Adoption of Green Supply Chain Management among SMEs in Malaysia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
3. Research Hypotheses
3.1. Technological Factors
3.2. Organizational Factors
3.3. Environmental Factors
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Sample and Data Collection
4.2. Measuring Instrument
4.3. Common Method Bias and Non-Response Bias
4.4. Test of Reliability and Validity
5. Research Results and Discussions
6. Conclusions
6.1. Implications
6.2. Limitation and Further Research Direction
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sabat, K.C.; Krishnamoorthy, B. An empirical study to understand the factors influencing green supply chain management adoption in India. NMIMS Manag. Rev. 2018, 35, 94–108. [Google Scholar]
- Emmett, S.; Sood, V. Green Supply Chains: An Action Manifesto, 1st ed.; John Wiley and Sons: West Sussex, UK, 2010; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.H. Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain management practices implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, S.K. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007, 9, 53–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, R.; Mansouri, S.A.; Aktas, E. The relationship between green supply chain management and performance: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian emerging economies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 183, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Papadopoulos, T. Green supply chain management: Theoretical framework and further research directions. Benchmarking 2017, 24, 184–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt, D.L.; Ghobadian, A. An empirical study of green supply chain management practices amongst UK manufacturers. J. Manufac. Technol. Manag. 2009, 20, 933–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welsh, D.H.B.; Alon, I.; Falbe, C.M. An examination of international retail franchising in emerging markets. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2006, 44, 130–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pham, T.M.Y.; Pham, T.M.K. The factors affecting green supply chains: Empirical study of agricultural chains in Vietnam. J. Manag. Sustain. 2017, 7, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carter, C.R.; Rogers, D.S. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2008, 38, 360–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tseng, M.L.; Islam, M.S.; Kariab, N.; Fauzi, F.A.; Afrin, S. A literature review on green supply chain management: Trends and future challenges. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohanty, R.P.; Prakash, A. Green supply chain management practices in India: A confirmatory empirical study. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2013, 2, 438–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Tornatzky, L.; Fleischer, M. The Process of Technology Innovation; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Alam, S.S.; Ismail, A.K.M.; Hishamudidin, S.A. Factors affecting e-commerce adoption in the electronic manufacturing companies in Malaysia. Int. J. Commer. Manag. 2008, 17, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, S.S.; Ali, M.Y.; Mohd Jani, M. An empirical study of factors affecting electronic commerce adoption among SMEs in Malaysia. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2011, 12, 375–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hameed, M.A.; Counsell, S.; Swift, S. A conceptual model for the process of IT innovation adoption in organizations. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2012, 29, 358–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lippert, S.K.; Govindrajulu, C. Technological, organizational, and environmental antecedents to Web services adoption. Commun. IIMA 2006, 6, 146–158. [Google Scholar]
- Parker, C.M.; Castleman, T. New directions for research on SME-eBusiness: Insights from an analysis of journal articles from 2003 to 2006. J. Inf. Syst. Small Bus. 2007, 1, 21–40. [Google Scholar]
- Gangwar, H.; Date, H.; Raoot, A.D. Review on IT adoption: Insights from recent technologies. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2014, 27, 488–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, K.W.; Chen, Y. E-business value creation in small and medium enterprises: A US study using the TOE. Int. J. Electron. Bus. 2010, 8, 80–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.Y.; Ho, Y.H. An empirical study on logistics service providers’ intention to adopt green innovations. J. Technol. Manag. 2008, 3, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
- Idris, A.; Edwards, H.; Mcdonald, S. E-commerce adoption in developing countries SMEs: What do the prevailing theoretical models offer us? In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on E-Commerce, Putrajaya, Malaysia, 18–20 September 2017; pp. 21–28. [Google Scholar]
- Awa, H.O.; Ojiabo, O.U.; Emecheta, B.C. Integrating TAM, TPB and TOE frameworks and expanding their characteristic constructs for e-commerce adoption by SMEs. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2015, 6, 76–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chiu, C.Y.; Chen, S.; Chen, C.L. An integrated perspective of TOE framework and innovation diffusion in broadband mobile applications adoption by enterprises. Int. J. Manag. Econ. Soc. Sci. 2017, 6, 14–39. [Google Scholar]
- Hsu, P.-F.; Kraemer, K.; Dunkle, D. Determinants of E-business use in U.S. firms. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2006, 10, 9–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piaralal, S.K.; Nair, S.R.; Yahya, N.; Karim, J.A. An integrated model of the likelihood and extent of adoption of green practices in small and medium sized logistics firms. Am. J. Econ. 2015, 5, 251–258. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, T.; Thomas, M.; Espadanal, M. Assessing the determinants of cloud computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Inf. Manag. 2014, 51, 497–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Zoubi, M. Predicting E-business adoption through integrating the constructs of the Rogers’s diffusion of innovation theory combined with technology-organization-environment model. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Res. 2013, 3, 63–73. [Google Scholar]
- Jeyaraj, A.; Rottman, J.W.; Lacity, M.C. A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research. J. Inf. Technol. 2006, 21, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, I.; Jaafar, H.S. Determinant factor of environment management practices: A theoretical framework. Int. Rev. Manag. Bus. Res. 2015, 4, 1180–1193. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, C.Y.; Ho, Y.H. RFID technology adoption and supply chain performance: An empirical study in China’s logistics industry. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2009, 14, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.Y.; Ho, Y.H. Determinants of green practice adoption for logistics companies in China. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 98, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seyal, A.H.; Rahim, M.M. A preliminary investigation of electronic data interchange adoption in Bruneian small business organizations. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries 2006, 24, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, R.; Prasad, J. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decis. Sci. 1997, 28, 557–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etzion, D. Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-present: A review. J. Manag. 2007, 33, 637–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weng, M.H.; Lin, C.Y. Determinants of green innovation adoption for small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 5, 9154–9163. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Brown, S.A. A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 71–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kolodinsky, J.M.; Hogarth, J.M.; Hilgert, M.A. The adoption of electronic banking technologies by US consumers. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2004, 22, 238–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russell, D.M.; Hoag, A.M. People and information technology in the supply chain: Social and organizational influences on adoption. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2004, 34, 102–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.Y. Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain initiatives. Supply Chain Manag. 2008, 13, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Judge, W.Q.; Elenkov, D. Organizational capacity for change and environmental performance: An empirical assessment of Bulgarian firms. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 893–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.T.; Lai, Y.J. Examining the adoption of KMS in organizations from an integrated perspective of technology, individual, and organization. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 38, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balaid, A.; Rozan, M.Z.A.; Abdullah, S.N. Conceptual model for examining knowledge maps adoption in software development organizations. Asian Soc. Sci. 2014, 10, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Premkumar, G. A meta-analysis of research on information technology implementation in small business. J. Org. Comput. Elect. Commer. 2003, 13, 91–121. [Google Scholar]
- Rothenberg, S.; Zyglidopoulos, S.C. Determinants of environmental innovation adoption in the printing industry: The importance of task environment. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2007, 16, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimberly, J.R.; Evanisko, M.J. Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Acad. Manag. J. 1981, 24, 689–713. [Google Scholar]
- Damanpour, F. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad. Manag. J. 1991, 34, 555–590. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, S.; Henriques, I. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christmann, P. Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 747–760. [Google Scholar]
- Abd Rahman, A.; Ho, J.A.; Rusli, K.A. Pressures, green supply chain management practices and performance of ISO 14001 certified manufacturers in Malaysia. Int. J. Econ. Manag. 2014, 8, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Maduku, D.K.; Mpinganjira, M.; Duh, H. Understanding mobile marketing adoption intention by South African SMEs: A multi-perspective framework. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, Y.H.; Lin, C.Y.; Tsai, J.S. An empirical study on organizational infusion of green practices in Chinese logistics companies. J. Econ. Soc. Stud. 2014, 4, 159–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Factors | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|
Technological Factors | ||
Adoption cost | 0.785 | |
Initial set up cost is high | 0.726 | |
We need addition staff for adopting GSCM | 0.845 | |
Benefits and costs are not easy to justify | 0.537 | |
Relative Advantage | 0.762 | |
GSCM can provide better environmental performance | 0.474 | |
GSCM can provide higher economic benefits | 0.597 | |
GSCM will boost our organizational reputation | 0.656 | |
Complexity | 0.737 | |
Using GSCM needs much previous experience | 0.872 | |
Learning GSCM is difficult | 0.889 | |
Sharing knowledge of GSCM is difficult | 0.545 | |
Compatibility | 0.769 | |
GSCM are compatible with our operating procedures | 0.671 | |
GSCM are compatible with our company’s value | 0.793 | |
Integrating the GSCM with the company’s existing system is easy | 0.734 | |
Observability | 0.781 | |
GSCM will be adopted if we see other companies also using it | 0.784 | |
My company is confident that adopting GSCM will enhance the desired returns in terms of profit | 0.659 | |
Organizational Factors | ||
Quality of human resources | 0.743 | |
Staff are able to solve problems easily by using new technologies | 0.536 | |
Staff are able to provide new ideas for our organization | 0.670 | |
It is easier for our staff to learn new technologies | 0.782 | |
Our staff shares knowledge with each other | 0.873 | |
Top management support | 0.801 | |
Higher management always encourage our employees to learn GSCM knowledge | 0.705 | |
Necessary support for GSCM adoption within the firm is always given by our higher management | 0.588 | |
Higher management would be enthusiastic about adopting GSCM | 0.756 | |
Necessary resources are provided by the higher management for the adoption of GSCM | 0.852 | |
Environmental Factors | ||
Environmental uncertainty | 0.813 | |
It is difficult to predict a competitor’s behavior | 0.677 | |
It is always good to vary customers’ choice | 0.619 | |
Governmental support | 0863 | |
There is financial support offered by the Government for implementing GSCM | 0.691 | |
There are training opportunities provided by the government to adopt GSCM | 0.734 | |
The government has given technical support for adopting GSCM | 0.805 | |
Regulatory pressure Regulatory pressure | 0.855 | |
Environmental regulations for production are set by the government | 0.596 | |
It is important for us to provide information to industrial associations about environmental regulations | 0.623 | |
Customer pressure | 0.716 | |
Environmental performance needs to improve due to customer pressure | 0.748 | |
Our customers require us to care about the environment | 0.831 | |
Intention to adopt GSCM | 0.860 | |
Our company intends to adopt GSCM | 0.929 | |
Our company intends to use GSCM regularly in the future | 0.892 | |
Our company would highly recommend GSCM for other companies to adopt | 0.842 |
Hypotheses | Standardized Coefficients (β) | t-Value | p-Value | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1: Cost | −0.245 | −5.657 | 0.000 | Supported |
H2: Relative advantage | 0.110 | 2.798 | 0.010 | Supported |
H3: Complexity | −0.081 | −2.776 | 0.010 | Supported |
H4: Compatibility | 0.152 | 3.666 | 0.000 | Supported |
H5: Observability | 0.056 | 1.308 | 0.192 | Not Supported |
H6: Quality of human resource | 0.139 | 3.736 | 0.000 | Supported |
H7: Top management support | 0.297 | 8.410 | 0.001 | Supported |
H8: Company size | 0.134 | 2.934 | 0.010 | Supported |
H9: Environmental uncertainty | 0.179 | 3.972 | 0.000 | Supported |
H10: Governmental support | 0.043 | 1.346 | 0.179 | Not Supported |
H11: Regulator pressure | 0.194 | 4.465 | 0.000 | Supported |
H12: Customer pressure | 0.201 | 4.694 | 0.000 | Supported |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lin, C.-Y.; Alam, S.S.; Ho, Y.-H.; Al-Shaikh, M.E.; Sultan, P. Adoption of Green Supply Chain Management among SMEs in Malaysia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6454. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166454
Lin C-Y, Alam SS, Ho Y-H, Al-Shaikh ME, Sultan P. Adoption of Green Supply Chain Management among SMEs in Malaysia. Sustainability. 2020; 12(16):6454. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166454
Chicago/Turabian StyleLin, Chieh-Yu, Syed Shah Alam, Yi-Hui Ho, Mohammed Emad Al-Shaikh, and Parves Sultan. 2020. "Adoption of Green Supply Chain Management among SMEs in Malaysia" Sustainability 12, no. 16: 6454. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166454
APA StyleLin, C. -Y., Alam, S. S., Ho, Y. -H., Al-Shaikh, M. E., & Sultan, P. (2020). Adoption of Green Supply Chain Management among SMEs in Malaysia. Sustainability, 12(16), 6454. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166454