The effects of Supply Chain Transparency on Adoption of Internal and External Sustainable Practice

(1)

The effects of Supply Chain Transparency on

Adoption of Internal and External Sustainable

Practice

Master Thesis for Msc Supply Chain Management

Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

Abstract

This study explores the effectiveness of supply chain transparency on achieving internal, upstream and downstream sustainable supply chain practices. Based on responses from 86 Chinese plant professionals in 13 manufacturing industries, this paper verifies the positive effects that supply chain transparency has on internal and upstream sustainable supply chain practices. But no significant relationship is found between supply chain transparency and downstream sustainable supply chain practices. Linear regression was used to test the hypothesised relationships. Thus, the paper contributes firstly to examine the impact of supply chain transparency on sustainable supply chain practices. Secondly, this research adds to the limited studies about analysing downstream sustainable supply chain practices. Finally, the findings of the study could provide a basis for understanding sustainable supply chain management, so that managers can extend and reshape current views about how to manage sustainable practices by using supply chain transparency in order to improve competitive advantages.

(3)

Introduction

Researchers’ and firms’ awareness of sustainable supply chain issues has increased significantly in recent years, as a range of manufacturing companies produce waste and pollution which threaten the existence of life on Earth (Seuring & Muller, 2008; Pieters et al., 2009; Zailani et al., 2012). Challenges and pressure push firms to seriously consider this impact while doing business (Zailani et al., 2012). Many practitioners and researchers discuss the efforts of manufacturers to pursue sustainable goals and practise sustainability (Lieb & Lieb, 2010). Nevertheless, sustainable supply chain practices are not limited to the company level. Sustainable practices cannot develop in isolation, but instead must be connected with, and take into account, the nature of both the upstream and downstream portions of the supply chain (Awaysheh & Klassen, 2010). For example, between the early 1990s and 2004, Nike only focused on satisfying the requirements of environmental and social certification, whereas its suppliers were blamed for employing child labour to make shoes, clothing and footballs in Pakistan and Cambodia (Nike, 2004). That is to say, in reality some firms have internal sustainable practices in place, but do not collaborate with upstream parties in sustainable aspects. In contrast, some firms have also been known to develop sustainable initiatives with their suppliers, but neglect the downstream parties. Many chemical plants focus on clean supplies of raw materials, but ignore the application of clean transport tools for delivering raw materials and finished products. Zailani et al. (2012) stated that forward-thinking firms have taken steps to develop sustainable practices in their supply chains. By working with their upstream and downstream parties, firms can systematically monitor, measure and communicate the benefits of socially responsible business, and turn supply chain sustainability into a driver of competitive advantage (Awaysheh & Klassen, 2010). Therefore, to achieve a sustainable supply chain, firms must implement not only internal, but also external practices within downstream and upstream partners. This paper focuses on studying possible antecedents of internal and external sustainable practices to understand when certain practices are adopted.

In this study, sustainable practice is identified from the perspectives of internal, upstream and downstream. Internal sustainable supply chain practices (ISSCP) refer to firms pursuing environmental and social certification, joining energy and water pollution consumption programmes, participating in waste recycling programmes, developing formal occupational health and safety management systems, implementing work-life balance policies, supporting employees’ quality of life and providing career development and promotion paths to employees (Koho et al., 2011; Cefic, 2010). Downstream sustainable supply chain practices (DSSCP) mean that firms employ cleaner and less noisy transportation modes in distribution, assess logistics providers’ sustainability performance, offer training and education in sustainability to logistics providers and customers, engage in joint efforts with logistics providers and pursue appropriate disposal, component recovery and disassembly processes (Gupta & Veerakamolmal, 1996; Zhao et al., 2016; SGS, 2014). Upstream sustainable supply chain practices (USSCP) are defined as firms’ implementation of supplier assessments and collaborative practices, such as evaluating sustainability performance, sustainability audits and so on (Large & Gimenez, 2011).

(5)

well-being, government regulations and certification, buyer-supplier relationships, customers’, competitors’, suppliers’ and society’s expectations, and international standards (Alzawawi, 2013; Gimenez & Tachizawa, 2012; Chkanikova & Mont, 2015). In terms of internal enablers, ISSCP involve cooperation with suppliers to find environmentally friendly materials and equipment, personnel commitment, social reputation and ethical beliefs (Alzawawi, 2013). USSCP are driven by a firm’s environmental commitment, senior management support and the availability of resources (Gimenez & Tachizawa, 2012). Eccles et al. (2012) only mention one internal driver of DSSCP: corporate culture. Finally, Kumar and Rahman (2015) draw the conclusion that external pressure and benefits of sustainability adoption are the main drivers and enablers that motivate top management to adopt sustainability. While most of the internal and external antecedents related to the area of supply chain management, the literature has neglected one internal aspect: supply chain structure, more specifically in terms of supply chain transparency. The forms of interaction between supply chain members have important implications, and cannot be ignored (Awaysheh & Klassen, 2010). Therefore, supply chain transparency is the specific dimension to be studied as an antecedent of these sustainable practices.

Supply chain transparency, which is one dimension of the supply chain structure, has become increasingly important, because it has been identified as potentially having a significant impact on the tools, systems and programmes in place to address social issues with partners (Lee, 2002; van Der Zee & van Der Vorst, 2005; Awaysheh & Klassen, 2010). Transparency helps capture the extent to which information is readily available to end-users and other firms in the supply chain. Transparency also attempts to determine the degree to which the plant perceives that an end-user is aware of both the firm’s product and its process. (Awaysheh & Klassen, 2010). For example, in the case of USSCP, if the end-user is aware of how raw materials are sourced, he will easily recognise unsustainable behaviours in the upstream side of the supply chain. Hence, the firm might be pushed to implement sustainable practices with its suppliers. Similarly, each stakeholder along the supply chain could watch out for unsustainable scandals that might lead to loss of reputation and even loss of customers’ confidence. Therefore, it can be said that supply chain transparency may possibly be a driver of sustainable practices.

This paper researches the effects of supply chain transparency on the adoption of upstream, internal and downstream sustainable supply chain practices. The study focuses on how supply chain transparency pressures firms to adopt different types of sustainability practices. This research seeks to answer the following research question: Does supply chain transparency

motivate the adoption of upstream, internal and downstream sustainable supply chain practices? The research question will be answered by means of survey methodology. By

answering this research question, the aim is to make the following contributions: Firstly, this is one of the first studies to examine the impact of supply chain transparency on sustainable supply chain practices. Secondly, this research adds to the limited studies about analysing DSSCP. Finally, the findings of the study could provide a basis for understanding sustainable supply chain management, so that managers can extend and reshape current views about how to manage sustainable practices by using supply chain transparency in order to improve competitive advantages.

(6)

recommendations for further research. Finally, conclusions and managerial implications are presented.

Theoretical foundation

Sustainable supply chain management

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) includes a firm’s plans and activities that integrate environmental and social issues into supply chain management (SCM) in order to improve its environmental and social performance, as well as that of its suppliers and customers, without compromising its economic performance (Seuring & Muller, 2008; Pagell & Gobeli, 2009). This paper mainly uses the above definition to integrate the entire supply chain within the concept of sustainability. Other studies also support this definition. Carter and Rogers (2008) defined SSCM as ‘the strategic, transparent integration and achievement of an organization’s social, environmental, and economic goals in the systemic coordination of key inter-organizational business processes for improving the long-term economic performance of the individual company and its supply chains’. These authors also focus on the cooperation of individual company with its supply chain to achieve the sustainable goal. Furthermore, a definition proposed by Seuring and Muller (2008) describes SSCM as ‘the management of material, information and capital flows as well as cooperation among companies along the supply chain while taking goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development’. In sustainable supply chains, sustainable criteria must be fulfilled together by the members within the supply chain. Seuring and Gold (2013) reviewed 300 papers published in the past 15 years about the topic of sustainability in the supply chain, summarising that effective integration of sustainability into industries requires action beyond organisational boundaries across the whole supply chain. From these definitions, the upstream and downstream components of the supply chain are important factors with respect to a firm’s sustainable development.

(7)

Sustainable supply chain practices (internal, external to

downstream, external to upstream)

Table 1 Examples of sustainable supply chain practices

In order to design a sustainable supply chain, organisations should have internal sustainable supply chain practices at the company level, and extend sustainability to upstream and downstream partners from the supply chain perspective. Such extension upstream and downstream influences – and is influenced by – the company’s efforts to improve economic, environmental and social responsibility (Kucht, 2015). Companies seek opportunities from the adoption of these sustainability practices to gain marketing and competitive advantages, increase employee retention and improve reputation (Walker et al., 2008).

Regarding ISSCP, Koho et al. (2011) determined that the seven most critical environmental and economic aspects for sustainable practices are as follows: assessment of business impact on ecosystems, standard measures for evaluating sustainability performance, reduction in energy intensity of goods and services, reduction in waste and emissions, use of renewable and sustainable energy resources, maximum use and reuse of recycled components and materials, and environmental consciousness pervading the culture of an organisation. Social sustainable practices involve areas such as human rights safeguarding, fair labour practices and employee health, safety and wellness preservation (Giudice, 2015; Cefic, 2010). These practices can help shed light on antecedents of ISSCP, and tests whether supply chain transparency as a driver can motivate ISSCP.

Gimenez and Tachizawa (2012) divide USSCP into two aspects: assessment and collaboration. Assessment refers to any activity related to evaluating suppliers (e.g. questionnaires and company visits), while collaboration entails working directly with suppliers and providing them with training, support or other activities (Large & Gimenez,

Examples of Sustainable supply chain practice

ISSCP

Measure and assess of business impact on ecosystems; evaluate own sustainability performance; reduce in energy intensity of goods and service; reduce in waste and emissions; use of renewable and sustainable energy resources; maximum use and reuse of recycled components and materials; environmental consciousness pervading the culture of an organization (Koho et al. , 2011)

USSCP

Company visits; assess suppliers’ sustainability performance; perform sustainability audits; sustainability evaluation; joint efforts with supplier to improve our sustainability performance; provide training related to sustainability practices (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012)

DSSCP

(8)

2011). These practices assist in examining potential drivers of USSCP.

In terms of DSSCP, the research of Pereseina et al. (2014) showed the sustainable efforts of firms through choosing logistics providers who can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other chemicals of concern in order realise the sustainability goal. Companies can attempt to convince customers to participate in sustainable practices by offering them small benefits (Kronenberg & Bergier, 2010). Transportation modes, logistics providers and customers are all important parties in downstream processes. Therefore, DSSCP includes the activities of these three parties. Extending sustainable practices to downstream requires the assessment and audit of environmental issues regarding transportation modes and logistics providers, joint efforts with logistics providers to improve sustainability performance, training/education in sustainability issues for logistics providers and customers (SGS, 2014), cleaner and less noisy transportation modes in distribution (Zhao et al., 2016) and appropriate disposal, component recovery and disassembly processes (Gupta & Veerakamolmal, 1996). For example, a global chemical company developed a low-emission distribution route whereby the company could compensate its distribution providers for using clean energy (Foerstl et al., 2010). These practices are also helpful to study potential enablers of DSSCP.

In conclusion, it is necessary to examine the drivers of internal, upstream and downstream sustainable practices. Identifying these drivers can be useful in order to develop and manage sustainable practices.

Drivers of sustainable supply chain practices

According to the research of Faisal (2010), understanding the connections between a range of drivers can help transform a supply chain into a truly sustainable entity, and this entails the effective adoption of sustainable practices in the supply chain. Marshall et al. (2005) and Chahal and Sharma (2006) identify both external and internal drivers of sustainable supply chain implementation. Internal enablers cover components within firm, whereas external enablers concern aspects beyond the firm’s boundaries (Gimenez & Tachizawa, 2012). External drivers consist of customers’ demand for such products, pressures from investors, community groups, the public and competitors, and compliance with regulations (Nilakantan, 2013; Walker et al., 2008). Internal drivers are connected to managerial thoughts, employees’ demands, organisational culture, internal pressure on business managers and social development activities (Haigh & Jones, 2006). In comparison, internal drivers come from factors within corporate management. The internal business environment includes aspects within the company that impact the success and approach of operations. Unlike the external environment, the company has control over these drivers. This paper only focuses on the internal drivers of sustainable supply chain practices. However, while a range of internal drivers has been investigated, supply chain structure is largely neglected, specifically with respect to supply chain transparency. The forms of interaction between supply chain partners have important implications, and cannot be neglected (Awaysheh & Klassen, 2010). Thus, supply chain transparency is the specific dimension that should be studied as an internal antecedent of sustainable practices.

Supply chain transparency

(9)

important, as consumers expect to receive information about the origin of products and services (Kassahun et al., 2016). Ortiz and Crowther (2008) use an empirical sample to verify that supply chain transparency can bring better social, ecological and operational performance, and build long-term relationship success.

Transparency goes beyond gaining visibility into the extended supply chain. It is the process through which a company takes action on the insights gained through greater visibility (Linich, 2014). Furthermore, transparency also stands for an approach to transfer power from the firm to its stakeholders by reducing the information asymmetry between these actors and allowing stakeholders to make informed evaluations of the firms’ products (Ortiz & Crowther, 2008; Chapman, 1995). In addition, transparency can help anticipate risk and strengthen the chain (New, 2010). Firstly, traceability is essential for firms seeking to measure the environmental footprint of their products. Secondly, transparency is a safeguard against the entry of counterfeit components and materials into the supply chain (New, 2010).

Egels-Zandén et al. (2015) conducted research on Swedish garment retailer Nudie Jeans, which attempted to become ‘the most transparent company in the world and build an empirical basis on the supply chain transparency’. The company recognise three dimensions of supply chain transparency as disclosure of information about supplier names, conditions of suppliers and buyers’ purchasing practices. Nudie’s increased transparency can certainly become a way to transfer power to stakeholders and allow stakeholders to hold Nudie accountable for sustainability conditions in its supply chains (Dingwerth & Eichinger, 2010; Fung, 2013; Ortiz & Crowther, 2008). Carter and Rogers (2008) also identify transparency as a facilitator of SSCM in aspects of engaging and communicating with key partners, and introducing traceability and visibility into upstream and downstream practices.

Gallo and Christensen (2011) stated a positive belief in the potential of supply chain transparency in relation to sustainability. Supply chain transparency is seen as allowing independent organisations to monitor sustainability conditions at the point of production and verify firms’ sustainability claims (Laudal, 2010). Firms with visible brand names might be expected to actively participate in order to safeguard against unexpected criticism of practices in their supply chains, which in turn can harm the value of their brands. Furthermore, the internet and media encourage quick publicity of scandals, and end users will react rapidly after questionable behaviour is identified (Tapscott & Ticoll, 2003). That is to say, when customers select products, they are more likely to select the brand without negative information. A firm’s reputation would drive it to measure its own business impact on production, further evaluate its own sustainability performance and then push it to use cleaner manufacturing machinery and resources. In other words, ender-user recognition of brand names could motivate company to remain aware of clean and safe manufacturing processes, which are internal sustainable practices. Thus, the effects of supply chain transparency on ISSCP are expected to be positive:

H1. Supply chain transparency is positively associated with internal sustainable supply chain practices.

(10)

reduction of information asymmetries between customers and suppliers, which raises the likelihood of detecting shortages in suppliers’ sustainability claims. Currently, however, customers are not the only ones who have a limited view of supply chains; some companies themselves also cannot answer many questions about the origins and pathways of the goods they source. The international clothing retailer H&M faces this problem and declares that it strives to improve labour practices and minimise the adverse environmental effects of not only its suppliers, but its suppliers’ suppliers, directly back along the chain (New, 2010). That is to say, when the end user knows the types of raw materials and from where these raw materials are sourced, he will be easily aware of unsustainable behaviours in the upstream side of the supply chain. In addition, the media and the public are likely to influence the extent to which a firm actively develops socially responsible supplier practices (Graafland, 2002). These all drive firms to implement sustainable practice with suppliers. Such firms visit companies, assess suppliers’ sustainability performance and join efforts with suppliers to improve suppliers’ sustainability performance. These kinds of practices push suppliers to focus more on the manufacturing process and self-evaluate their sustainability. Subsequently, all of the above-mentioned aspects indicate that a positive relationship may exist between supply chain transparency and upstream sustainable practices:

H2. Supply chain transparency is positively associated with upstream sustainable supply chain practices.

Global production systems have global ecological impacts on the downstream of a specific manufacturer (O’Rourke, 2014). Thus, the degree to which components of supply chains are transparent is likely to influence the extent of transparency in downstream practices (Graafland, 2002). Bastian and Zentes (2013) have verified the positive relationship between transparency and customer sustainability. Within the supply chain structure, the final products or information are delivered through the transportation mode and logistics providers to the customers, who are both important participants in downstream practices. For example, when a specific food is found to contain a harmful substance, it is easier to trace which firm along the supply chain produced this problem. This could be because of unclean inventory conditions upon delivery or illegal behaviours by the logistics provider. The transparent supply chain structure pushes downstream partners to assess and evaluate their sustainable practices, processes and performance. Collectively, as the degree of supply chain transparency increases, a focal firm is more likely to develop DSSCP:

H3. Supply chain transparency is positively associated with downstream sustainable supply chain practices.

(11)

Figure 1 Conceptual modal

Method

Samples

(12)

managers are familiar with the sustainability and social practices of the organisation. This purposeful sampling was used to achieve external validity and also to contribute to the generalisation of the results (Cook et al., 1979).

An initial invitation survey link was sent to a total of 147 companies via email or social media. Other researcher sent to 69 companies and I contacted 78 companies. As a result, 93 responses were obtained (52 respondents from another researcher and 41 from me). Afterwards, through checking the data completeness and effectiveness, seven respondents were removed because of obvious conflicts, repetition or low survey completion rate. In the end, only 86 respondents were available for subsequent analysis. The data collection resulted in an effective response rate of 58%. According to Mitchell (1993), there should be at least 10 observations for each variable. In this study, there are four variables of my constructs, and the requirement for the sample size is therefore satisfied since the quantity of effective responses is 86. Finally, checking the existence of missing data revealed only 28 missing responses, which were replaced with the corresponding average values. On the basis of data completeness, the logic of the data is verified. In addition, the early and late respondents may pose a threat to the validity of results. A total of 40 earliest and 40 latest respondents were grouped to conduct comparisons(Lindner et al.,2001). Following this, a one-way ANOVA analysis was performed on the control variables: firm turnover and amount of employee. The results were as follows: (1)turnover: F=0.969, p=0.418>0.05 (2)amount of employee: F=0.713, p=0.588>0.05. Based on the p-value, there is no significant difference between these responses. Therefore, non-response bias is not considered a problem with the data.

(13)

Table 2 Description of samples

Position N Percent

CEO 17 19.8

Manager of Environmental Department 4 4.7 Manager of Operations Department 35 40.7

Plant Manager 20 23.3

Quality manager 1 1.2

Others 9 10.5

Total 86 100

Key customer location

China 74 86 China, US,EU 1 1.2 Germany 1 1.2 Japan 1 1.2 Korea 1 1.2 Tailand 1 1.2 Taiwan 1 1.2 US 2 2.3 US,Korea, Singapore,Taiwan 1 1.2 US& China 1 1.2 Others 2 2.3 Total 86 100 Job year 2-5 12 14 5-10 40 46.5 10-15 19 22.1 15-20 6 7 > 20 9 10.5 Total 86 100

Total annual sales

< 10M € 14 16.3 > 10M - 20M € 12 14 > 20M - 50M € 31 36 > 50M - 100M € 12 14 >100M € 17 19.8 Total 86 100 Number of employees 11 – 50 5 5.8 51 - 100 13 15.1 101 - 500 37 43 > 500 31 36 Total 86 100

Industry Frequency Percent

Apparel and other finished products

made from fabrics and similar materials 1 1.2

Car manufacture 3 3.5

Chemicals and allied products 26 30.2

Electrical equipment manufacturers 2 2.3 Electronic and electrical equipment and

components 27 31.4

Food industry 8 9.3

Leather and leather products 1 1.2

Machinery manufacture 2 2.3

Pharmaceutical Industry 2 2.3

Plastic and rubber manufacture 2 2.3

Textile manufacture 5 5.9

Others 7 8.1

(14)

Procedure

Data collection took place mainly within a two-month period, from the end of March to the middle of May in the year 2016. The survey was conducted through a famous Chinese online survey system (http://www.sojump.com/), which is one of the most professional survey sites in China. The main advantages of the Sojump survey system is that it controls for one IP address, one location and one account for only one item of the questionnaire at the same time, which can lead to high reliability.

Due to high utilisation of computers, a web-based survey approach was chosen. The reason for selecting an online survey is that data from web-based surveys can be easily imported into data analysis programmes. In addition, time and costs required for implementation can be reduced (Dillman, 2000). Another student and I used a different collection method. He paid for the Sojump data pool and sample service. Sojump has its own database throughout whole industries and can ensure the sources of the collected data. The investigated persons registered on the website and filled in their own specific information. In order to control sample quality, Sojump verifies respondents’ information and updates their personal details, such as gender, age, position, industry etc. Specifying the 13 determined industries and requiring that respondents were plant managers placed the investigated persons within a controllable scope. Our data were collected through relationships of parents or friends, who directly phoned and messaged these individuals and invited them to fill out the questionnaire through Sojump links. To ensure the quality of sample, these respondents were known as plant managers or equivalent in the 13 industries. To check for differences between these two collection methods, an independent sample T-test was performed on the control variable (supply chain transparency). The results were as follows: (1) turnover: F = 2.231, p = 0.139 > 0.05, t (84)=0.438; (2) amount of employee: F = 0.175, p = 0.677 > 0.05, t (84)=0.213. There is no significant difference between the responses; therefore, bias between these two methods is not considered a problem with the data. Thus, to a certain degree, the reliability of the collected data can be assured.

Measurement development

Scale for the constructs

In the questionnaire, all questions for each factor were derived and adapted from concept definitions in the literature to obtain initial content validity. The specific citations are shown in Appendix. Among the four variables, two had been used in previous research. To ensure reliability, all questions utilised the same scale, which was a 5-Likert scale ranging from lower values (lower level of adoption/ disagree/ not aware) to higher values (higher level of adoption/ agree/ fully aware). Appendix explains what each specific item represents in the construct.

Internal sustainable supply chain practices (ISSCP)- seven items derived from Koho et al.

(15)

Upstream sustainable supply chain practices (USSCP)- this construct was operationalised by

six items derived from Large and Gimenez (2011). These six items of upstream sustainable supply chain practices were measured by different items in terms of collaboration and assessment, respectively. A sample item is ‘we assess our suppliers’ sustainability performance through formal evaluation, using established guidelines and procedures’. Responses were given on a five- point scale ranging from 1 (None) to 5 (High). Three items are dropped because of cross loading.

Downstream sustainable supply chain practices (DSSCP)- The seven items measuring

DSSCP were adapted from Gupta and Veerakamolmal (1996), Zhao et al. (2016) and SGS (2014) in relation to logistics providers and customers’ sustainable supply chain practices. A sample item is ‘our company employs cleaner transportation modes in distribution’. Responses were given on a five- point scale ranging from 1 (None) to 5 (High). Four items are dropped because of cross loading.

Supply Chain Transparency (SCT) - The six items were derived from Awaysheh and Klassen

(2010). SCT in this study was operationalised by employing the individual thoughts or perceptions of managers on supply chain transparency from an end-user view (Gimenez & Ventura, 2005). To reflect this aspect, the statement and explanation before this group of questions was as follows: ‘This section refers to supply chain transparency and visibility from the end-user point of view. The end-user is defined as the end customer that purchases and uses/consumes the product (the final link in the supply chain). For your primary product, please indicate the extent to which the end user is aware’. A sample item is ‘how our product is manufactured’. Responses were given on a five- point scale ranging from 1 (Not aware) to 5 (Fully aware). One item is dropped because of cross loading.

The questionnaire was pre-checked several times by professionals who have extensive knowledge in this field, in order to refine the content validity. To avoid any resistance from respondents, the questionnaire was made as short and clear as possible. Since the survey was conducted in China, this also involved translation from English to Chinese. All specialised terminologies were translated by checking with literature or a professional database. An additional professional Chinese teacher checked the translated version to ensure that it was accurate and understandable.

Factor analysis and reliability

The first step was to conduct a factor analysis to define the fundamental constructs underlying our original indicators. To check the data’s completeness and adequacy, a KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) test was performed to measure the sampling adequacy. The results are shown in Table 3. The value of the KMO test is 0.706> 0.6, which indicates adequate sampling. Meanwhile, relationships between items were measured from the results of Bartlett’s Test. The p-value of Bartlett’s test is 0.000< 0.001, which indicates correlated items for each factor. Therefore, the sample of all four factors of this research is adequate, and selected items are mutually correlated.

(16)

Rotated Component Matrix from SPSS output showed that each variable had at least three items, with each item loading onto only one specific factor (no cross-loadings). Therefore, from the results of the factor analysis, the samples of this research are adequate, and selected items are mutually correlated.

Finally, the reliability of the constructs was measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Reliability concerns the extent to which the observed items that measure a latent variable relate to one another in a consistent manner (Karlsson, 2010). From results of Table 3, the value of Corrected Item-Total Correlation of all items are greater than 0.3, which indicates a reliable scale in which all items of corresponding variables correlate with the scale overall. In addition, all α-values of the four factors are larger than 0.6 (0.615, 0.742, 0.734 and 0.857, respectively). Most Cronbach’s alpha vales are larger than 0.7, while internal sustainable supply chain practices (0.615) is larger than the minimum recommended figure (0.6) (Nunnally, 1988). Therefore, these values represent acceptable internal consistency of items.

Table 3 Factor analysis

Data analysis

The objective of this study was to analyse the impact of supply chain transparency on achieving sustainable supply management practices. Since the good evidence of construct validity and reliability, the four variables that represent constructs of this study are computed from the 14 items. From the conceptual model, supply chain transparency is independent variable, and internal sustainable supply chain practice, upstream sustainable supply chain practice, downstream sustainable supply chain practice are dependent variables. Linear regression is carried out to analyse the average composites for independent and dependent variables. Turnover and amount of employees are also added in the test as control variables in accordance with previous research (e.g. Sancha et al., 2015).

Factor analysis(KMO=0.706, Barlett's test P=0.00, 64.6% of total variance)

Component factors,items and asscociated indicators Standarized _{factor loading}

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbac h's Alpha 3 Internal sustanable supply chain practices(ISSCP) 0.615

ISSCP1:Our company has energy consumption reduction programs 0.738 0.384 ISSCP2:Our company has waste recycling programs 0.734 0.431 ISSCP3:Our company has formal occupational health and safety management

systems 0.732 0.472

3 Downstream sustanable supply chain practices(DSSCP) 0.742 DSSCP1:Our company employs cleaner transportation modes in distribution 0.722 0.532 DSSCP2:Our company employs less noisy transportation modes in

distribution 0.819 0.631

DSSCP3:Our company offers training/education in sustainability issues to our

customers 0.792 0.552

3 Upstream sustanable supply chain practices(USSCP) 0.734 USSCP1:We assess our suppliers’ sustainability performance through formal

evaluation, using established guidelines and procedures 0.606 0.458 USSCP2:We visit our suppliers’ premises (e.g., factories) to help them

improve their sustainability performance (e.g., provide advice and share know-how about sustainability issues)

0.769 0.631 USSCP3:We make joint efforts with our supplier to improve our sustainability

performance 0.897 0.596

5 Supply Chain Transparency(SCT) 0.857

SCT1:How our product is manufactured 0.814 0.689 SCT2:The type of raw materials that go into the product 0.803 0.692 SCT3:Where the raw materials are sourced 0.841 0.704 SCT4:The structure of our supply chain 0.829 0.749 SCT5:The name of the company that manufactures the product 0.621 0.543 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

(17)

Results

Descriptive Statistics of Variables

The descriptive statistics results of these four variables are shown as Table 4. And from the value of correlations between constructs, there was a significant positive relationship between internal sustainable supply chain practice (ISSP) and independent variable (SCT), r = 0.229, p < 0.05. And the correlation between dependent variable (USSP) and independent variable (SCT) was significant positive as well (r = 0.328, p< 0.01). Meanwhile, the correlation matrix also shows that dependent variable ISSP and DSSP are significantly related with an increase (r =0.276, p <0.01). Finally, the control variable, turnover and amount of employee were positively correlated with ISSCP in a significant way.

Table 4 Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics

Linear regression

Using linear regression analysis, the direct relationships between the variables were tested. In turn, the hypothesised relationships were verified as well.

Table 5 presents the results of the regression analysis for hypothesis 1. Model 1 indicates that the firm turnover had a significant and positive effect on ISSCP (p<0.05, R2 = 0.225), and the number of employees had no significant on ISSCP (p>0.05, R2 = 0.225). These two variables account for 22.5% of the variation in ISSCP. Model 2 shows that supply chain transparency had a significant effect on ISSCP (B =0.262, p<0.05, R2 =0.299). This means that an increase of supply chain transparency led to an increase of 0.262 in a firm’s ISSCP. This increase is significant. Since R-squared represents the explained variance, it can be stated that the combination of firm turnover, number of employees and supply chain transparency accounts for 29.9% of the variation in internal sustainable supply chain practices. This result confirms hypothesis 1: Supply chain transparency is positively associated with internal sustainable supply chain practices.

(Mean,SD) ISSCP DSSCP USSCP SCT Turnover Amount of employee Pearson Correlation ISSCP (4.00, 0.73)

DSSCP (3.87, 0.70) 0.276**

USSCP (4.12, 0.61) 0.119 0.376**

SCT (3.93, 0.76) 0.229* 0.172 0.328**

Turnover (3.07, 1.32) 0.471** 0.134 0.085 -0.066

Amount of employee (4.09, 0.86) 0.389** 0.119 0.106 -0.138 0.739** ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

(18)

Table 5 Regression analysis for internal sustainable supply chain practices

Table 6 presents the results of the regression analysis for hypothesis 2. Firstly, model 1 shows that turnover and number of employees had no significant effect on upstream sustainable supply chain practices (p>0.05, R2 _{= 0.011). Model 2 indicates that supply chain transparency} had a significant positive effect on USSCP (B=0.281, p<0.01, R2 =0.13). This means that an increase in supply chain transparency led to an increase of 0.281 in a firm’s USSCP. This increase is also significant. Since R-squared represents the explained variance, it can be concluded that the combination of firm turnover, number of employees and supply chain transparency account for 13% of the variation in upstream sustainable supply chain practices. This result confirms hypothesis 2: Supply chain transparency is positively associated with upstream sustainable supply chain practices.

Table 6 Regression analysis for upstream sustainable supply chain practices

Table 7 presents the results of the regression analysis for hypothesis 3. Model 1 indicates that firm turnover and number of employees had no significant on downstream sustainable supply chain practices ( p>0.05, R2 = 0.019). Model 2 shows that supply chain transparency had no significant effect on DSSCP (B=0.174 p>0.05, R2 =0.054). Supply chain transparency was not found to have a relationship with DSSCP. The combination of firm turnover, amount of employees and supply chain transparency account for 5.4% of the variation in downstream sustainable supply chain practices. This result rejects hypothesis 3: Supply chain

Step and variables B SE B SE Intercept 3,002** 0.362 1,824** 0.530 Control Turnover 0.223* 0.079 0.211* 0.076 Amount of employee 0.075 0.121 0.121 0.117 Main effects Internal 0.262** 0.089 R Square 0.225 0.299 Adjusted R Square 0.207 0.273 R Square Change 0.225 0.074** *Significant at the 0.05 level

**Significant at the 0.01 level ***Significant at the 0.001 level

Model 1 Model 2

Step and variables B SE B SE Intercept 3,824** 0.344 2,560** 0.497 Control Turnover 0.008 0.075 -0.005 0.071 Amount of employee 0.066 0.115 0.115 0.109 Main effects Upstream 0.281** 0.084 R Square 0.011 0.131 Adjusted R Square -0.013 0.099 R Square Change 0.011 0.120** *Significant at the 0.05 level

(19)

transparency is positively associated with downstream sustainable supply chain practices.

Table 7 Regression analysis for downstream sustainable supply chain practices

Discussion

The results reveal that when studying the drivers of sustainable supply chain practices, it is necessary to consider supply chain structure, especially in terms of supply chain transparency. According to the output of SPSS, supply chain transparency was found to have a significant positive influence on the internal and upstream sustainable supply chain practices, but was not persuasive in promoting downstream sustainable supply chain practices. Thus, the structure of this discussion section firstly focuses on the results in relation to the impact of transparency on sustainable supply chain practices. And then independently discuss the potential limitation and further suggestions on supply chain transparency.

Supply chain transparency and internal sustainable supply chain

practices

Based on the results of the regression in this study, supply chain transparency is positively associated with internal sustainable supply chain practices. In fact, the previous studies also indicate positive results regarding to the impact of transparency on the internal sustainable practices. Drivdal (2015) found that companies should disclose more information on how corporate social responsibility and sustainability are integrated into the company and whole supply chain when becoming more transparent, and then pushes firms to pursue and supervise their practices in a more sustainable way. In addition, exposure to a greater degree of information among end-users helps to establish product specifications that are compatible with new pollution prevention technologies, which help the formation of process modifications with new and less harmful inputs (Vachon & Klassen, 2006). These research results are all in line with our findings. From a practical point of view, there is also an example to confirm our results. After the Nokia Leadership Team decided to approve sustainability and transparent information as part of the strategic planning process, the company started with environmental-friendly manufacturing by purchasing biodegradable and

Step and variables B SE B SE Intercept 3.557 0.395 2.772 0.597 Control Turnover 0.054 0.086 0.046 0.085 Amount of employee 0.036 0.132 0.067 0.131 Main effects Downstream 0.174 0.101 R Square 0.019 0.054 Adjusted R Square -0.005 0.019 R Square Change 0.019 0.035 *Significant at the 0.05 level

(20)

recycled materials. Since 2007, the firm has struggled to make ‘sustainable devices’, and all materials used in these kinds of sustainable devices are then rused through collection of e-waste (SCRC Team 5, 2012). Based on the theoretical and practical evidence, supply chain transparency will motivate firms to participate in internal sustainable practices.

Supply chain transparency and upstream sustainable supply

chain practices

The results of this study revealed that an increase of supply chain transparency also led to an increase in a firm’s upstream sustainable supply chain practices. We found the relationships like expected. Five previous studies looked at the same questions (Large & Gimenez, 2011; Sancha et al., 2015; Krause et al., 2000; Bowen et al., 2001; Dhawan et al., 2010) and they were all in line with our results. Dhawan et al. (2010) argued that lack of visibility in the supply chain leads to obvious problems such as sub-contracting or even contracting directly to suppliers with poor health and safety standards, or implementing detrimental environmental practices. This results in limited visibility over what takes place beyond the first tier, and can hide potential risks. In contrast, full visibility and transparency in the supply chain can help companies to prioritise addressing these problems as part of sustainability goals (Corporate Citizenship, 2013). However, despite the attention around certifications, some companies still do not engage in any form of supply chain transparency, do not know where their raw materials originate and certainly do not make information available to the general public. Transparency can be a good strategy for encouraging compliance down the supply chain, and is one solution for manufacturers to encourage other manufacturers through pressure to implement sustainability measures (Dhawan et al., 2010). Supply chain transparency reinforces conceptual shifts, thus causing upstream partners to be more willing to adhere to sustainable practices.

Altogether, it can be concluded that supply chain transparency can be a driver of upstream sustainable supply chain practices. Although our results provide important explanations for the relationship between transparency and upstream practices, our research is not without limitation. First, the adoption of upstream sustainable practices was analysed only for the first-tier suppliers, and not the entire supply base. In Large and Gimenez’s (2011) research, the test covered all tiers of suppliers and the Cronbach’s alpha was larger than 0.8, signifying better internal consistency. Further research could include more external partners, such as lower-tier suppliers, and could measure different partners’ upstream sustainable practices. Second, following previous literature on the extension of sustainability to upstream partners, we only focused on several types of practices. It is acknowledged that firms may adopt different kinds of upstream practices in sustainability. Other literature also suggests that many companies implement the following supplier practices: supplier assessment tools, codes of conduct and collaboration with suppliers (Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen, 2009). Further research could include codes of conduct as the measurement of upstream sustainable supply chain practices. In line with this, it is also important to bear in mind that as suggested by Parmigiani et al. (2011), the assessment of a multitude of suppliers’ practices by a firm can become more difficult, and hence diminish its effectiveness. Therefore, the results must be interpreted in the context in which a firm implements these practices with the key suppliers from different tiers.

(21)

We hypothesized direct effect of supply chain transparency on the downstream supply chain practices. In the sustainable supply chain management literatures, the scarce research that has considered the relationship between transparency and downstream practices. Only one previous study found a relationship between transparency and a part of downstream practice, namely, customers (Bastian& Zentes, 2013). In our study, we test the neglected relationship between transparency and different partners within downstream process. However, our results are in contrast to expectation. We pose several explanations for the non-significance of this hypothesised effect. Firstly, the possible reason for no significance could be the lack of awareness of downstream sustainable supply chain practices in China. Not many companies extend supply chain practices to the downstream, or they do not consider the significant role of their downstream partners. Pereseina et al. (2014) collected empirical data through interviewing with the company’s representatives and its downstream supply chain members in Sweden and China, as well as workshops with the logistics industry’s representatives. Then this paper compared China’s and Sweden’s current downstream sustainability situations, finding that Sweden’s government is highly aware of sustainability issues and both consumers and firms in the supply chain are more accepting of environmental and social requirements. In comparison, the research claimed that China was more focused on short-term cost. Authorities and end-consumers are the only actors that are truly concerned with sustainable outcomes. Since most supply chain members in China are focused on the economic outcomes, it becomes very difficult for downstream individual firms to make significant changes that create improved sustainable results. Different countries have different national conditions. The same industry in a different country could have different opinions on sustainability, which in turn lead to different results. We found that the data of Bastian and Zentes (2013) was collected in German, Austrian and Swiss and their research verified this relationship. In the future, the same test can be tried with data from other countries, and the significant result may be verified. Secondly, this paper tests the direct relationship between transparency and downstream practices and found the result is not significant. However, transparency may have an indirect relation with downstream practice, through involving the third variable. That is to say, some moderator or mediator between two items may exist. Kumar and Rahman (2015) also draw the conclusion that external pressure and benefits of sustainability adoption is the main motivator that drives top management to adopt sustainability. Further research could add a moderator or mediator to test the relationship again, which may lead to a significant relationship.

(22)

Potential limitation and future suggestions on supply chain

transparency

All in all, supply chain transparency could be a driver of internal and upstream sustainable supply chain practices, and could motivate firms to participate in internal and upstream sustainable supply chain practices. However, the relationship between transparency and downstream practices is not verified. One potential limitation can be considered. Supply chain transparency and visibility are analysed from the end-user point of view. However, respondents came from the managerial level of manufacturing firms. This means that these managers were asked about their perceptions with respect to supply chain transparency. Perception is the identification and interpretation of information in order to represent and understand the environment (Schacter et al., 2011). Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but is shaped by learning, memory, expectation and attention (Bernstein, 2010). That is to say, managers’ perceptions come from their own identification and interpretation of supply chain transparency. In further research, the control variable and measurement can include the code of conduct and policies selected from firm published documents. This would allow for the testing of whether a manager’s perception is in line with the firm’s mission and vision. Another approach is also recommended, since transparency is measured from the view of end-user. If possible, a small survey could be added to reflect the real thoughts of main customers, which can avoid the subjective opinions of managers.

(23)

Conclusion

The objective of this study was to analyse the effectiveness of supply chain transparency on achieving sustainable supply management practices (i.e. internal sustainable supply chain practices, upstream sustainable supply chain practices and downstream sustainable supply chain practices). This research confirmed two of the three hypotheses. According to the output of linear regression, we found that supply chain transparency is positively related to the adoption of on internal and upstream sustainable supply management practices, whereas has no direct relationship with downstream sustainable supply chain practices. Some potential reasons for the non-significance of this hypothesised effect are given.

(24)

Reference

Andersen, M. and Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 75-86. Alzawawi, M. (2013), “Drivers and obstacles for creating sustainable supply chain management and operations”, 1–8.

Awaysheh, A. and Klassen, R. D. (2010), “The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially responsible practices”, International Journal of Operations and Production

Management, 30(12), 1246-1268.

Bandura, A. (2007), “Impeding ecological sustainability through selective moral disengagement”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2(1),

8-35.

Bastian, J. and Zentes, J. (2013), “Supply chain transparency as a key prerequisite for sustainable agri-food supply chain management”, The International Review of Retail,

Distribution and Consumer Research, 23(5), 553-570.

Bernstein, B. (2010), “A public language: some sociological implications of a linguistic form”, The British journal of sociology, 61(s1), 53-69.

Beulens, A. J. M., D.-F. Broens, P. Folstar, and G. J. Hofstede. 2005. “Food Safety and Transparency in Food Chains and Networks Relationships and Challenges.” Food Control, 16 (6): 481–486.

Carroll, A. B. and Shabana, K. M. (2010), “The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice”, International journal of management reviews, 12(1), 85-105.

Carter, C. R. and Rogers, D. S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory”, International journal of physical distribution &

logistics management, 38(5), 360-387.

Chahal, H. and Sharma, R. D. (2006), “Implications of corporate social responsibility on marketing performance: A conceptual framework”, Journal of Services Research, 6(1), 205. Chkanikova, O. and Mont, O. (2015), “Corporate supply chain responsibility: drivers and barriers for sustainable food retailing”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, 22(2), 65-82.

Chen, I. J. and Paulraj, A. (2004), “Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements”, Journal of operations management, 22(2), 119-150.

Chkanikova, O. and Mont, O. (2015), “Corporate supply chain responsibility: drivers and barriers for sustainable food retailing”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

(25)

Chapman, J. (1995), “Transparency? What Transparency? Business Ethics” , A European

Review 4(3), 139-142.

Corporate Citizenship. (2013), “Supply chain sustainability shift -embedding sustainability into supply chain management”.

Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. and Day, A. (1979), “ Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings ”, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Vol. 351.

Dillman, D. A. (2000) , “Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method”, New York:

Wiley, Vol. 2.

Dhawan, E., Goodman, E., Harris, S. and Mitchell, C. (2010), “ Unilever and its Supply Chain  : Embracing Radical Transparency to Implement Sustainability”.

Dubbink, W. (2007), “Transparency gained, morality lost”, Business and Society

Review, 112(2), 287-313.

Drivdal, B., Lars, S. and Tynes, J. (2015), “ Transparency and the sustainability reporting practice of Norwegian Companies”.

Cefic. (2010), “Sustainable business solutions”.

Dingwerth, K. and Eichinger, M. (2010), “Tamed transparency: How information disclosure under the Global Reporting Initiative fails to empower”, Global Environmental

Politics, 10(3), 74-96.

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I. and Serafeim, G. (2012), “The impact of a corporate culture of sustainability on corporate behavior and performance”, National Bureau of Economic

Research, No. W17950.

Egels-Zandén, N., Hulthén, K. and Wulff, G. (2015), “Trade-offs in supply chain transparency: The case of Nudie Jeans Co”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 95-104.

Faisal, M.N. (2010), “Sustainable supply chains: a study of interaction among the enablers”,

Bus. Process Manag. J. 16 (3), 508-529.

Fung, A. (2013), “Infotopia: unleashing the democratic power of transparency”, Politics &

Society 41(2), 183-212.

Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E. and Blome, C. (2010), “Managing supplier sustainability risks in a dynamically changing environment – sustainable supplier management in the chemical industry”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 118-30.

Foerstl, K., Azadegan, A., Leppelt, T. and Hartmann, E. (2015) , “Drivers of supplier sustainability: Moving beyond compliance to commitment”, Journal of Supply Chain

(26)

Gallo, P. J. and Christensen, L. J. (2011), “Firm size matters: An empirical investigation of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors”, Business & Society,

0007650311398784.

Gimenez, C. and Tachizawa, E. M. (2012), “Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 531-543.

Girod, S. and Michael, B. (2003), “Branding in European retailing: a corporate social responsibility perspective”, European Retail Digest, 38(2), 1-6.

Giudice, Linda. (2015), “Social sustainability: valuing the people part of the triple bottom line”.

Girod, S. and Michael, B. (2003), “Branding in European retailing: a corporate social responsibility perspective”, European Retail Digest, 38(2), 1-6.

Graafland, J. J. (2002), “Sourcing ethics in the textile sector: the case of C&A”, Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(3), 282-294.

Haigh, M. and Jones, M. T. (2006), “The drivers of corporate social responsibility: A critical review”.

Karlsson, C. (2010), “ Researching operations management”, Routledge.

Kassahun, A., Hartog, R. J. M. and Tekinerdogan, B. (2016), “Realizing chain-wide transparency in meat supply chains based on global standards and a reference architecture”, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 123, 275-291.

Kolstad, I. and Wiig, A. (2009), “Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? ”, World Development, 37(3), 521-532.

Koho, M., Torvinen, S. and Romiguer, A. T. (2011), “Objectives, enablers and challenges of sustainable development and sustainable manufacturing: Views and opinions of Spanish companies”, Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM), 2011 IEEE International Symposium

on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Krosnick, J. A. and Presser, S. (2010), “Question and questionnaire design”, Handbook of

survey research, 2, 263-314.

Kronenberg, J. and Bergier, T. (2010), “Challenges of sustainable development in Poland”, Fundacja Sendzimira.

Kucht, C. J. (2015), “Integrated framework for managing sustainable supply chain practices”, (Vol. 30). Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.

Kuik, S.V., Nagalingam, Y. and Amer. (2010), “Challenges in implementing sustainable supply chain within a collaborative manufacturing network”, 8th International Conference on

(27)

Kumar, D. and Rahman, Z. (2015), “Sustainability adoption through buyer supplier relationship across supply chain: A literature review and conceptual framework”,

International Strategic Management Review, 3(1), 110-127.

Large, R.O. and Gimenez Thomsen, C. (2011), “Drivers of green supply management performance: evidence from Germany”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 176-84.

Laudal, T. (2010), “An attempt to determine the CSR potential of the international clothing business”, Journal of business ethics, 96(1), 63-77.

Lee, H.L. (2002), “Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties”, California

Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, p. 106.

Lieb, K. J. and Lieb, R. C. (2010), “Environmental sustainability in the third-party logistics (3PL) industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40, No. 7, pp. 524-533

Linich, D. (2014), “The path to supply chain transparency”, Deloitte University Press.

Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H. and Briers, G. E. (2001), “Handling nonresponse in social science research”, Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-53.

Large, R.O. and Gimenez Thomsen, C. (2011), “Drivers of green supply management performance: evidence from Germany”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 176-84.

Marshall, R., Cordano, M. and Silverman, M. (2005), “Exploring individual and institutional drivers of proactive environmentalism in the US wine industry”, Bus. Strategy Environ, 14 (2), 92-109.

New, S.J. (2004), “The ethical supply chain”, New, S. and Westbrook, R. (Eds),

Understanding Supply Chains: Concepts, Critiques and Futures, Oxford University Press,

Oxford, pp. 253-80.

Nike (2004), “Corporate Responsibility Report Fiscal Year 2004”, Nike, Beaverton, OR. Nilakantan, K. (2013), “Replenishment policies for warehouse systems under cyclic demand”,

Int. J. Bus. Perform. Supply Chain Model, 5 (2), 148-176.

Nunnally,J.(1988), “Psychometric theory”, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: McGraw-Hill

O’Rourke, D. (2014), “The science of sustainable supply chains”, Science (New York, N.Y.),

344(6188), 1124–7.

Ortiz Martinez, E. and Crowther, D. (2008), “Is disclosure the right way to comply with stakeholders? The Shell case”, Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 13-22.

(28)

Parmigiani, A., Klassen, R. D. and Russo, M. V. (2011), “Efficiency meets accountability: Performance implications of supply chain configuration, control, and capabilities”, Journal of

Operations Management, 29(3), 212-223.

Pereseina, V., Jensen, L. M., Hertz, S. and Cui, L. (2014), “Challenges and Conflicts in Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Evidence from the Heavy Vehicle Industry”,

In Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal , Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 22-32).

Pieters, R., Gloeckner, H. H. and Weijers, S.J.C.M. (2009), “Sustainability in logistics practice ”, University of Arnhem and Nijmegen, 1-9.

Reichert J, Larson A. (1998), “IKEA and the natural step”, Darden Business Publishing, p. 33.

Schacter, D. L., Guerin, S. A. and Jacques, P. L. S. (2011), “Memory distortion: An adaptive perspective”, Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(10), 467-474.

SCRC Team 5 (2012), “Industrial Manufacturing Industry Sustainability Report”, Supply

Chain Resource Cooperative.

Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production Vol. 16, No. 15, pp. 1699-1710

Seuring, S. and Gold, S. (2013), “Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries: from stakeholders to performance”, J. Clean. Prod, 56, 1-6.

Tapscott, D. and Ticoll, D. (2003), “The naked corporation: How the age of transparency will revolutionize business”, Simon and Schuster.

Van Der Zee, D.J. and van Der Vorst, J. (2005), “A modeling framework for supply chain simulation: opportunities for improved decision making”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 65-95.

Vachon, S. and Klassen, R. D. (2006), “Green project partnership in the supply chain: the case of the package printing industry”, Journal of Cleaner production, 14(6), 661-671.

Vachon, S. and Klassen, R. D. (2006), “Extending green practices across supply chain: Impact of upstream and downstream integration”, Journal of operation and production management, 26(7), 795-821.

Van Weele, A. J. (2009),“Purchasing and supply chain management: Analysis, strategy, planning and practice”, Cengage Learning EMEA.

Veerakamolmal, S. M. G. P. and Gupta, S. M. (1996),“Disassembly of products”, Boston,

MA.

Walker. H., Sisto. L. Di. and McBain. D. (2008), “Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: Lessons from the public and private sectors”, Journal of

(29)

Waldrop, M. M. (1993), “Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos”,

Simon and Schuster.

Xie, Y. and Allen, C. (2013), “Information technologies in retail supply chains: a comparison of Tesco and Asda”, Int. J. Bus. Perform. Supply Chain Model. 5 (1), 46-62.

Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G. and Premkumar, R. (2012), “Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in Malaysia: A survey”, International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 330-340.

Zhao, X., Mahendra, A., Godfrey, N., Dalkmann, H., Rode, P. and Floater, G. (2016),

“Unlocking the Power of Urban Transport Systems for Better Growth and a Better Climate”,

Social responsibility in the European chemical industry, 1–32.

(30)

Construct No Phase Source Internal Sustainable

Supply Chain Practices (ISSP)

ISSP1* Our company is environmentally certified (e.g.: EMAS or ISO 14001) Adapted from Koho et al. (2011) and Cefic (2010)

ISSP2* Our company is socially certified (e.g.: SA8000 or OHSAS 18000) ISSP3 Our company has energy consumption reduction programs ISSP4* Our company has water consumption reduction programs ISSP5* Our company has pollution emission reduction programs ISSP6 Our company has waste recycling programs

ISSP7 Our company has formal occupational health and safety management systems ISSP8* Our company has work-life balance policies

ISSP9* Our company supports our employees’ quality of life

ISSP10* Our company provides career development and promotion paths to our employees Dowstream Sustainable

Supply Chain Practices (DSSP)

DSSP1 Our company employs cleaner transportation modes in distribution

Adapted from Gupta and Veerakamolmal (1996), Zhao et al. (2016) and SGS (2016) DSSP2 Our company employs less noisy transportation modes in distribution

DSSP3* Our company assess our logistics provider’s sustainability performance (e.g., environmental _audits) DSSP4* Our company offers training/education in sustainability issues to our logistic provider DSSP5* Our company makes joint efforts with our logistic provider’s to improve their sustainability _performance DSSP6* Our company pursues appropriate disposal, component recovery, and disassembly processes DSSP7 Our company offers training/education in sustainability issues to our customers Upstream Sustainable

Supply Chain Practices (USSP)

USSP1 We assess our suppliers’ sustainability performance through formal evaluation, using established_{guidelines and procedures} Large and Gimenez(2011), Sancha et al.,(2015)

USSP2* We perform sustainability audits for our suppliers’ internal management systems USSP3* We provide our suppliers with feedback about the results of the sustainability evaluation USSP4* We provide training related to sustainability practices to our suppliers

USSP5 We visit our suppliers’ premises (e.g., factories) to help them improve their sustainability_{performance (e.g., provide advice and share know-how about sustainability issues)} USSP6 We make joint efforts with our supplier to improve our sustainability performance

Supply Chain

Transparency SCT1 How our product is manufactured Awaysheh and Klassen(2010) SCT2 The type of raw materials that go into the product

SCT3 Where the raw materials are sourced SCT4 The structure of our supply chain

SCT5 The name of the company that manufactures the product SCT6* Our brand name (product name)

The effects of Supply Chain Transparency on Adoption of Internal and External Sustainable Practice