wycherley, 1999).

Benevolence, in contrast, is concerned with trust at the individual(representative) level. It has been argued that benevolence helps in-still a culture of responsibility within supply chains (Boyd et al.,2007), and that the maturity of inter-organizational relations,which are often characterized by benevolent collaboration, are im-portant for GSCM (Adriana, 2009, p. 1387). These conceptualizationsare supported by recent empirical literature that suggests that benev-olence is crucial for knowledge sharing in GSCM (Cheng et al., 2008).Similarly, Canning and Hammer-Lloyd (2007) note how benevolenceis associated with reduced vulnerability in relationships, which, inturn, may facilitate environmental activities. This suggests that trust,and in particular credibility and benevolence, will be positively relat-ed to GSCM. We therefore hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2a. The level of engagement with GSCM is positivelyinuenced by the buyer's perception of supplier credibility.

Hypothesis 2b. The level of engagement with GSCM is positivelyinuenced by the buyer's perception of supplier benevolence.

3.3. GSCM and top management support

Empirical evidence has consistently shown that top managementis an important driver of a range of managerial practices and organi-zational outcomes including customer relations (King& Burgess, 2008),product development (Wren et al., 2000), information systems (Thong,Yap, & Raman, 1996), and project success (Young & Jordan, 2008). Theliterature also suggests that top management is crucial in GSCM (E.g.Badenhorst, 1994; Drumwright, 1994; Lee, 2008; Walker et al., 2008;Zhu, Sarkis, & Lai, 2008), and that top management must be totallystable relationships, facilitates investment (Font, Tapper, Schwartz,& Kornilaki, 2008), collaboration (Simpson & Power, 2005), and acommon vision for GSCM (Gold et al., 2010).

Developing trust, through both credibility and benevolence is oneof the many challenges to ensuring environmentally sound supplychain performance (Canning & Hammer-Lloyd, 2007). Focusing spe-cically on the credibility aspect of trust and the expectancy thatthe partner's word or written statement can be relied on, it hasbeen shown that credibility improves the adaptation of green prac-tices in the buyersupplier relationship, because it allows managersto make a judgment of the reliability and willingness of suppliers tocommitted for successful GSCM (Zhu, Sarkis, & Geng, 2005; p. 453).Topmanagement creates a vision for the rm and nurtures organi-zational values, which direct the company and give the company anidentity (Hart, 1992). Indeed, Epstein and Roy (1998) argue that itis only through top management support and commitment that envi-ronmental management will be successful. The role of top manage-ment support can, therefore, not be underestimated, as they are at theforefront of the company, driving the organizational culture and institu-tional systems that encourage desired behavior (Daily & Huang, 2001).In addition, it has been argued that top management are the decisionmakers with respect to the green investments that shape GSCM(Bowen, Cousins, Lamming, & Farukt, 2001). As such, research in theGSCM eld has concluded that top management support is necessaryfor GSCM (Min & Galle, 2001), and that top management must supportand conceive strategies that acknowledge GSCM (Walton, Handeld, &Melnyk, 1998), while also facilitating the necessary resources and sanc-tioning investment into green practices (Hervani et al., 2005). Wethus hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3. The level of engagement with GSCM is positively inu-enced by top management support.

3.4. Trust and top management support

Given the importance of top management support, we argue that itis a prerequisite for GSCMperformance. However, we further argue thattop management support is not sufcient, and that implementingGSCM at the relationship level requires trust. Therefore, our analysissuggests that trust moderates the role of top management support onGSCM. It is therefore the combination of top management support andtrust that is likely to create the best conditions under which GSCMwill prosper. Indeed, both trust and top management support havebeen found to be among the key factors in successful supply chain rela-tionships (Akintoye, McIntosh, & Fitzgerald, 2000). Mentzer, Min, andZacharia (2000) argue that strategic buyersupplier relationships willfail without the synergy of trust and top management vision. Similarly,Chandra and Kumar (2000) note how strategic alliances and partner-ships must be based on extreme trust and loyalty. However, they alsonote that in order to build a competitive advantage for the supplychain topmanagement support is needed. The combination of topman-agement support and trust therefore appears to generate the most con-ducive conditions for mutual commitment and collaboration (Fawcett,Ogden, Magnan, & Cooper, 2006), and hence we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 4a. The effect of top management support on GSCM ispositively moderated by credibility.

Hypothesis 4b. The effect of top management support on GSCM ispositively moderated by benevolence.

3.5. Trust, top management support and contextual setting: B2B vs. B2C

Both trust (e.g. Ballou et al., 2000; Bunduchi, 2008; Sheth &Sharma, 1997) and top management support (e.g. Harvey et al.,2003; King & Burgess, 2008) have been argued to be important fac-tors in B2B settings. As noted earlier, rms in B2B markets are oftenless engaged in green practices. Jamali and Mirshak (2007) andBowen (2002) note how responsible business practices are inu-enced by managerial discretion and recent evidence suggests thatthe environmental practices of B2B rms often exist on a voluntaryand discretionary basis (Haddock-Fraser & Fraser, 2008; Haddock-Fraser & Tourelle, 2010). It can be argued, therefore, that top manage-ment support, and managerial discretion, plays a particularly impor-tant role in decisions to prioritize and invest in GSCM in B2B markets.

Trust is also an important factor in B2B markets (Arnott, 2007),where it has been suggested that it plays a vital role in integrated

B2B supply chains (Flint, 2004). In these cases, trust acts as an

alternative (and softer)mechanism for direct control (Williamson, 2008).Furthermore, there is strong evidence from the B2B supply chain litera-ture that trust is an important factor for collaboration (Ellinger, 2000;Voeth & Herbst, 2006) and commitment (Christopher, 2000; Ndubisi,2011), while it also ensures that partners are prepared for unanticipateddisruptions in the supply chain (Ballou et al., 2000). In turn, these factorshave a positive inuence on rm GSCM performance (Vachon & Klassen,2006b, 2008; Walton et al., 1998). Therefore, we suggest that:

Hypothesis 5. The effects of trust and top management support onGSCM are greater among rms in B2B sectors than among rms in

the environmentally responsible supply chain practices in respect of

613S. Hoejmose et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 609620the particular supplier.

3 Compared to the data presented by Paul Wetherill in the UK Business: Activity,Size and Location report of 2010 compiled for the Ofce of National Statistics.

4 The focus of the study was on on-going relationships, involving an external vendor,which was not a part of the focal rm's core operations, and which did not have a com-mon owner.

5 In some cases, usually within small and medium-sized businesses, the same personcompleted the rm- and supply-level part of the survey. We tested for statistical signif-icance between the dependent and independent variables (at both the rm- andsupply-level), to assess whether there were any signicant differences between thecases where we had one and two respondents. No evidence was found of any statisticaldifference for either the dependent or independent variables between the two groups.

6 Within the 178 participating rms, 2 relationships were identied in 160 cases, 1B2C sectors.

4. Method

4.1. Sample and data collection

The sample frame consisted of the FTSE All-Share; the thousandlargest (by turnover) unlisted rms; and the thousand largest foreignholding rms with operations in the United Kingdom. In each case theorganization was invited to participate in the study through a letteraddressed to the Director of Procurement, supported by an e-mailedreminder. The nal sample consisted of 340 buyersupplier relation-ships, drawn from 178 UK-based rms from a broad cross section ofindustries. The broad industry composition of our sample roughlymirrors that of the UK economy, with industrial, consumer goods,and nancial (including professional services) making up the majori-ty of our sample.3 A chow breakpoint test (p=0.36), on the depen-dent variable, (Armstrong & Overton, 1977) conrmed that therewas no evidence of non-response bias in the sample.

Once the participating companies had been identied, data wascollected through a two-part survey in order to minimize the prob-lems associated with common methods bias. The rst part sought tocapture general organizational characteristics, including size and topmanagement support for environmentally responsible supply chainpractices. This part was administered through an online question-naire and was usually completed by a senior procurement ofcer,such as the Director of Procurement, who had relevant knowledgeof the strategies and polices of the rm and the purchasing depart-ment. The second part consisted of a set of closed and open-endedquestions dealing with specic buyersupplier relationships in thefocal rm.4 This part was administered through a telephone interviewand was usually completed by a purchasing manager5 who was askedto identify and discuss two different buyersupplier relationships (i.e.supply chain relationships).6 This resulted in an effective sample of340 supply chain relationships, which forms the basis of the empiricalanalysis. In each case the supply chain managers were asked to com-ment on specic aspects of the buyersupplier relationship, includingquestions pertaining to the nature of the product being procured andpower-dependency issues within the relationship. More importantly,the supply chain managers were also asked to comment, in-depth, onrelationship in 17 cases and 3 relationships in 1 case.4.2. Dependent variable green supply chain management

Capturing information on corporate environmental responsibilityperformance is highly problematic and has been subject to extensivedebate (Crane, 1999; Randall & Fernandes, 1991). The collection ofdata on GSCM through self-reported questionnaires is likely to be sub-ject to social desirability and common methods bias (Crane, 1999). Inorder to minimize these, we deploy a novel data collection approach,adapted from earlier work on managerial practices by Bloom and VanReenen (2007). In this case we developed a measure of green respon-sible supply chainmanagement, whichwas based on ve dimensions ofresponsible supply management: responsible supply requirements, re-sponsible supply rationale, problem resolution, monitoring, and perfor-mance improvement. Data was collected through a set of open-endedquestions on each of the ve dimensions of social supply chainmanage-ment. In each company respondents were asked to identify a particularsupply relationship and the responses refer to this relationship. Respon-dents were asked broad, open-ended questions about each dimensionof responsible supply chain management. Subsequent detailed ques-tions were designed to generate an evidential database drawn from ac-tual practices and examples. Questioning on each dimension continueduntil the interviewer could form an accurate assessment of the rm'stypical practices following the methods outlined by Bloom and VanReenen (2007), and the respondent was asked to provide supportingevidence of their GSCM processes at each stage. For example, if the re-spondent mentioned an environmental policy as a requirement, the in-terviewer would ask the respondent about the specic environmentalissues that were explored through the policy.

The rationale section considered the rm's motives for introducinggreen polices and processes, and sought to identifywhether such prac-ticeswere led fromwithin thermorwhether itwas due to external fac-tors. Problem process documentation was concerned with how anyenvironmental problems with this supplier would come to the rm's at-tention, andhow thermwould dealwith these problems. In the sectionthe interviewer asked for explicit examples of any environmental prob-lems, in order for the researcher to evaluate the processes throughwhichthey became aware and dealt with environmental supply chain prob-lems. Monitoring addressed the buyer's attempt to monitor and trackthe environmental performance of the supplier. Respondents wereasked how often they audited and visited the supplier, and whetherthese audits was announced or unannounced, and if any audits were un-dertaken by the rm themselves or a third-party agency. The perfor-mance dialogue section examined to what extent the rm attemptedto improve the environmental performance of their supplier.

The responses were then evaluated and each of the ve dimensionsof responsible supply chainmanagementwas scored on a scale 1 (worstpractice) to 5 (best practice) scoring. As such the scale represent thelevel of buyer engagement with GSCM, with 1 indicating that thebuyer has no GSCM processes in place, within a given buyersupplierrelationship, and 5 indicating that the buyer has relatively advanced so-phisticated GSCM processes. A score of 3 would, in turn, represent rela-tively sound processes, but which may lack monitoring or a continuousGSCM improvement process.

To illustrate the scoring and evaluation process of rm GSCM, wehighlight a set of interview quotes taken from the performance dia-logue category. For example, both researchers scored a rm 1, be-cause there was no evidence of a process to improve the supplier'sperformance, the reason being that they did not have any leverageto inuence the supplier's behavior. Another buyer, who also receiveda score of 1, responded we do nothing specically on that area [per-formance dialogue and [improvement] targets are not being set. Arm was scored 3 because, while there was no formal process inplace, it was clear that if the supplier was not meeting the buyer's ex-pectations they would provide guidance and advice from their in-ternal environmental management team, and also sit down [with

the supplier] and agree on the action and time frame, and monitor

the corrective action program. Both researchers scored a buyer 5 be-cause the buyer had a formal escalation process in place, supported by

which in turn may affect rm decisions to invest and implementGSCM in suppliers. Furthermore, to account for Kraljic's (1983) stra-tegic supply arguments, we also control for product/supply complex-ity and importance. Both complexity and importance were measuredusing three item scales adapted from Cannon and Perreault (1999)and Stump and Heide (1996). Both sets of questions loaded on a sin-

inuence on GSCM. Following Spekman, Spear and Kamauff (2002,p. 49), we assess multicollinearity through a three stage approach by

614 S. Hoejmose et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 609620evidence from actual events, where the buyer would discuss areas ofimprovements with the supplier and hire experts to help address spe-cic problems, while also visiting sub-contractors.

To ensure that the environmental scoring was valid two researchersindependently scored each supplier relationship in the entire sample.The correlation and concordance (inter-rater reliability) between thetwo researchers were very high with coefcients of 0.852 and 0.847, re-spectively. The average score, across the ve categories, of the two re-searchers was used as the dependent variable.

Utilizing this approach reduced the likelihood of social desirabilitybias, as the researcher decided the appropriate value or scoring ratherthan the respondent (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition the respondentswere not told about the procedure used to evaluate their social re-sponses andwere, therefore, unaware that answers would be quantiedat a later stage. Finally, the two-stage interview process, which wasimplemented inmost cases, effectively separated the dependent and in-dependent variables largely removing the difculties associated withcommon method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).7

4.3. Independent variables

Trust was captured by considering both credibility and benevolence,which were measured using four item scales adapted from Ganesan(1994). For credibility typical items were This supplier's representativehas been frank in dealing with us and Promises made by this supplier'srepresentative are reliable. For benevolence, typical items includedThis supplier's representative cares for us and This supplier's representa-tive is like a friend. These questionswere anchored in seven point scaleswhere 1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree. Both credibilityand benevolence loaded on a single factor with Cronbach alpha valuesof 0.855 and 0.803, respectively.

Top management support was measured through a three itemscale adapted from Cousins et al. (2006), typical questions includedTop management is supportive of our efforts to improve environmentalsupply chain management. The three questions loaded on a single fac-tor with a Cronbach alpha of 0.850. Complete details regarding theseconstructs are given in Appendix A, including factor analysis and reli-ability scores.

In terms of the B2B and B2C split, we dened whether a given rmwas active in a business to business or a business to consumer sectoron the basis of the rm's primary activity as provided by Bureau VanDijk's FAME database. We used the 4 digit SIC code that characterizeda rm's primary activity along with data on industry level advertisingintensity to allocate rms to the B2B or B2C sectors. When a rm wasnot listed by Bureau Van Dijk's FAME database, we consulted their an-nual report to examine their target market and main source of income.

4.4. Control variables

Following earlier studies we control for rm size by taking the nat-ural logarithm of the number of employees. Firm size may inuencethe level of nancial resources (Brammer & Millington, 2006), and ithas been used as a proxy for rm visibility in previous research(Bowen, 2002), both dimensions may be expected to inuence rmpropensity in GSCM activities. In addition, as this research focuseson buyersupplier relationships in a global context, we use a binaryvariable to control for foreign transactions. We also control for rela-tionship length by taking the natural logarithm of the number ofyears of trading between the buyer and supplier, because this may in-uence the level of trust in the relationship (Doney & Cannon, 1997),

7 Common methods bias was tested for using the methodology developed byPodsakoff et al. (2003) and Doty and Glick, (1998). The results show no evidence of

common methods bias.1) considering the bivariate correlations between predictor variables;2) analyzing the variance ination factors, and 3) assessing collinearitydiagnostic procedures. As is often the case with moderating effects, wedo nd some evidence of multicollinearity (see Cortina, 1993). In orderto ensure our results are robust, we therefore benchmarked our initialdata analysis (as presented in this text) with a set of regressions thatdeployed the NeweyWest standard deviation, which is robust tomulticollinearity, and similar results were found. All our moderatingeffects were standardized in order to be able to interpret the actualimpact on the dependent variable, as given by the magnitude of theindependent (moderating) variable(s).

In order to explore whether the role of trust and top managementis contingent upon whether the rm operates in a B2B or B2C market,we split the sample into two sub-samples, representing B2B and B2Crms, for four reasons; 1) as argued earlier, the industrial setting (B2Bvs. B2C) does not only alter the intercept of the dependent variable,but also the slope effect of the independent and control variables;2) adding another moderating effect would result in further multicol-linearity problems; 3) the literature has expressed concerns regard-ing interpretation of moderating effects for binary variables; 4) our

8 We control for broad industry groups, including publishing, wholesale, nance, en-gineering, utilities, construction, transport, retail, leisure, consumer goods, chemicalsand others.

9 Supply chain process sophistication was captured at the rm, rather than the rela-tionship, level and the questions were addressed to a senior procurement manager ingle factor, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.910 and 0.854, respectively.We also control for power-dependency, as this has been suggested

to be critical in the implementation of GSCM (Millington, 2008). Wecapture supplier dependence (buyer power), through a three itemscale, and buyer dependence (supplier power), through a four itemscale, adapted from Ganesan (1994). All three supplier dependencequestions loaded on a single factor with a Cronbach alpha of 0.879.Similarly, the four buyer dependence questions loaded on a singlefactor with a Cronbach alpha of 0.857. A power imbalance variablewas subsequently created following the approach of Casciaro andPiskorski (2005), where we subtracted buyer dependence from sup-plier dependence. Finally, we control for industry by including a setof binary variable,8 and control for the level of supply chain processsophistication in the buying rm, which also captures industry-specic supply chain features (Krause, 1997; Krause & Scannell,2002). To this end, we use three established questions adapted fromKrause (1997) and Lee and Humphreys (2007).9 A typical questionincluded: We use established guidelines and procedures when evaluat-ing supplier performance. All three questions loaded on single factor,with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.747.

4.5. Econometric approach

As with other studies in the eld of supply chain and relationshipmanagement (e.g. Claro & Claro, 2010), our hypotheses were testedby estimating ordinary least square models, which refers to theestimation of the linear relationship between a dependent and theindependent variables (Claro et al., 2003; p. 710). More specically,we use a moderated hierarchical multiple regression approach to testthe interaction between trust and top management support and theirthe company.

sample size allows for such a split, without having any signicant im-plications for degrees of freedom and the subsequent critical values.

5. Results

Analyzing the descriptive data for rm GSCM engagement, we ndstrong support for Hypothesis 1, with signicant evidence that thelevel of engagement with GSCM is greater in B2C markets than inB2B markets. The mean GSCM score of rms in B2B and B2C sectorsis 2.23 and 2.52, respectively, and this is signicantly different atthe 95% level. Further, evidence of the comparatively low perfor-mance of GSCM in B2B supply chains is supported by Fig. 2. Fig. 2 il-lustrates the percentage of rms in the B2B and B2C sectors that liein each of the four quartiles of the GSCM score. As can be observed,there is a greater proportion of B2B rms in the rst and second quar-

615S. Hoejmose et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 609620tile, indicating that a high proportion of rms in B2B sectors have rel-atively weak overall engagement with GSCM. 58% of all rms in B2Bsectors score below the median for our sample, compared to justless than 50% of the B2C sample. From Fig. 2, it is also clear thatrms in B2C sectors have signicantly higher levels of engagementwith green supply chain management, and with respect to theupper quartile of the green score B2C comprise 32%, compared to19% of B2B rms.

Having conrmed our expectations about the nature of the greensupply chain, which strongly suggested that rms in B2B markets aregenerally less engaged with these practices compared to rms B2C mar-kets, we turn our attention to Table 2, which explore the drivers of en-gagement with GSCM, paying particular attention to the roles of topmanagement support and trust.

The descriptive statistics and correlations for the variables used inthese models are provided in Table 1. Taking these into consideration,along with the variance ination factors produced by our base models1 and 5 in Table 2, we nd no evidence to suggest that mulicollinear-ity is a concern for our analysis.

The results from the hierarchical regressions are presented inTable 2. Models 1 to 5 are concerned with rms in the B2B sectorand models 610 with rms in the B2C sectors. In the subsequentanalysis, comparison is drawn between the B2B and B2C models.The table includes the base models 1 and 6, for B2B and B2C, respec-tively, with our control variables. Credibility, benevolence and topmanagement support are then added in models 2 and 7. In models3 and 8, we then consider the interaction effect of top managementsupport and credibility. Similarly, we consider the interaction effectof top management support and benevolence in models 4 and 9, be-fore we add the interaction effect of top management support, credi-bility and benevolence in the nal models (5 and 10).

The explanatory power is satisfactory for cross-sectional models ofthis type and the individual signicant levels provide substantial sup-port for our preceding arguments. More specically, these ndings in-dicate that trust and top management support are important driversFig. 2. % of rms in the B2B and B2C sector in each of the four quartiles of the GSCM score.of GSCM, but that the nature of their inuence is highly context de-pendent, and considerably more important in B2B supply chains.

Our base models (1 and 6) explain approximately 17% and 14% ofthe variation in the green supply chain management of rms in B2Band B2C markets, respectively. When top management support, cred-ibility and benevolence are included in models 2 and 7, we do not ndsupport for Hypotheses 2a and 2b, which suggested that GSCMwill bepositively related to trust, but we nd strong support for Hypothesis3, which suggested a positive relationship between top managementand GSCM, but only in the B2B sector (p=0.003).

In models 3 and 8, we nd support for Hypothesis 4a, which sug-gests that credibility positively moderates the role of top manage-ment support on GSCM, but only in the context of B2B supplychains (model 3). In model 3, we observe a signicant increase inthe adjusted R-squared from 0.215 to 0.253, and we also observethat this is due to the moderating effect of top management supporton credibility, which is strongly associated with improved GSCM en-gagement in the B2B market (p=0.005). This suggests that whenrms have both top management support at the rm level and trust(credibility) in the supplier they have greater GSCM engagement,compared to rms that only have top management support. Giventhe results of model 2, it further suggests that credibility is not suf-cient for GSCM, but that it needs to be complemented with top man-agement support in B2B markets. However, in model 8, whichexplores the B2C market, we observe no relationship between topmanagement support or credibility and GSCM in the B2C market,and neither is the change in the R-squared signicantly different tomodel 7.

In models 4 and 9, benevolence is substituted for credibility as themoderating inuence on top management, and the interaction effectindicates support for Hypothesis 4b, as benevolence also moderatesthe role of top management support on GSCM, but only in the contextof B2B supply chains (model 4) and not in B2C supply chains (model9). We observe that the moderating effect of benevolence and topmanagement support is a strong predictor of GSCM (p=0.012).Given the negative coefcient of the standalone benevolence variablein model 4, it suggests that benevolence is contingent upon top man-agement support for GSCM in B2B markets, but not vice versa, as inthe case with top management support and credibility. Top manage-ment support and credibility thus appear to be stronger complementsto the improvement of GSCM. As with model 8, model 9 indicates thatneither trust nor top management support, has a signicant role inthe B2C market.

In the nal set of models, models 5 and 10, an interaction term be-tween top management support, credibility and benevolence is added,in order to capture a broader measurement of trust. As expected, wend similar results, which suggest that trust, in a broad sense, does sig-nicantly moderate the role of top management support in inuencingGSCM, although only in the B2B sector.

In terms of our control variables, the results provide substantialsupport for earlier work, and our base model shows that rm size isa strong predictor of GSCM in both B2B (p=0.004) and B2C(p=0.038) supply chains. Similarly, the relative power imbalance be-tween buyer and supplier is also important in both markets, and indi-cates that buyer is positively associated with GSCM processes. Finally,we observe that supplier sophistication also plays an important roleGSCM in both B2B (p=0.007) and B2C (p=0.052) supply chains.This effect, however, disappears in models 2 and 6, with the introduc-tion of top management support.

6. Discussion

This study empirically examined the implementation of greensupply chain processes, within a cross-sectional sample of 340buyersupplier relationships. More specically we examined wheth-

er such processes were signicantly different across business-to-

business and business-to-consumer sectors. In addition, we exploredhow trust and top management support can facilitate green supplychain practices for rms operating in the B2B sector.

We observe that green practices in B2B supply chains are con-siderably underdeveloped compared to those in B2C supply chains.As such, we found compelling support for Hypothesis 1, and our re-sults reect earlier conjectures that GSCM processes are less devel-oped in the B2B sector. For example, the work of Gonzlez Benitoand Gonzlez Benito (2006) and Bowen (2002) indicates that rmslocated further down the chain, and therefore not immediately visibleto consumers, might be relatively reactive in terms of their green ef-forts. Alternatively, it may be that rms in B2B markets lack the ap-propriate knowledge to systematically implement these processes,because NGOs and policy intermediacies target rms that are closeto consumers.

Our results also suggest that green supply chain processes aredriven by a set of distinctively different characteristics in B2B marketscompared to B2C markets. In B2B markets, we observe that top man-agement support plays a particularly strong role in the implementa-tion of green supply chain processes. This is not, however, evidentfor rms in the B2C sector. As such, our results support the work ofPujari, Peattie, and Wright (2004), who argued that top managementis important for environmentally responsive industrial products, asthey not only allocate resources, but also drive the culture of therm. Our results suggest that this argument can be extended to theimplementation of GSCM processes. In B2C markets, GSCM is drivenby strategic imperatives, motivated by customer demand and therisk of negative media attention. In B2B markets, rm GSCM activitiesare not constrained by strategic imperatives, and hence managerialpreferences (top management support), are more important. The

Table 1Descriptives and correlations.

Mean Std. deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Green supply chain management 2.38 0.812 Size (ln of employees) 8.95 2.06 0.163 Relationships length (ln year) 1.81 0.96 0.03 0.004 Product/supply complexity 0.00 1.00 0.07 0.02 0.085 Product/supply importance 0.00 1.00 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.366 Power imbalance 0.00 1.28 0.13 0.15 0.03 0.32 0.267 Supply chain sophistication 0.00 1.00 0.24 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.26 0.038 Business-to-business binary 0.48 0.50 0.18 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.189 Business-to-consumer binary 0.52 0.50 0.18 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.18 1.0010 Top management support 0.00 1.00 0.32 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.41 0.25 0.2511 Credibility 0.00 1.00 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.15 0.04 0.17 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.1012 Benevolence 0.00 1.00 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.21 0.09 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.64

N varies between 336340 for correlations due to missing data.

Table 2

M

2(00(0(0(00(00(00

616 S. Hoejmose et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 609620Regression results.

Business to business sector

Dependent variable Green supply chain management

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Constant 1.690 1.926 2.025

(0.309) (0.315) (0.307)Firm size 0.093 0.073 0.061

(0.032) (0.032) (0.032)Foreign supplier 0.084 0.092 0.071

(0.124) (0.122) (0.118)Relationship length 0.005 0.029 0.020

(0.054) (0.054) (0.052)Product complexity 0.094 0.061 0.057

(0.062) (0.062) (0.060)Product importance 0.080 0.089 0.090

(0.070) (0.068) (0.066)Power imbalance 0.102 0.053 0.085(0.047) (0.049) (0.048) (0Supply chain sophistication 0.162 0.078 0.087 0

(0.059) (0.063) (0.061) (0Top management support 0.186 0.523

(0.061) (0.252) (0Credibility 0.017 0.541

(0.080) (0.225)Benevolence 0.090

(0.073) (0Top managementCredibility 1.040

(0.362)Top managementBenevolence 0

(0Top managementCredibilityBenevolence

R-squared 0.25 0.32 0.35 0Adjusted R-squared 0.17 0.22 0.25 0

pb0.01. pb0.05. pb0.1.Business to consumer sector

Green supply chain management

odel 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10

.05 1.978 1.798 1.701 1.687 1.707 1.643

.310) (0.306) (0.468) (0.486) (0.486) (0.479) (0.487).062 0.067 0.067 0.068 0.068 0.067 0.065

.032) (0.032) (0.032) (0.033) (0.032) (0.032) (0.033)0.098 0.085 0.132 0.128 0.150 0.099 0.126.119) (0.118) (0.127) (0.131) (0.130) (0.129) (0.130)0.024 0.009 0.020 0.025 0.014 0.023 0.018.053) (0.053) (0.072) (0.074) (0.073) (0.074) (0.074).069 0.066 0.004 0.013 0.014 0.004 0.022.060) (0.060) (0.067) (0.073) (0.070) (0.073) (0.073).081 0.096 0.149 0.157 0.143 0.156 0.162

.067) (0.066) (0.070) (0.072) (0.071) (0.071) (0.072).065 0.073 0.135 0.131 0.128 0.122 0.130.048) (0.048) (0.053) (0.055) (0.055) (0.054) (0.054).067 0.064 0.144 0.098 0.087 0.097 0.090.062) (0.062) (0.074) (0.086) (0.085) (0.085) (0.086)0.284 0.150 0.125 0.056 0.493 0.341.195) (0.122) (0.079) (0.369) (0.340) (0.183)

0.202 0.049 0.044 0.246(0.105) (0.077) (0.377) (0.169)

0.393 0.246 0.053 0.409 0.194.201) (0.128) (0.087) (0.400) (0.209)

0.086(0.518)

.747 0.569.294) (0.514)

0.719 0.435(0.229) (0.333)

.34 0.36 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25

.25 0.27 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15

617S. Hoejmose et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 609620role of top management in B2B industries was also emphasized by in-terview responses from supply chain managers. They often mentionedthat top management was driving environmental processes, andthat GSCM was a part of the rm's DNA or ethos.

The results also suggest that buyer perceptions of supplier credibilityand benevolence are not, as stand-alone constructs, important for rmsin B2B or B2C markets. However, when rms in B2B markets have topmanagement support, both credibility and benevolence in suppliers be-come additional important resources that can enhance the implementa-tion of green processes. Such relationships are, however, not apparentin the B2C sector. Credibility and benevolence is likely to create stability,commitment (Deitz, Tokman, Richey, &Morgan, 2010) and improve col-laborative efforts (Bunduchi, 2008), which furthers a rm's ability to im-plement sound greenprocesseswith their suppliers, as long as thermin the B2B market has top management support. It may also be arguedthat credibility and benevolence create a type of insurance for top man-agement that convinces them that investment in green activities is vi-able because the relationship is one that is focused on mutual gains andlongevity. Some of the respondents interviewed for this research explic-itly noted how trust inuencedGSCM. For example, one participant said:We trust this supplier. They know us well and they understand the se-rious nature of what we are talking about., while another mentionedthat they build up a relationshipwith [suppliers] of trust and friendshipso that they [suppliers] bring [environmental] issues to us.

6.1. Managerial implications

Our ndings, which suggest that rms in B2B supply chains are lesslikely to implement GSCM processes, than rms in B2C supply chains,may have signicant consequences for practitioners. Although environ-mental proactivity has historically been associatedwith close proximityto consumers, because the length of the supply chain buffers the pres-sure and the environmental efforts of the company on public opinion(Gonzlez Benito & Gonzlez Benito, 2006; p. 93), GSCM is becoming anincreasingly important issue for rms in the B2B sector. For example,Gonzlez Benito and Gonzlez Benito (2006) note how the automobileindustry has started to exert signicant pressure on the entire supplychain to ensure sound environmental standards. There is also evidencethat of increasing pressure for suppliers and sub-operators to developenvironmental management systems, such as ISO 14001 (Darnall,2006; Darnall et al., 2008). Similarly, Esty and Winston (2009; p. xiv)note that no company will escape the growing B2B pressure to reduceenvironmental impact.

The roles of B2B marketers are therefore twofold: First, they haveto be aware of the consequences of the greenmovement as it has animpact across the entire marketing mix (Miles, Munilla, & Russell,1997), and they have an important role anticipating and preparingthe company for future trends, of which one is business customer ex-pectations of environmental excellence (Sharma et al., 2010). If B2Bsupply chain practitioners are not ready to respond to this inevitablechange in the marketplace then they risk losing business customers,who, in turn, are increasingly expected to implement and ensuresound GSCM performance by their suppliers (Perry & Towers,2009). Second, B2B practitioners must make the business case forGSCM and leverage their environmental credentials with theirother marketing activities, in order to make such activities strategicand a success for the business (Lantos, 2001). Failure to either antic-ipate business consumers' demand or to integrate GSCM with therms marketing strategy can have signicant implications for boththe rms' environmental and economic success (Rao & Holt, 2005).Similarly, there exist considerable opportunities for rms in the B2Bsector. By having a proactive environmental strategy they can achieveconsiderable rst-mover advantages, including cost reductions andwinning contracts (Kleindorfer et al., 2005; Miles & Covin, 2000).

Our results show that rms in B2B markets are lagging behind

their counterparts in the B2C markets, in terms of GSCM practices.As such, it leaves considerable scope for industrial supply chain prac-titioners to advocate and excel GSCM processes, which may be usedto win business from down-stream buyers. Nonetheless, this processrequires commitment and support from top management, and will beenhanced if supply chain managers have established trustful relation-ships with their suppliers.

6.2. Limitations and further research opportunities

This study is concerned with buyer perceptions of the process ofimplementing green supply chain management within particularsupply chain relationships. We have therefore chosen to use a meth-odology which focuses on buyer perception rather than a dyadic ap-proach and our results are not concerned with green performanceof the supplier. Although we expect a strong link between processand performance, further should consider the relationships betweenimplementing (process) GSCM and subsequent GSCM performancein the supplier.

The data for this research was captured prior to the global nan-cial crisis, and it is likely that this event has also had an inuence onrm engagement with GSCM. Although this may inuence the levelof engagement with GSCM, we would expect the observed relation-ship between top management support, trust and GSCM to remainsignicant. However, further research may consider the impact ofthe nancial crisis on the level of engagement with GSCM in B2Band B2C markets.

The analysis is based on ve dimensions of GSCM, which all loadedon a single factor, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.911. This suggests thatwe have a fairly robust measure of GSCM processes (Bloom & VanReenen, 2007), but we acknowledge that green supply chain man-agement may extend beyond these ve dimensions as it is a complexand often multifaceted task to ensure sound green processes withinthe supply chain. Similarly, although social desirability bias cannot becompletely ruled out, the methodology deployed ensures that suchissues are minimized.

Finally, our study suggests that trust, in connection with top man-agement support, is a signicant factor in GSCM, but we do not con-sider the mechanism through which trust inuences such elementsas transaction costs, social capital and propensity to collaborate,which in turn may be important for GSCM (Cheng et al., 2008; Tateet al., 2011; Vachon & Klassen, 2008). Further research is thereforeneeded to examine the exact role of trust in the development ofGSCM.

6.3. Conclusion

Green initiatives have often been the subject of B2C supplychains, but increasingly this is becoming an important issue for B2Bsupply chains, since business consumers are increasingly demandingsound green performance from their suppliers. Within this studywe have explored the relative engagement with GSCM among bothB2B and B2C supply chains, and found that such activities are relative-ly neglected in the B2B market. We argue that the generally lower en-gagement with GSCM in B2B supply chains reects lack of visibilityand distance from end household consumers. Nonetheless, we arguethat there are conditions under which GSCM will thrive in B2B set-tings, notably with top management support and when this iscoupled with trust in the supplier. Our ndings support these argu-ments, and we verify the importance of trust and top managementsupport in driving GSCM in B2B supply chains. In contrast, trust ap-pears to be insignicant in B2C supply chains. Finally we outline themanagerial implications of our ndings, and suggest that B2B mar-keters can, and need to, take advantage of the limited engagementwith GSCM in the B2B sector as there are signicant opportunitiesfor rst-mover advantages, gained from both reducing costs and win-

ning contracts.

618 S. Hoejmose et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 609620Appendix A

Likert scale 17: strongly disagree vs. strongly agree

Top management support adapted from Cousins et al. (2006)Top management is supportive of our efforts to improve environmentally supplychain managementIn this company, environmentally responsible supply chain is considered a vitalpart of our corporate strategyPurchasing views on environmentally responsible buying are consideredimportant in most top managers' eyes

Cronbach alpha: 0.850Supplier credibility adapted from Ganesan (1994)This supplier's representative has been frank in dealing with usPromises made by this supplier's representative are reliableIf problems such as shipment delays arise, the supplier's representative is honestabout the problemsThis supplier's representative has problems answering our questions

Cronbach alpha: 0.855References

Adriana, B. (2009). Environmental supply chain management in tourism: The case oflarge tour operators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(16), 13851392.

Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G., & Fitzgerald, E. (2000). A survey of supply chain collabora-tion and management in the UK construction industry. European Journal of Pur-chasing & Supply Management, 6(34), 159168.

Andersen, P. H., & Kumar, R. (2006). Emotions, trust and relationship development in busi-ness relationships: A conceptual model for buyerseller dyads. Industrial MarketingManagement, 35(4), 522535.

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396402.

Arnott, D. C. (2007). Trust Current thinking and future research. European Journal ofMarketing, 41(9/10), 981987.

Badenhorst, J. A. (1994). Unethical behaviour in procurement: A perspective on causesand solutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(9), 739745.

Ballou, R. H., Gilbert, S. M., & Mukherjee, A. (2000). New managerial challenges fromsupply chain opportunities. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 718.

Bansal, P., & Bogner, W. C. (2002). Deciding on ISO 14001: Economics, institutions, andcontext. Long Range Planning, 35(3), 269290.

Supplier benevolence adapted from Ganesan (1994)This supplier's representative cares for usIn times of shortages, this supplier's representative has done more for us thanwe could possibly expectThis supplier's representative is like a friendWe feel that this representative has been on our side

Cronbach alpha: 0.803Product complexity adapted from Cannon and Perreault (1999)Compared to other purchases your rm makes, the product/service is: simplevs. complexCompared to other purchases your rm makes, the product/service is:complicated vs. uncomplicatedCompared to other purchases your rm makes, the product/service is: technicalvs. non-technical

Cronbach alpha: 0.910Product importance adapted from Stump and Heide (1996)This item represents a major proportion of the end product's valueThis item represents an unimportant element of the end productThis item's specication and quality have a large impact on the performance ofthe end product

Cronbach alpha: 0.854Supplier dependence adapted from Ganesan (1994)We are important to this supplierWe account for a large proportion of this suppliers' total salesIf we stopped buying from this supplier they would nd it difcult to ll the gapin their order book

Cronbach alpha: 0.879Buyer dependence adapted from Ganesan (1994)This supplier is crucial to our future performanceIt would be difcult for us to replace this supplierWe are dependent on this supplierWe do not have a good alternative to this supplier

Cronbach alpha: 0.857Supply chain sophistication adapted from Lee and Humphreys (2007)We use established guidelines and procedureswhen evaluating supplier performanceWe perform site visits to supplier premises to help improve their performanceWe invite supplier personnel to our premises to increase awareness of how theirproduct is used

Cronbach alpha: 0.747Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advan-tage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175190.

Batt, P. J. (2008). Building social capital in networks. Industrial Marketing Management,37(5), 487491.

Beamon, B. M. (1999). Designing the green supply chain. Logistics Information Management,12(4), 332342.

Bechtel, C., & Jayaram, J. (1997). Supply chain management: A strategic perspective.International Journal of Logistics Management, 8(1), 1534.

Blois, K. J. (1999). Trust in business to business relationships: An evaluation of its sta-tus. Journal of Management Studies, 36(2), 197215.

Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2007). Measuring and explaining management practicesacross rms and countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 13511408.

Bowen, F. E. (2000). Environmental visibility: A trigger of green organizational re-sponse? Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(2), 92107.

Bowen, F. (2002). Does size matter?: Organizational slack and visibility as alternativeexplanations for environmental. Business & Society, 41(1), 118124.

Bowen, F. E., Cousins, P. D., Lamming, R. C., & Farukt, A. C. (2001). The role of supplymanagement capabilities in green supply. Production and Operations Management,10(2), 174189.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Social capital and community governance. The EconomicJournal, 112(483), 419436.

Boyd, D. E., Spekman, R. E., Kamauff, J. W., & Werhane, P. (2007). Corporate social re-sponsibility in global supply chains: A procedural justice perspective. Long RangePlanning, 40(3), 341356.

Brammer, S., &Millington, A. (2006). Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate phi-lanthropy: An empirical analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(1), 618.

Bunduchi, R. (2008). Trust, power and transaction costs in B2B exchanges A socio-economic approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(5), 610622.

Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholdermanagement perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453470.

Canning, L., & Hanmer Lloyd, S. (2001). Managing the environmental adaptation pro-cess in suppliercustomer relationships. Business Strategy and the Environment,10(4), 225237.

Canning, L., & Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (2007). Trust in buyer-seller relationships: The chal-lenge of environmental (green) adaptation. European Journal of Marketing,41(9/10), 10731095.

Cannon, J. P., & Perreault, W. D., Jr. (1999). Buyer-seller relationships in business mar-kets. Journal of Marketing Research, 439460.

Carter, C. R., & Carter, J. R. (1998). Interorganizational determinants of environmentalpurchasing: Initial evidence from the consumer products industries. Decision Sci-ences, 29(3), 659684.

Carter, C. R., & Dresner, M. (2001). Purchasing's role in environmental management: cross-functional development of grounded theory. Journal of Supply Chain Management: AGlobal Review of Purchasing & Supply, 37(3), 1227.

Carter, C. R., & Jennings, M. M. (2004). The role of purchasing in corporate social re-sponsibility: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Business Logistics, 25(1),145186.

Carter, C. R., Kale, R., & Grimm, C. M. (2000). Environmental purchasing and rm per-formance: An empirical investigation. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics andTransportation Review, 36(3), 219228.

Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and con-straint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory.Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 50(2), 167199.

Cater, T., & Cater, B. (2010). Product and relationship quality inuence on customercommitment and loyalty in B2B manufacturing relationships. Industrial MarketingManagement, 39(8), 13211333.

Chan, H. K. (2007). A pro-active and collaborative approach to reverse logistics Acase study. Production Planning and Control, 18(4), 350360.

Chandra, C., & Kumar, S. (2000). Supply chain management in theory and practice: Apassing fad or a fundamental change? Industrial Management & Data Systems,100(3), 100114.

Cheng, J. H., Yeh, C. H., & Tu, C. W. (2008). Trust and knowledge sharing in green supplychains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 283295.

Christopher, M. (2000). The agile supply chain: Competing in volatile markets. Industri-al Marketing Management, 29(1), 3744.

Claro, D. P., & Claro, P. B. O. (2010). Collaborative buyer-supplier relationships anddownstream information in marketing channels. Industrial Marketing Management,39(2), 221228.

Claro, D. P., Hagelaar, G., & Omta, O. (2003). The determinants of relational governanceand performance: How to manage business relationships? Industrial MarketingManagement, 32(8), 703716.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: Implications formultiple regression. Journal of Management, 19(4), 915922.

Cousins, P. D., Lawson, B., & Squire, B. (2006). An empirical taxonomy of purchasingfunctions. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(7),775794.

Crane, A. (1999). Are You Ethical? Please Tick Yes or No on Researching Ethics in Busi-ness Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(3), 237248.

Cruz, J. M. (2008). Dynamics of supply chain networks with corporate social responsi-bility through integrated environmental decision-making. European Journal of Op-erational Research, 184(3), 10051031.

Daily, B. F., & Huang, S. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resourcefactors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, 21(12), 15391552.

Darnall, N. (2006). Why rms mandate ISO 14001 certication. Business & Society,45(3), 354381.

619S. Hoejmose et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 609620Darnall, N., Jolley, G. J., & Handeld, R. (2008). Environmental management systemsand green supply chain management: Complements for sustainability? BusinessStrategy and the Environment, 17(1), 3045.

Deitz, G. D., Tokman, M., Richey, R. G., & Morgan, R. M. (2010). Joint venture stabilityand cooperation: Direct, indirect and contingent effects of resource complemen-tarity and trust. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 862873.

del Bosque Rodriguez, I. R., Agudo, J. C., & San Martin Gutierrez, H. (2006). Determi-nants of economic and social satisfaction in manufacturerdistributor relation-ships. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(6), 666675.

Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyerseller relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 3551.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: does common methods var-iance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 374406.

Drumwright, M. (1994). Socially responsible organizational buying: environmentalconcern as a noneconomic buying criterion. The Journal of Marketing, 119.

Ellinger, A. E. (2000). Improving marketing/logistics cross-functional collaboration inthe supply chain. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 8596.

Epstein, M., & Roy, M. J. (1998). Managing corporate environmental performance: Amultinational perspective. European Management Journal, 16(3), 284296.

Esty, D. C., & Winston, A. S. (2009). Green to gold: How smart companies use environmentalstrategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. JohnWiley& Sons Inc.

Fawcett, S. E., Ogden, J. A., Magnan, G. M., & Cooper, M. B. (2006). Organizational com-mitment and governance for supply chain success. International Journal of PhysicalDistribution and Logistics Management, 36(1), 2235.

Finch, J., Wagner, B., & Hynes, N. (2010). Trust and forms of capital in business-to-business activities and relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(6),10191027.

Font, X., Tapper, R., Schwartz, K., & Kornilaki, M. (2008). Sustainable supply chain man-agement in tourism. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(4), 260271.

Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyerseller relation-ships. The Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 119.

Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. (2010). Sustainable supply chain management and interorganizational resources: A literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility andEnvironmental Management, 17(4), 230245.

Gonzlez Benito, J., & Gonzlez Benito, . (2006). A review of determinant factors ofenvironmental proactivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(2), 87102.

Green, K., Morton, B., & New, S. (1996). Purchasing and environmental management:interactions, policies and opportunities. Business Strategy and the Environment,5(3), 188197.

Guide, V. D. R., Jr., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2002). The reverse supply chain. HarvardBusiness Review, 80(2), 2526.

Haddock Fraser, J., & Fraser, I. (2008). Assessing corporate environmental reporting moti-vations: Differences between close to market and business to business companies.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(3), 140155.

Haddock-Fraser, J. E., & Tourelle, M. (2010). Corporate motivations for environmentalsustainable development: Exploring the role of consumers in stakeholder engage-ment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(8), 527542.

Hagelaar, G. J. L. F., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., & Marcelis, W. J. (2004). Organising life-cycles in supply chains: Linking environmental performance to managerial de-signs. Greener Management International, 45, 2742.

Hall, J. (2000). Environmental supply chain dynamics. Journal of Cleaner Production,8(6), 455471.

Handeld, R. B., & Bechtel, C. (2002). The role of trust and relationship structure in im-proving supply chain responsiveness. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(4),367382.

Hart, S. L. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. The Academyof Management Review, 17(2), 327351.

Hartman, C. L., & Stafford, E. R. (1997). Green alliances: Building new business with en-vironmental groups. Long Range Planning, 30(2), 184196.

Harvey, M. G., Novicevic, M. M., Hench, T., & Myers, M. (2003). Global account manage-ment: A supply-side managerial view. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(7),563571.

Hawes, J. (1994). To know me is to trust me. Industrial Marketing Management, 23(3),215219.

Hervani, A. A., Helms, M. M., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Performance measurement for greensupply chain management. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(4), 330353.

Hingley, M. (2005). Power to all our friends? Living with imbalance in supplier-retailerrelationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(8), 848858.

Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Arrfelt, M. (2007). Strategic supply chain management:Improving performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge de-velopment. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10), 10351052.

Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and powerin strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 482497.

Jamali, D., & Mirshak, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Theory and prac-tice in a developing country context. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(3), 243262.

Johnston, D. A., McCutcheon, D. M., Stuart, F. I., & Kerwood, H. (2004). Effects of suppli-er trust on performance of cooperative supplier relationships. Journal of operationsManagement, 22(1), 2338.

King, S. F., & Burgess, T. F. (2008). Understanding success and failure in customer rela-tionship management. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(4), 421431.

Klassen, R. D., & McLaughlin, C. P. (1993). TQM and environmental excellence inmanufacturing. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 93(6), 1422.

Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable operations man-agement. Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482492.

Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasingmust become supplymanagement.Harvard Business Review,61(5), 109117.Krause, D. R. (1997). Supplier development: Current practices and outcomes. Journal ofSupply Chain Management, 33(2), 1219.

Krause, D. R., Handeld, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. (2007). The relationships between supplierdevelopment, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance im-provement. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 528545.

Krause, D. R., & Scannell, T. V. (2002). Supplier development practices: Product- and service-based industry comparisons. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38(2), 1321.

Kwon, I. W. G., & Suh, T. (2005). Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chainmanagement: A path analysis. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,10(1), 2633.

Lamming, R., & Hampson, J. (1996). The environment as a supply chain managementissue. British Journal of Management, 7, 4562.

Lantos, G. P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journalof Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 595632.

Lee, K. H., & Kim, J. W. (2009). Current status of CSR in the realm of supply manage-ment: The case of the Korean electronics industry. Supply Chain Management: AnInternational Journal, 14(2), 138148.

Lee, P. K. C., & Humphreys, P. K. (2007). The role of Guanxi in supply management prac-tices. International Journal of Production Economics, 106(2), 450467.

Lee, S. -Y. (2008). Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers ingreen supply chain initiatives. Supply Chain Management, 13(3), 185198.

Leenders, M. R., & Fearon, N. H. E. (2008). Developing Purchasing's Foundation*. Journalof Supply Chain Management, 44(2), 1727.

Lo, V. H. Y., & Yeung, A. H. W. (2004). Practical framework for strategic alliance in PearlRiver Delta manufacturing supply chain: A total quality approach. InternationalJournal of Production Economics, 87(3), 231240.

Lummus, R. R., & Vokurka, R. J. (1999). Dening supply chainmanagement: A historical per-spective and practical guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 99(1), 1117.

Mariotti, J. L. (1999). The trust factor in supply chain management. Supply Chain Man-agement Review, 3(1), 7077.

Mentzer, J. T., Min, S., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2000). The nature of interrm partnering insupply chain management. Journal of Retailing, 76(4), 549568.

Michaelis, P. (1995). Product stewardship,wasteminimization and economic efciency: Les-sons fromGermany. Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement, 38(2), 231244.

Miles, M. P., & Covin, J. G. (2000). Environmental marketing: A source of reputational,competitive, and nancial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 299311.

Miles, M. P., Munilla, L. S., & Russell, G. R. (1997). Marketing and environmental regis-tration/certication: What industrial marketers should understand about ISO14000. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(4), 363370.

Millington, A. (2008). Responsibility in the supply chain. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D.Matten, Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility(pp. 363383).

Min, H., & Galle, W. P. (2001). Green purchasing practices of US rms. InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, 21(9), 12221238.

Naud, P., & Buttle, F. (2000). Assessing relationship quality. Industrial MarketingManagement, 29(4), 351361.

Ndubisi, N. O. (2011). Conict handling, trust and commitment in outsourcing relation-ship: A Chinese and Indian study. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(1), 109117.

Nyaga, G. N., Whipple, J. M., & Lynch, D. F. (2010). Examining supply chain relation-ships: Do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 101114.

Pedersens, E. R., & Andersen, M. (2006). Safeguarding corporate social responsibility inglobal supply chains: How codes of conduct are managed in buyersupplier rela-tionships. Journal of Public Affairs, 6, 228240.

Perry, P., & Towers, N. (2009). Determining the antecedents for a strategy of corporatesocial responsibility by small-and medium-sized enterprises in the UK fashion ap-parel industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(5), 377385.

Ploetner, O., & Ehret, M. (2006). From relationships to partnerships New forms of co-operation between buyer and seller. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(1), 49.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common methodbiases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommendedremedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879894.

Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate.Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120134.

Preuss, L. (2001). In dirty chains? Purchasing and greener manufacturing. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 34, 345359.

Pujari, D., Peattie, K., & Wright, G. (2004). Organizational antecedents of environmental re-sponsiveness in industrial new product development. Industrial MarketingManagement,33(5), 381391.

Putnam, R. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Canadian Journal ofPolicy Research, 2(1), 4151.

Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethicsresearch. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805817.

Rao, P., & Holt, D. (2005). Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic per-formance? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(9),898916.

Rivera-Camino, J. (2007). Re-evaluating green marketing strategy: A stakeholder per-spective. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 13281358.

Roberts, S. (2003). Supply chain specic? Understanding the patchy success of ethicalsourcing initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 159170.

Roht-Arriaza, N. (1996). Developing countries, regional organizations, and the ISO 14001environmental management standard. The Georgetown International EnvironmentalLaw Review, 9, 583.

Rondinelli, D. A., & London, T. (2003). How corporations and environmental groups coop-erate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. The Academy of ManagementExecutive, 17(1), 6176.

Rothenberg, S., Pil, F. K., & Maxwell, J. (2001). Lean, green, and the quest for superior en-vironmental performance. Production and Operations Management, 10(3), 228243.

Salam, M. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in purchasing and supply chain. Journalof Business Ethics, 85, 355370.

Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chainmanagement literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 130, 115.

SAT (2003). State-of-the-Art Technology in the Electronics Industry Innovation System,Summary Report, G1RT-CT-200205066. Austrian Society for Systems Engineeringand Automation, Vienna: European Community Project-GROWTH Programme.

Seppanen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2007). Measuring inter-organizational

White, P. R., De Smet, B., Owens, J.W., & Hin