lectura-vachon gestion ambiental

8/12/2019 Lectura-Vachon Gestion Ambiental

1/25

International Journal of Production Research,

Vol. 45, No. 2, 15 January 2007, 401423

Supply chain management and environmental technologies:

the role of integration

S. VACHON*y and R. D. KLASSENz

yHEC Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3T 2A7

zRichard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario,

London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7

(Revision received January 2006)

As corporations attempt to move toward environmental sustainability, manage-ment must extend their efforts to improve environmental practices across theirsupply chain. To date, the literature characterising environmental managementwithin the supply chain has been slowly building, but remains sparse. Moreover,investment by plants in environmental technologies cannot be made indepen-dently of other organisations in the supply chain. The linkage between supplychain characteristics, such as the degree of integration with primary suppliers andmajor customers, and the resources invested in different environmentaltechnologies is assessed with plant-level survey data. The results indicate thatresources were increasingly allocated toward pollution prevention when plantsdeveloped extensive strategic-level integration with suppliers, including suchaspects as product development and knowledge sharing. However, these effects

were not mirrored with customers. Instead, greater supply chain integration withcustomers was significantly related to pollution control. Collectively, thesefindings suggested that downstream supply chain members tend to favourprevention while simultaneously shifting the burden for control to upstreammembers.

Keywords: Environmental management; Suppliercustomer relationship

1. Introduction

Over the past 15 years, an increasing awareness regarding climate changes andnatural resource depletion has been evident across several industries and in the

population. International agencies and national governments met three times over

that period (Rio, Kyoto, and Johannesburg) to establish goals regarding ozone

depletion, gas emissions, and waste reduction. Meeting these collective goals will

require significant adjustments and modifications in the production and consump-

tion habits of the industrialised world. Given the current manufacturing processes

and the different competitive pressures, it is generally accepted that both processes

and products must be changed in order to maintain the pace of consumption in an

environmentally sound and sustainable way. The production of undesired output

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]


2/25

(i.e. pollution) amplifies the urgency for manufacturing organisations to select and/

or develop technologies to reduce the environmental impact of their production

activities and their products.

The selection of environmental technologies is one way to characterise a

manufacturing organisations position on environmental management, which in turnhas been linked to performance (Klassen and Whybark 1999b). Despite the

performance-related merits associated with pollution prevention (Christmann 2000,

Hart 1995, King and Lenox 2002, Zhu and Sarkis 2004), organisations still widely

implement off-the-shelf, end-of-process, add-on solutions often characterised by

end-of-pipe technologies. For example, Statistics Canada (2003) reported that the

environment-related capital expenditures by Canadian plants were almost equally

divided between end-of-pipe technologies (i.e. pollution control) and integrated

process technologies (i.e. pollution prevention), defined as process modification and

material substitution leading to reuse of waste and water in order to reduce emissions

of pollutants and the amount of waste.So why does the high allocation toward end-of-pipe technologies continue?

First, while typically quite expensive, these end-of-pipe solutions tend to cause little

disruption to organisations primary operations by leaving their core processes and

products unchanged. However, barriers to pollution prevention also emerge from

more subtle and challenging concerns. A second major explanation for such

behaviour is embedded in the design and management of supply chains. Ashford

(1993) proposed that customers unwillingness to relax product specifications and

lack of supplier resources and expertise can partly explain the bias toward end-

of-pipe technologies. Other possible explanations can include resistance to change,

incomplete understanding of the production process, and a lack of collaboration in

the supply chain (Dieleman and De Hoo 1993, Kemp 1993). Therefore, activitiestaking place among organisations in the supply chain have a critical influence on

the selection of environmental technologies within each of these organisations.

This paper presents a detailed analysis that explores the impact of supply chain

management on manufacturing organisations investments in environmental

technologies. In particular, it examines the influence of two types of integration

that occur between a plant and its suppliers and customers, namely logistical and

technological integration. In the next section, both types of integration are developed

and defined. In section 3, the characterisation of investments in environmental

technologies is presented. The fourth section sets the hypotheses linking supply chain

integration and investment in environmental technologies. Next, the researchmethodology is presented in section 5. Finally, the empirical analysis takes place

in section 6 followed by the discussion of the results, presented in the last two

sections.

2. Supply chain integration

Integration between a buying organisation and its suppliers is undertaken to improve

the operations in the buying organisation and/or in the supply network. A review of

the literature pertaining to buyersupplier integration reveals two broad categoriesof studies: (i) those focusing on the logistical linkage between buyers and suppliers,

and (ii) those associated with strategic activities such as process design or

402 S. Vachon and R. D. Klassen


3/25

reengineering and product development. The first category mainly refers to tactical

activities, and is often related to the logistical management of goods recurrently

transacted between organisations (Noordewier et al. 1990, Gardner et al. 1994).

The second category refers to more strategic issues and activities that usually entaila richer communication setting (Purdy and Safayeni 2000) to transfer and share

technical know-how (St. John and Harrison 1999, Dyer and Nobeoka 2000). These

two categories of integration can be respectively referred to as logistical integration

and technological integration (Vachon and Klassen 2006). Both logistical integration

and technological integration can take place upstream with suppliers and down-

stream with customers (figure 1).

2.1 Logistical integration

Logistical integration has been widely studied under a number of different labels

such as vertical co-ordination (Buvik and John 2000), supply management (Shin

et al. 2000), or partnership (Corbett et al. 1999). While several aspects can be

considered which assessing this form of integration, including both informational

and delivery aspects (Frohlich and Westbrook 2001), much of the literature has

emphasised the notion of information flow between organisations in the supply

chain as the main enabler of delivery integration (Stocket al. 2000, Chen and Paulraj

2004).

Thus, logistical integration is defined here as information exchange in the supply

chain that enables tactical-level delivery activities. The type of information

exchanged associated with tactical level activities take the form of inventory levels,

production planning, and operating procedures in the supply chain. Such

information can be characterised as explicit rather than tacit (Dyer and Nobeoka

2000) because it involves easily transferable knowledge. Hence, a high degree of

logistical integration is characterised by frequent and open information exchange.

High logistical integration also implies the presence of flexibility in material

management particularly when facing unforeseen events (Noordewier et al. 1990).

2.2 Technological integration

Technological integration can be characterised as tacit knowledge sharing taking

place between a buying and a supplying organisation in strategic areas like product

Focal plant

Primary suppliers

Technological integration Logistical integration

Major customers

Technological integration Logistical integration

Environmental technology

Level Extent of investmentsForms Pollution prevention Pollution control Management systems

Figure 1. Simplified supply chain with investments in environmental technology.

Supply chain management and environmental technologies 403


4/25

development (Eisenhardt and Tabrisi 1995), process re-engineering (Hammer and

Champy 1993), and best management practices transfer (MacDuffie and Helper

1997). As such, interactions are less likely to be directed at routine operational tasks,

but instead more likely to occur around particular projects. The term technological is

defined broadly to include not only structural aspects such as product- and process-related changes but also infrastructural aspects related to methods and managerial

systems. As such, there are at least two related aspects that determine degree of

technological integration: the extent of sharing of technical and tacit knowledge, and

the extent of interaction on new product and process design.

Technological integration provides opportunities and potential benefits for both

parties. For example, a supplier can provide its expertise on its customer product

development effort or process re-engineering, which can decrease the time-to-market

of new products and increase the effectiveness of new processes (Kaufman

et al. 2000). On the other hand, the buying organisation can seek to develop

the competence and capability of its supplier by providing its own expertise.For example, a buying organisation can assist its supplier in the implementation of a

quality management system (e.g. ISO 9001), thereby assuring a more reliable source

of material or components. This last possibility is often referred to as a supplier

development activity (Krause et al. 2000).

3. Investment in environmental technologies

Based on the operations strategy and environmental management literatures, three

exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories of environmental technologies have been

proposed: pollution prevention, pollution control, and management systems. Thisclassification put forward by Klassen and Whybark (1999a) and used in this paper is

consistent with the most recent developments in measuring different environmental

technologies (Jones and Klassen 2001). It is important to emphasise that environ-

mental technologies are broadly defined to include design, equipment, and operating

procedures that limit or reduce negative impacts of products or services on the

natural environment (Shrivastava 1995, Klassen and Whybark 1999a). It should be

emphasised that the form of investment (i.e. pollution prevention, pollution control,

or management systems) is independent of the level of total investment in

environmental technologies, and captures the allocation of investment across

technological options (Klassen and Whybark 1999a, Klassen and Vachon 2003).Pollution prevention technologies are structural investments in operations that

involve process- or product-based changes. Material substitution and source

reduction are examples of such technologies. The adoption of an environmental

management system (e.g. ISO 14001), better housekeeping, and environmental

considerations in production planning, often associated with pollution prevention

(Hart 1995), are not considered in this category. These infrastructural investments

are captured separately as management systems elsewhere to retain the historical

differentiation between structural and infrastructural investments in operations

management (Wheelwright 1984). Pollution prevention focuses exclusively on

fundamental changes to the physical product and/or process. In contrast, pollutioncontrol technologies are structural investments that capture, treat or dispose of

pollutants or harmful by-products at the end of a manufacturing process.



5/25

Pollution control technologies include both end-of-pipe equipment and remediation

projects to clean-up earlier harmful practices. Finally, management systems are

infrastructural investments that improve the way that environmental issues in

manufacturing are managed.

4. Linking integration to environmental investments

The literature is slowly building evidence that links inter-organisational activities

and a firms environmental management. For example, Henrique and Sadorsky

(1999) examined the importance of different stakeholders, including suppliers and

customers, for corporations commitment in environmental management. In this

section, such linkage is refined to focus on the influence of supply chain integration

on environmental technology investments within a focal plant.

4.1 The influence of technological integration

Technological integration, through its strategic activities pertaining to knowledge

transfer and sharing, contributes to identifying and evaluating a greater variety

of options that might address particular environmental challenges (Bonifant et al.

1995). As these options can lead to improvement in other manufacturing

performance dimensions such as quality and delivery, they can prompt further

investment in projects that are related to the natural environment and, simulta-

neously, can reduce the actual resistance to change that is associated with structural

changes in production processes or products. For instance, collaborative activities

with major customers which mainly comprise the extent of knowledge exchange

(e.g. training, site visits) have also been positively linked to a shift in investmentfrom management systems to pollution prevention technologies (Klassen and

Vachon 2003).

As noted earlier, pollution control only affects the operations of a single plant

and can be implemented in an isolated fashion. In contrast, product-based actions

that leverage design-for-environment, to make such improvements as reduced

packaging, are likely to be much easier to recognise and implement as one aspect of

other collaborative supplierplant or plantcustomer activities. This is likely to be

the case for other initiatives, too, such as joint recycling of parts and components,

and process changes that reduce the use of hazardous materials.

A good example of such collaborative activities can be found in chemicalmanagement services. These services, undertaken by a chemical supplier, guide a

buying plant to properly use and handle chemicals, thereby potentially reducing

spills and consumption. For example, Castrol, a lubricant supplier to the automotive

industry, worked jointly within one of its customers plants. The resulting process

modifications reduced the consumption of lubricants, leading to lower cost and

environment impact (Reiskin et al. 2000). Similar case-based evidence has been

reported elsewhere in the automotive industry. A paint supplier effectively worked

on-site in the paint shop of an automaker to develop a better solution to the ever-

increasing pressure for lower emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

(Geffen and Rothenberg 2000). Thus, co-operative activities can shift environmentalinvestment away from pollution control technologies toward more efficient and

effective preventive technologies (Klassen and Vachon 2003).



6/25

Cross-fertilisation of resources can lead to systemic changes through new product

development or process re-engineering (Dyer and Nobeoka 2000, Takeishi 2001).

For example, technological integration can influence a plants structural elements,

such as product quality design (Fynes and Voss 2002) and process re-engineering

pertaining to a lean production system (MacDuffie and Helper 1997). These strategicactivities are also associated with the sharing of resources, such as equipment and

personnel, among supply chain members in order to improve manufacturing

performance along the chain. Hence, technological integration can lead to product

adaptation and fundamental process modifications, which is the main premise

underlying pollution prevention technology.

H1: As technological integration in the supply chain increases, investment in

environmental technologies in the plant is increasingly allocated toward

pollution prevention.

While directing resources towards pollution prevention technologies, co-operationamong supply chain members can also alter the level of investment in environmental

management. Klassen and Vachon (2003) found a link between similar collaboration

with the primary suppliers and the extent of investments in environmental

technologies. In fact, as reasoned for H1, many preventive technologies require

cross-fertilisation of know-how among multiple organisations in the supply chain for

effective implementation. Because this cross-fertilisation is an outcome of technolo-

gical integration, more projects become technically feasible and attractive to

manufacturing organisations as technological integration increases. Hence, environ-

mental projects that might have been discarded without appropriate level of

technological integration can be undertaken, resulting in greater resources invested

in the environmental technologies. The incentives to do so are especially strong if

shared-savings contracts are in place to encourage investments and innovation from

multiple parties along the supply chain (Corbett 2001).

H2: As technological integration in the supply chain increases, the level of

investments in environmental technologies in the plant increases.

4.2 The influence of logistical integration

The extensive low-level data sharing that occurs with logistical integration

contributes to better inventory management and improved scheduling andproduction planning. As logistical integration improves the efficacy of the supply

chain, managers can be reluctant to invest in new technologies that would have the

potential to disrupt and inhibit the gains from greater logistical integration. Hence,

in a high logistical integration context, managers can be motivated to direct

resources towards less disruptive end-of-pipe/pollution control technologies.

On the other hand, improvements in inventory management and production

scheduling have implications for environmental management, as inventory manage-

ment affects waste disposal, and production planning can reduce energy consump-

tion and scrap generation. However, all of these improvements are infrastructural in

nature. Thus, it is expected that greater logistical integration would be consistentwith greater allocation of environmentally-related investments to management

systems. For instance, vertical co-ordination was found to influence the participation



7/25

of the purchasing department in environment-related product and process

modifications (Carter and Carter 1998). Logistical integration is also associated

with more environmental monitoring in the supply chain (e.g. questionnaires and

site audits), which is infrastructural in nature (Vachon and Klassen 2006).

H3: As logistical integration in the supply chain increases, investment in environ-

mental technologies in the plant is increasingly allocated toward management

systems.

Greater logistical integration can foster manufacturing organisations to invest

more in particular environmental areas, such as reverse logistics. Reverse logistics is

broadly defined to include all materials management activities related to product

recovery, including reuse, recycling, remanufacturing and refurbishing of used

products (Fleischmann et al. 1997, Stock 1998). In isolation, these activities may

directly affect the design and management of forward-flow operations, and tend to

require more complex inventory management and scheduling systems (Guide et al.1997, Gungor and Gupta 1999). However, logistical integration can improve

effectiveness, decrease risk and reduce complexity of managing reverse flows, thereby

enabling manufacturing organisations to more readily adopt a reverse logistics

programme. It is also easier for suppliers to spearhead green logistics projects

(e.g. reusable packaging) when they already have a good understanding of the

logistical requirements and constraint faced by their customers (GEMI 2004). Thus,

some barriers to investment in environmental technologies are reduced and benefits

enhanced, suggesting that more will investment will be undertaken.

H4: As logistical integration in the supply chain increases, the level of investments in

environmental technologies in the plant increases.

4.3 Supply base and customer concentration

In addition to the degree of integration along the supply chain, the size of the supply

network and the degree of concentration of the customers constitute two important

characteristics that should be examined here. In the literature, the notions of supply

base reduction and buyersupplier relationship are fundamentally linked (Harland

et al. 1999, Chen and Paulraj 2004). A carefully crafted strategic framework must be

in place in order to sustain the benefits coming from integration and supply base

reduction (Cousins 1999). However, the relationship between the size of the supplybase and environmental technologies selection has received little attention, although

the literature pertaining to organisational networks can offer one theoretical

perspective.

Network theory suggests that the degree of process and product innovation is

positively linked to the number of direct ties that an organisation has in its network

(Ahuja 2000). These direct ties increase the domain of knowledge sharing and

complementary assets that can be accessed and leveraged, while increasing the

number of indirect ties which have, to a lesser extent, the same beneficial properties

(Powellet al. 1996). If these findings are transferred to supply chain management, a

larger supply base is likely to lead to more innovation. Because pollution preventiontechnologies are greatly driven by product and process innovation (Porter and van

der Linde 1995, Geffen and Rothenberg 2000), it is then expected that, as the number



8/25

of direct ties in the supply chain increases, the form of investment in environmental

technologies would be affected. By way of empirical support, research is emerging

that indicates multiple sourcing is preferred over single sourcing in the context of

uncertain technological paths (Burt et al. 2003), which in turn is driven by

innovation. Thus, given that pollution prevention technologies continue to be quiteinnovative, a larger supply network affords potential advantages.

H5: As the number of suppliers and customers increases, investment in environ-

mental technologies in the plant is increasingly allocated toward pollution

prevention.

5. Research methods

The relationships between supply chain integration and the extent and form of

investment in environmental technology was tested using a survey in the packageprinting industry. A single industry approach was adopted to control for the type of

manufacturing processes and workflow, which were quite standardised in the

package printing industry. Several other studies in environmental management have

focused on a single industry (Klassen and Whybark 1999a, Christmann 2000, Geffen

and Rothenberg 2000). Furthermore, the printing industry legislative requirements

and customers concerns were actively pushing many plants to investigate and

implement a variety of new environmental technologies, including such pollution

prevention technologies as water-based inks or control technologies such as oxidisers

to burn VOC emissions. The unit of analysis for this study was the plant, which is

often used in environmental management research (Curkovic et al. 2000, King andLenox 2002).

Before administrating the survey, interviews were conducted with six industry

experts and senior managers in five plants in order to validate the conceptual model

and to ensure proper language use in the questionnaire. Next, a list of 366 plants with

at least 90 employees was compiled from two exhaustive sources: the Packaging

Sourcebook for the United States and Scotts Industrial Directory for Canada.

The survey was conducted during the summer of 2002. After an initial telephone call

to the plant manager to confirm contact information and to introduce the research

project, a three-wave survey process similar to that prescribed by Dillman (2000) was

followed. The survey was translated into French for the plants located in the

Province of Quebec. As suggested by Dillman (2000), two inducements were used to

encourage active participation. The respondents were promised a summary report

with information on each question by industry segment (folding carton, flexible

package, labels). Also, a $5 pledge to the not-for-profit organisation Medecins sans

Frontieres(Doctors Without Borders) was promised for each response received.

A total of 84 plant managers responded, a response rate of 23%, which is similar

to other studies (Frohlich 2002). A chi-square test of independence revealed no

evidence that the respondent pool differed significantly from the target pool along

(i) the geographical location of the respondents (United States versus Canada);

(ii) the three industry sub-segments (folding box, flexible, labels); and(iii) parent company size (large multi-plant companies versus single/few plants

companies).



9/25

5.1 Supply chain integration, supply base, and customer concentration

Based on a growing understanding and depth of knowledge for supply chain

integration, this research expanded the one-dimensional scales employed by others

(Frohlich and Westbrook 1999, Rosenzweig et al . 2003) to capture the two

dimensions of logistical and technological integration. Two multi-item scales were

used to assess logistical and technological integration based on items reported by

others (Carr and Pearson 1999, DeToni and Nassimbeni 1999). These scales were

constructed to capture the level of logistical and technological integration that is in

place between (i) the focal plant (respondent) and its primary suppliers and (ii) the

focal plant and its major customers. It should be stressed that all the scales were

reported from the perspective of the responding plant manager to ensure that

management did not have to speculate about the operations of another organisation

(e.g. our plant provides information to help our primary suppliers improve; our

major customers provide our personnel with training) (see the Appendix).

First, the integration scales were tested for internal reliability (Cronbachs alpha);all exceeded 0.70. Second, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted

for the two supplier-related integration scales (logistical and technological), then

the two customer-related scales. For each CFA, a covariance measurement model

was estimated using maximum likelihood. All parameter estimates were statistically

significant. Fit statistics were well within acceptable ranges (i.e. normed chi square

0.9, and TuckerLewis index >0.85) (Hair et al. 1998),

although the chi-square statistic was significant for the customer-related scales

(p


10/25

were defined as the way people worked; including environmental audits and training(see the Appendix). This set of measures had been previously validated (Klassen and

Whybark 1999a). The extent of investment in environmental technologies was

measured by asking the plant mangers to report the percent of manufacturing costs

that was devoted to environmental management and the proportion of the capital

budget allocated to investment in environmental technologies.

5.3 Control variables

Four variables were used to control the following plant characteristics: plant size,parent company size, average age of presses, and level of investment in new

manufacturing equipment. Size is an important contextual variable that is widely

used in operations strategy and environmental management literature (Grant et al.

2002). For example, Min and Galle (2001) found that larger organisations are more

inclined to adopt green purchasing practices. In contrast, small organisations tend to

be more pre-occupied with short-term issues not necessarily linked to environmental

management and are more reactive to environmental issues and regulations (Arora

and Cason 1995). They also have fewer resources and less knowledge to share with

their major customers, which will likely translate into a decrease in co-operative

activities with them. Respondents were asked to report the number of employees(full-time equivalent) working at their plants and for the parent company

(H1 and H2).

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis supply chain integration with suppliers.

Standardised loading

ItemsLogistical

integrationTechnological

integration Tstatistics

A1a 0.756 1

A1b 0.707 5.424A1c 0.435 3.504A1d 0.401 3.236A1e 0.637 5.010A2a 0.687 1

A2d 0.734 5.879A2e 0.876 6.563A2g 0.671 5.431

Construct reliability 0.731 0.822Variance extracted 0.365 0.541

Fit statisticsChi square 29.043 (df 26, p 0.31)Normed chi square 1.117 (df 1, p 0.29)Goodness of fit index (GFI) 0.933TuckerLewis index (TLI) 0.981Adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI) 0.884Comparative fit index (CFI) 0.986Normed fit index (NFI) 0.888Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.038

1 t-statistics for these parameters were not available because they were fixed for scaling purposes.



11/25

Two variables capture the state of internal processes. First, the age of the pressesis used as a proxy for the age of technology in the plant. Old equipment is more

susceptible to breakdowns and stoppage, forcing managers to troubleshoot more

often and to turn their focus away from environmental issues. In contrast,

investment in new equipment can be viewed as an opportunity to incorporate

more environmental considerations in the process or products as new technologies

provide new ways to address environmental issues.

6. Results

Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics are presented in table 3. The

parameter estimates (standardised betas) and the squared multiple correlation

coefficients for each regression model are reported in tables 4 and 5. Ordinary least

square (OLS) regressions were used and all measures of multicollinearity were within

recommended limits.

6.1 Form of environmental investments

Results pertaining to the form of environmental investments are presented in table 4.For each dependent variable, a regression model was estimated for supplier only,

customer only, and then finally, a joint suppliercustomer model using hierarchical

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis supply chain integration with customers.

Standardised loading

ItemsLogistical

integrationTechnological

integration Tstatistics

B2b 0.804 1

B2c 0.681 5.923B2d 0.554 4.769B2e 0.647 5.622B2f 0.562 4.843B1a 0.580 1

B1b 0.725 4.585B1c 0.750 4.656B1d 0.506 3.617

Construct reliability 0.787 0.739Variance extracted 0.430 0.420

Fit statisticsChi square 45.889 (df 26, p0.010)Normed chi square 1.750 (df 1, p0.186)Goodness of fit index (GFI) 0.906TuckerLewis index (TLI) 0.879Adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI) 0.837Comparative fit index (CFI) 0.912Normed fit index (NFI) 0.824Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.095

1 t-statistics for these parameters were not available because they were fixed for scaling purposes.



12/25

Table3.

Correlations.

Means.d.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Enviro

nmentaltechnologies

1.Pollutionprevention

47.2

25.9

2.Pollutioncontrol

19.8

21.20.4

9

3.Managementsystems

33.0

24.30.6

40.3

6

4.Percentageofcapitalbudget

4.0

5.30.0

8

0.2

90

.17

5.Percentageofmanufacturingcosts

3.2

2.60.1

5

0.1

80

.01

0.5

6

Suppliercharacteristics

6.Logisticalintegration

5.4

0.80.0

6

0.0

90

.02

0.0

50.0

2

7.Technologicalintegration

4.8

1.1

0.3

00.1

20

.210.0

40.0

6

0.4

9

8.Supplybase

0.7

1.4

0.2

30.0

70

.18

0.0

00.1

6

0.0

0

0.02

Custom

ercharacteristics

9.Logisticalintegration

4.6

0.9

0.0

60.2

00

.120.2

20.0

9

0.3

3

0.33

0.0

8

10.Technologicalintegration

4.1

1.00.0

1

0.1

10

.080.1

0

0.0

1

0.4

7

0.40

0.0

3

0.4

6

11.Customerconcentration

0.5

0.20.2

0

0.0

80

.14

0.0

7

0.1

4

0.0

8

0.08

0.1

8

0.1

4

0.2

5

Plantc

haracteristics

12.Plantsizea

4.9

0.60.0

5

0.1

00

.03

0.1

50.0

4

0.0

90.10

0.1

9

0.0

0

0.0

6

0.0

2

13.Parentcompanysize

b

7.0

2.20.3

6

0.1

80

.23

0.1

0

0.1

1

0.0

90.09

0.0

20.0

6

0.1

1

0.4

00.33

14.Investmentinnewequipment

7.5

8.0

0.1

7

0.0

50

.22

0.0

3

0.0

1

0.2

2

0.25

0.0

6

0.1

4

0.2

8

0.1

20.04

0.1

8

15.Ageofpresses

11.3

6.70.2

1

0.0

80

.15

0.1

6

0.0

60.1

00.18

0.0

50.1

50.0

50.1

30.06

0.3

20.2

9

Nforb

ivariatecorrelationsvariesfrom79

to84becauseofmissingdata.

Cor

relationsgreaterthan0.2

9aresignificantatp

lectura-vachon gestion ambiental

Documents