Linking Sustainable Supplier Selection to Firm’s Sustainable Performance: The Moderated Mediating Role of Supplier Development and Leadership for Functional Integration
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Hypotheses Development
2.1. Mediating Role of Supplier Development in the Relationship between Supplier Selection and Sustainable Performance
2.2. Moderating Role of Leadership Support for Functional Integration
3. Methods and Results
3.1. Data Collection and Measurement
3.2. Reliability and Validity
3.3. Analysis Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications for Research
4.2. Implications for Practice
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rajeev, A.; Pati, R.K.; Padhi, S.S.; Govindan, K. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil-Doménech, D.; Magomedova, N.; Sánchez-Alcázar, E.J.; Lafuente-Lechuga, M. Integrating Sustainability in the Business Administration and Management Curriculum: A Sustainability Competencies Map. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taghikhah, F.; Voinov, A.; Shukla, N. Extending the supply chain to address sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 652–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, W.; Wang, Z. The Collaborative Networks and Thematic Trends of Research on Purchasing and Supply Management for Environmental Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wilding, R.; Wagner, B.; Gimenez, C.; Tachizawa, E.M. Extending sustainability to suppliers: A systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag. 2012, 17, 531–543. [Google Scholar]
- Alhaddi, H. Triple bottom line and sustainability: A literature review. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2015, 1, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koberg, E.; Longoni, A. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 1084–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciliberti, F.; de Groot, G.; de Haan, J.; Pontrandolfo, P. Codes to coordinate supply chains: SMEs’ experiences with SA8000. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2009, 14, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, J.G. Effects of a green purchasing strategy: The case of Belfast City Council. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2000, 5, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Large, R.O.; Thomsen, C.G. Drivers of green supply management performance: Evidence from Germany. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2011, 17, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D. Environmental management and manufacturing performance: The role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schliephake, K.; Stevens, G.; Clay, S. Making resources work more efficiently—The importance of supply chain partnerships. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1257–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borchardt, M.; Wendt, M.H.; Pereira, G.M.; Sellitto, M.A. Redesign of a component based on ecodesign practices: Environmental impact and cost reduction achievements. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, M.; Yang, M.G.; Park, Y.; Huo, B. Supply chain integration and its impact on sustainability. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2018, 118, 1749–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gimenez, C.; Sierra, V.; Rodon, J. Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, D.; Xiao, C.; Zhang, X.; Guo, Y. Gaining customer satisfaction through sustainable supplier development: The role of firm reputation and marketing communication. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 154, 102453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Kang, M.; Haney, M.H. The effect of supplier development on outsourcing performance: The mediating roles of opportunism and flexibility. Prod. Plan. Control 2017, 28, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shou, Y.; Shao, J.; Lai, K.-h.; Kang, M.; Park, Y. The impact of sustainability and operations orientations on sustainable supply management and the triple bottom line. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, C.; Satir, A. A critical content-analysis of sustainable supplier development literature and future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 365, 132443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Zhang, X. The impact of sustainable supplier management practices on buyer-supplier performance: An empirical study in China. Rev. Int. Bus. Strategy 2017, 27, 112–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, M.; Stevenson, M.; Hendry, L. A systematic literature review on sustainability-oriented supplier development. Prod. Plan. Control 2023, 34, 727–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sancha, C.; Gimenez, C.; Sierra, V.; Kazeminia, A. Does implementing social supplier development practices pay off? Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2015, 20, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashidi, K.; Saen, R.F. Incorporating dynamic concept into gradual efficiency: Improving suppliers in sustainable supplier development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 226–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finger, G.S.W.; Lima-Junior, F.R. A hesitant fuzzy linguistic QFD approach for formulating sustainable supplier development programs. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 247, 108428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sancha, C.; Longoni, A.; Giménez, C. Sustainable supplier development practices: Drivers and enablers in a global context. J. Purch. Supply. Manag. 2015, 21, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, S.L.; Dowell, G. Invited editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1464–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, C.E.; Shimizu, K. A review of approaches to empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm. J. Manag. 2007, 33, 959–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martins, V.W.B.; Rampasso, I.S.; Anholon, R.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Leal Filho, W. Knowledge management in the context of sustainability: Literature review and opportunities for future research. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambert, D.M.; Cooper, M.C. Issues in supply chain management. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2000, 29, 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, F.; Kang, T.-W.; Kang, M. Linking Intellectual Leadership Practices to Sustainability Outcomes: Moderated Mediation Effect of Employees’ Multifunctionality. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3855. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, M.; Lee, G.; Hwang, D.W.; Wei, J.; Huo, B. Effects of cross-functional integration on NPD success: Mediating roles of customer and supplier involvement. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2021, 32, 1515–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahn, C.K.; Watts, C.A.; Kim, K.Y. The supplier development program: A conceptual model. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 1990, 26, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kannan, V.R.; Tan, K.C. Supplier Selection and Assessment: Their Impact on Business Performance. J. Supply. Chain. Manag. 2002, 38, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wetzstein, A.; Hartmann, E.; Benton, W.C., Jr.; Hohenstein, N.-O. A systematic assessment of supplier selection literature—State-of-the-art and future scope. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 182, 304–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkaabneh, F.M.; Lee, J.; Gómez, M.I.; Gao, H.O. A systems approach to carbon policy for fruit supply chains: Carbon tax, technology innovation, or land sparing? Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 767, 144211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkaabneh, F.; Diabat, A. A multi-objective home healthcare delivery model and its solution using a branch-and-price algorithm and a two-stage meta-heuristic algorithm. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2023, 147, 103838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balaguer-Mercado, A.; Kirshner, S.N.; Tseng, C.-L. Sustainable Supplier Selection under Financial Hardships: The Conflicting Impact of Spatial and Temporal Psychological Distances. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, J.-F.; Wu, S.-C.; Pham, T.K.L.; Lin, M.-H. Analysis of Key Factors for Green Supplier Selection: A Case Study of the Electronics Industry in Vietnam. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmer, K.; Fröhling, M.; Schultmann, F. Sustainable supplier management—A review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 1412–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koufteros, X.; Vickery, S.K.; Dröge, C. The effects of strategic supplier selection on buyer competitive performance in matched domains: Does supplier integration mediate the relationships? J. Supply Chain Manag. 2012, 48, 93–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humphreys, P.K.; Li, W.; Chan, L. The impact of supplier development on buyer–supplier performance. Omega 2004, 32, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, G.; Shin, G.-c.; Hwang, D.W.; Kuper, P.; Kang, M. How manufacturers’ long-term orientation toward suppliers influences outsourcing performance. Ind. Market. Manag. 2018, 74, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulraj, A. Understanding the relationships between internal resources and capabilities, sustainable supply management and organizational sustainability. J. Supply. Chain. Manag. 2011, 47, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urbaniak, M.; Tundys, B.; Ankiel, M. Expectations of Production Companies Operating in Poland towards Suppliers with Regards to Implementation of the Sustainability Concept. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadlapalli, A.; Rahman, S.; Gunasekaran, A. Socially responsible governance mechanisms for manufacturing firms in apparel supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 196, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Modi, S.B.; Mabert, V.A. Supplier development: Improving supplier performance through knowledge transfer. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 42–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, M.G.; Kang, M. An integrated framework of mimetic pressures, quality and environmental management, and firm performances. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 31, 709–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sgarbossa, F.; Peron, M.; Fragapane, G. Cloud Material Handling Systems: Conceptual Model and Cloud-Based Scheduling of Handling Activities. In Scheduling in Industry 4.0 and Cloud Manufacturing; Sokolov, B., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 87–101. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, M.G.; Roh, J.J.; Kang, M. The role of strategic environmental orientation in environmental design practices. Manag. Decis. 2021, 59, 341–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.-h. Initiatives and outcomes of green supply chain management implementation by Chinese manufacturers. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 85, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gualandris, J.; Kalchschmidt, M. Developing environmental and social performance: The role of suppliers’ sustainability and buyer–supplier trust. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 2470–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subramaniam, P.L.; Iranmanesh, M.; Kumar, K.M.; Foroughi, B. The impact of multinational corporations’ socially responsible supplier development practices on their corporate reputation and financial performance. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2020, 50, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perez-Aleman, P.; Sandilands, M. Building value at the top and the bottom of the global supply chain: MNC-NGO partnerships. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2008, 51, 24–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klassen, R.D.; McLaughlin, C.P. The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Manag. Sci. 1996, 42, 1199–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.Y.; Klassen, R.D. Drivers and enablers that foster environmental management capabilities in small-and medium-sized suppliers in supply chains. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2008, 17, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Locke, R.; Amengual, M.; Mangla, A. Virtue out of necessity? Compliance, commitment, and the improvement of labor conditions in global supply chains. Politics Soc. 2009, 37, 319–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troy, L.C.; Hirunyawipada, T.; Paswan, A.K. Cross-functional integration and new product success: An empirical investigation of the findings. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 132–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, R.C.; Randolph, W.A. Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix organization and project management. J. Manag. 1992, 18, 267–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foerstl, K.; Hartmann, E.; Wynstra, F.; Moser, R. Cross-functional integration and functional coordination in purchasing and supply management: Antecedents and effects on purchasing and firm performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2013, 33, 689–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeske, D.; Calvard, T.S. A review of the literature on cross-functional integration (2010–2020): Trends and recommendations. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2021, 29, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narver, J.C.; Slater, S.F. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auh, S.; Menguc, B. The influence of top management team functional diversity on strategic orientations: The moderating role of environmental turbulence and inter-functional coordination. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2005, 22, 333–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auh, S.; Menguc, B. Top management team diversity and innovativeness: The moderating role of interfunctional coordination. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2005, 34, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genç, E.; Di Benedetto, C.A. Cross-functional integration in the sustainable new product development process: The role of the environmental specialist. Ind. Market. Manag. 2015, 50, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrim, I.; Agigi, A.; Niemann, W.; Mocke, K. The role of buyer-supplier relationships in enhancing sustainable supply chain management in a logistics services context. J. Contemp. Manag. 2020, 17, 150–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratt, C.; Sroufe, R.; Broman, G. Implementing strategic sustainable supply chain management. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallikas, J.; Lintukangas, K.; Kähkönen, A.-K. The effects of sustainability practices on the performance of risk management and purchasing. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadi-Gh, Z.; Bello-Pintado, A. Why is manufacturing not more sustainable? The effects of different sustainability practices on sustainability outcomes and competitive advantage. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 337, 130392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousavi, M.D.; Mousavi, M.D. The Effect of Stakeholder’s Pressure on firm Market Performance and the Mediating Role of Corporate Responsibility, Sustainable Supplier Selection, and Marketing Capability. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2022, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picasso, F.G.; Biazzin, C.; Paiva, E.L.; Beal Partyka, R. Socially responsible supply chain initiatives and their outcomes: A taxonomy of manufacturing companies. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2023, 28, 90–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, X. Effects of customer and cost drivers on green supply chain management practices and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, M.J.; Widener, S.K. Identification and use of sustainability performance measures in decision-making. J. Corp. Citizsh. 2010, 43–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morita, M.; Machuca, J.A.; Flynn, E.J.; de los Ríos, J.L.P. Aligning product characteristics and the supply chain process—A normative perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 161, 228–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 14000; Family–Environmental Management. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
- Lo, S.M.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, X. The impact of relationship quality and supplier development on green supply chain integration: A mediation and moderation analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 524–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagati, H.; Rebolledo, C. Supplier development efforts: The suppliers’ point of view. Ind. Market. Manag. 2013, 42, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, A.S.; Kaynak, H. Communication methods, information sharing, supplier development and performance: An empirical study of their relationships. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2007, 27, 346–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Construct | Loading | |
---|---|---|
Sustainable Supplier Selection | ||
SSS1 | Environmental certification, such as ISO 14001 [74] | 0.850 *** |
SSS2 | Ethical employment practices | 0.656 *** |
SSS3 | Use of sustainability practices, such as recycling and reuse | 0.754 *** |
Sustainable Supplier Development Practices | ||
SSDP1 | Encouraging suppliers to improve the environmental performance of their processes | 0.906 *** |
SSDP2 | Visiting suppliers’ plants or ensuring that they are not using sweatshop labor | 0.650 *** |
SSDP3 | Providing design specifications to suppliers in line with environmental requirements (e.g., green purchasing, black list of raw materials) | 0.681 *** |
SSDP4 | Co-development with suppliers to reduce the environmental impact of the product (e.g., eco-design, green packaging, recyclability) | 0.728 *** |
Sustainability Performance | ||
SP1 | Environmental performance | 0.705 *** |
SP2 | Regulatory performance | 0.686 *** |
SP3 | Revenue performance | 0.520 *** |
SP4 | Corporate reputation/image | 0.771 *** |
Leadership Support for Functional Integration | ||
LSFI1 | Our top management emphasizes the importance of good inter-functional relationships. | 0.535 *** |
LSFI2 | Our managers do a good job of solving inter-functional conflicts. | 0.704 *** |
LSFI3 | We are encouraged to communicate well with different functions in this plant. | 0.683 *** |
LSFI4 | Our managers communicate effectively with managers in other functions. | 0.655 *** |
SSDP | SP | LSFI | SSS | |
---|---|---|---|---|
SSS1 | 0.215 | −0.035 | 0.100 | 0.822 |
SSS2 | 0.102 | −0.019 | 0.113 | 0.798 |
SSS3 | −0.050 | 0.187 | 0.081 | 0.644 |
SSDP1 | 0.837 | 0.270 | 0.046 | 0.122 |
SSDP2 | 0.781 | 0.039 | 0.067 | 0.113 |
SSDP3 | 0.659 | 0.315 | 0.148 | 0.065 |
SSDP4 | 0.806 | 0.169 | 0.084 | 0.003 |
SP1 | 0.142 | 0.782 | 0.165 | −0.035 |
SP2 | 0.041 | 0.816 | 0.088 | 0.061 |
SP3 | 0.291 | 0.539 | −0.002 | 0.036 |
SP4 | 0.277 | 0.766 | −0.004 | 0.122 |
LSFI1 | 0.040 | 0.064 | 0.676 | 0.070 |
LSFI2 | 0.151 | 0.039 | 0.748 | 0.084 |
LSFI3 | 0.088 | 0.047 | 0.773 | 0.008 |
LSFI4 | 0.001 | 0.080 | 0.752 | 0.162 |
Construct | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. SSS | 0.684 | |||||||
2. SSDP | 0.28 ** | 0.611 | ||||||
3. SP | 0.09 | 0.46 ** | 0.678 | |||||
4. LSFI | 0.25 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.622 | ||||
5. Firm size | 0.03 | 0.24 ** | 0.17 ** | 0.01 | ||||
6. R&D intensity | 0.17 ** | 0.11 * | 0.14 ** | 0.06 | −0.01 | |||
7. Brand image | 0.22 ** | 0.13 ** | 0.07 | 0.26 ** | −0.11 | 0.27 ** | ||
8. Machinery | 0.14 * | 0.06 | −0.08 | −0.06 | 0.06 | 0.10 | −0.05 | |
9. Electronics | −0.15 ** | −0.10 | −0.01 | −0.06 | 0.06 | −0.04 | 0.05 | −0.59 ** |
Mean | 3.785 | 3.177 | 3.980 | 3.937 | 6.255 | 3.309 | 3.867 | 0.380 |
S.D. | 0.742 | 0.845 | 0.543 | 0.555 | 0.928 | 0.957 | 0.878 | 0.486 |
Cronbach’s α | 0.793 | 0.824 | 0.761 | 0.734 | ||||
CR | 0.837 | 0.818 | 0.868 | 0.836 |
SSDP | SP | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
Constant | 1.048 | 0.327 | 0.015 | 2.707 | 2.648 |
Firm size | 0.231 *** | 0.221 *** | 0.197 *** | 0.109 ** | 0.048 |
R&D intensity | 0.071 | 0.048 | 0.039 | 0.076 * | 0.063 * |
Brand image | 0.137 * | 0.087 | 0.065 | 0.016 | −0.008 |
Machinery | −0.031 | −0.066 | −0.026 | −0.206 * | −0.188 * |
Electronics | −0.181 | −0.136 | −0.084 | −0.095 | −0.057 |
SSS | 0.277 *** | 0.269 *** | 0.095 * | 0.018 | |
SSDP | 0.275 *** | ||||
LSFI | 0.137 | ||||
SSS × LSFI | 0.293 * | ||||
R2 | 0.099 | 0.153 | 0.180 | 0.091 | 0.246 |
Adjusted R2 | 0.083 | 0.135 | 0.156 | 0.072 | 0.227 |
F | 6.245 *** | 8.474 *** | 7.658 *** | 4.721 *** | 13.091 *** |
Moderator | Boot Indirect Effect | Boot SE | BC 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||
LSFI | ||||
3.375 | 0.013 | 0.013 | −0.009 | 0.043 |
3.962 | 0.039 | 0.014 | 0.015 | 0.070 |
4.500 | 0.062 | 0.021 | 0.026 | 0.108 |
Moderated mediation | ||||
Index: 0.043 | 0.019 | 0.011 | 0.085 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fan, Z.; Kang, T.-W. Linking Sustainable Supplier Selection to Firm’s Sustainable Performance: The Moderated Mediating Role of Supplier Development and Leadership for Functional Integration. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129757
Fan Z, Kang T-W. Linking Sustainable Supplier Selection to Firm’s Sustainable Performance: The Moderated Mediating Role of Supplier Development and Leadership for Functional Integration. Sustainability. 2023; 15(12):9757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129757
Chicago/Turabian StyleFan, Zhigang, and Tae-Won Kang. 2023. "Linking Sustainable Supplier Selection to Firm’s Sustainable Performance: The Moderated Mediating Role of Supplier Development and Leadership for Functional Integration" Sustainability 15, no. 12: 9757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129757