Next Article in Journal
Quantification of Floc Growth for Sediment with Mixing Intensity
Previous Article in Journal
External Knowledge Flows and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises’ Innovation Capabilities Enhancement: An Empirical Investigation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/su15054072
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Customer Relationship Management on Organizational Performance in the Context of the Egyptian Textile Industry

by
Ahmed Attia
Military Programs, Abu Dhabi University, Alain Campus, Abu Dhabi P.O. Box 59911, United Arab Emirates
Sustainability 2023, 15(5), 4072; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054072
Submission received: 21 December 2022 / Revised: 21 February 2023 / Accepted: 21 February 2023 / Published: 23 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to test the effect of sustainable supply chain management on customer relationship management, competitive advantage, and organizational performance by collecting and analyzing data from the Egyptian textile industry. A suggested research model shows the hypothesized relationship between sustainable supply chain management, customer relationship management, competitive advantage, and organizational performance. The proposed research model and hypotheses were tested using correlation analysis and structural equation modeling based on data collected from 148 companies working in the Egyptian textile industry. Statistical analysis of the collected data supports the positive relationship between sustainable supply chain management on one side and customer relationship management, competitive advantage, and organizational performance on the other. Additionally, statistical analysis supports the positive relationship between customer relationship management and competitive advantage from one side and organizational performance from the other side. Data were collected through an online survey from 147 supply chain managers in the Egyptian textile industry to test the research hypotheses. The results suggest that the successful implementation of sustainable supply chain management will help in improving customer relationship management, competitive advantage, and organizational performance.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, rapid transformations are occurring in all corporate landscapes and organizations, and the marketplace is characterized by heated competition, economic pressures, short-term market potential, and dynamic changes in consumers [1,2,3,4]. Therefore, supply chains can no longer be redeployed overnight to acquire, create, transfer, or sell the right things to the right extent and in the right places [5,6]. A growing number of multinational firms have made the commitment in recent years to only conduct business with companies that maintain environmental and social criteria [7,8]. These multinational enterprises often demand adherence from their first-tier suppliers, who are then asked to request compliance from their vendors, who should ideally want the same from their supply chain partners [9,10,11]. Their goal is to establish a chain reaction of sustainable behaviors that seamlessly moves down the supply chain, and sustainable SCM serves this goal. Organizations now realize that to thrive in the face of increased global competition, their supply chains must be managed appropriately.
Customer relationship management (CRM) is one of the most critical drivers in modern companies for a set of effective survival, growth, and development strategies that boost business efficacy, performance, and sustain competitive advantage [12]. Competitive advantage (CA) is a component or combination of factors, altogether connected to a system, that, when compared with the different organizations in a competitive marketplace, renders a firm more competent in a way that is not conveniently imitated by those competitors [13,14]. All organizations have their set of goals, and organizational performance (OP) is evaluated for the comparison of a firm’s actual output or outcomes against its goals and objectives [1,15,16]. SCM, CA, and CRM altogether contribute to enhancing OP. SCM on global markets has made it feasible to increase CA and improve OP in the distribution of products and services to consumers by the development of different innovative methodologies [17].
The current research aims to investigate the influence of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) and customer relationship management (CRM) on organizational performance within the Saudi Food Industry. Ref. [18], in their study based on 165 companies in the Saudi food industry, observed that SCM practices positively impact OP. The current study will provide managers and decision-makers in the Saudi food industry with information about SSCM, CRM, and CA to improve OP, which will be useful in adopting organizational strategies. According to the author’s knowledge the current study will be one of the first studies to examine the effect of sustainable supply chain management in Egypt and is one of the few studies in developing countries, in addition, the results of the current study will help in filling the gap in theory regarding the relationships between sustainable supply chain management, customer relationship management, and the company performance.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM)

Supply chain management (SCM), as per [19], has been defined by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) in 2004 as the planning and organization of all sources and procurement operations, manufacturing techniques, as well as all logistics monitoring operations, including working with suppliers, intermediaries, outside service providers, and consumers. SCM is the management component responsible for controlling and coordinating the operations of an organization from the upstream to the downstream [20,21,22] demonstrated that supply chain management strategies are indispensable tools that improve creativity and performance, assist businesses in growing and adapting to environmental changes, and thus aid businesses in overcoming obstacles. SCM aims to organize and coordinate the sourcing, transportation, and management of materials from a whole systems viewpoint across different functions and many layers of suppliers [20,23,24]. Thus, supply chain management (SCM) ensures the appropriate goods are available in the right quantity at the appropriate time, location, price, and quality for the right consumer [25].
In today’s business environment, sustainability has become one of the most frequently researched and emphasized topics in SCM [26,27,28,29] and, in the context of business, refers mostly to the consequences of activities, with the long-term objective of preserving the wellbeing of society, the environment, and the economy [4,30]. Several businesses, including manufacturing, design, purchasing, and manufacturing, in addition to SCM itself, have engaged in a comprehensive analysis of sustainable progress [4,30,31] and the concept of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) serves this demand. SSCM combines the objectives of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and green supply chain management (GSCM), which enables enterprises to fulfill their financial, environmental, and societal goals on a micro level and eventually improve their impression in the mind of their stakeholders [6].

2.2. Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

Customer relationship management (CRM) is a comprehensive approach that provides the capability to locate, acquire, manage, and nurture promising customers by establishing and upholding long-term connections with customers [32,33,34]. CRM focuses on building, sustaining, and retaining long-term relationships with customers through the utilization of information technology to improve economic efficiency [35,36]. It helps to strengthen customer retention and relationships in order to demonstrate effectiveness and give a thorough understanding of consumers’ unique demands [37,38]. With the transition to a stage of high customization and tailored service, CRM planning and execution are crucial for the viability of a business [39,40]. An organization can succeed over time if it can adapt to the continuously changing consumer expectations and eventually develop new products or operating methods [41,42]. According to [41] it is possible to win over customers’ loyalty by making significant investments in their long-term relationships with businesses. CRM facilitates consumers’ access to the best products and services and a wide range of options and significantly affects how a company manages its whole value chain [14,43]. CRM is regarded as a kind of green IT as it focuses on digitalization as well as sustainable business model innovation [41,44] have demonstrated that if CRM is integrated into the decision-making process and SCM practice, it is considered to be effective.

2.3. Competitive Advantage (CA)

Competitive advantage (CA) involves the deployment of a strategic approach not currently being employed by other organizations that enables a decrease in costs, the use of business opportunities, and/or the neutralization of competitive challenges [45]. Without a competitive edge, attracting and retaining clients on a sustained basis is practically inconceivable, and without a regular consumer base, the business cannot continuously generate revenues [46]. Without adequate revenues, the company cannot fix or replace depreciating assets, develop innovative products and services, or hire and train workers as the company grows or employees leave [47]. Furthermore, it cannot restructure systems, implement new work methodologies, or acquire new technology in response to shifting market needs. In other words, the firm would fail eventually without a competitive edge that distinguishes it from its rivals [48]. The quality of the product or service plays great importance in ensuring competitive advantage. The concept of competitive advantage recommends that businesses develop policies that always prioritize the production of high-quality goods that can be offered at competitive pricing [49]. A firm’s competitive advantages produce increased value for the company and its shareholders as a result of particular strengths or situations, for instance, cost advantage and differentiation advantage. The greater the durability of competitive advantage, the more challenging it is for rivals to nullify it. Ref. [50] observed that a strong relationship with customers is one of the core competencies of an organization and a potential source of competitive advantage. Nearly all organizations exhibit a strong correlation between a firm’s competitive edge and its performance, and these advantages contribute to the success of the business.

2.4. Organizational Performance (OP)

OP is a systematic and structured method for ensuring that all activities inside an organization have an effect on the firm’s achievements [51,52]. Ref. [6] illustrated that organizational performance has five dimensions, namely environmental performance, employee-centered social performance, community-centered social performance, operations effectiveness, and competitiveness. OP delivers a variety of advantages by strengthening consumer trust, reputational impact, and the firm’s competence or capacity [53,54]. OP helps to evaluate the strategic planning and organization efforts utilizing internal and external evaluations with a cascade of targets, plans, and strategies to determine strategic gaps [55,56]. OP aids in establishing a clear insight so that the efficacy of strategies can be determined, and performance outcomes and possibilities may be recognized [1,14,57] Thus, the assessment of OP serves to increase the efficacy and utility of pre-existing framework assessment or to compare various options for designing, developing, executing, and monitoring suggested systems [58,59].

2.5. Relationship between Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) and Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

As the primary objective of supply chain management is consumer satisfaction [60,61], the consumer is acknowledged as one of the most vital stakeholders in the majority of supply chains [62]. In the modern days of digitalization, consumers increasingly connect with businesses via a plethora of touchpoints across numerous platforms and media, and customer experiences are becoming increasingly social. These developments need the incorporation of multiple business units, as well as external partners, in the development and delivery of great customer experiences. The distribution of products and services from manufacturers to consumers involves the deployment of CRM and supplier relationships, and when coordination between both suppliers and customers is appropriately maintained, the highest quality-stock and product range are guaranteed [15].
Numerous studies have examined how sustainable business practices might improve bonds with customers. Ref. [39] have illustrated that companies using strong SCM strategies are more likely to meet customer needs with appropriate goods and services at competitive prices, which logically leads to better business ties and rapid outcomes. Ref. [63] has illustrated that customer relationships are influenced by different supply chain factors, including firm characteristics, company size, and position as vendors or customers. Ref. [64] illustrated that sustainability concerns in client relationships include the capability to maintain a user base through long-term loyalty and commitment, more environmentally friendly products and services, and a favorable attitude toward, and reputation for, promoting environmentally conscious consumer behavior. The beneficial impact of the components of a system on each facet of sustainability may be augmented by CRM-related advantages [41]. Accordingly, based on previous studies, the following hypothesis may be posited:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Sustainable supply chain management has a direct effect on customer relationship management.

2.6. Relationship between Competitive Advantage (CA) and Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM)

In an organization, it might be challenging to develop a competitive advantage through internal growth alone [22] and, consequently, businesses must come up with strategies to build new competencies to adapt to changing environmental conditions and growing global competition. Adoption of SSCM places enormous pressure on organizations to modify their existing supply chains to meet sustainability requirements [65,66]. Organizations practice SSCM by providing long-term advantages and effectiveness for socially and economically desirable activities along the whole supply chain [3,6]. Coordination among the supply chain components is key to incorporating environmental concerns into SCM and promoting SSCM [65,67]. Ref. [68] have demonstrated that SCM techniques at greater tiers can boost competitive edge and maximize organizational performance. Similarly, ref. [49] observed a positive relationship between CA and SCM in their study. In a recent study, ref. [69] demonstrated that smarter supply chains are required to successfully address the emerging obstacles of taking competitive advantages. Based on these findings, the following hypothesis has been proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Sustainable supply chain management has a direct effect on competitive advantage.

2.7. Relationship between Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) and Organizational Performance (OP)

The change from SCM to SSCM demands dynamic interactions between organizational endeavors and organizational complexity in assimilating SSCM practices into an organization’s supply chain routines, and additional commitment to perform more than what is necessary for current supply chain routines to integrate a required SSCM practice into regular schedules [70]. Therefore, organizations are now required to find and execute creative, sustainable solutions not just inside their own walls but also throughout the whole supply chain network in order to accommodate new developments and shifting trends, thereby increasing organizational performance [2,29,66,71].
Numerous studies have found a strong relationship between SSCM and OP [14,16,72,73]. Ref. [74] showed that SSCM is positively correlated with financial outcomes and organizational performance. Ref. [57] highlighted and substantiated the significance of supply chain analytics adoption in enhancing business performance. Ref. [75] surveyed 227 companies and found that the adoption of social CRM (SCRM), an extension of CRM technology that considers social media data, helps organizations to develop newer capabilities and more engagement. Through a mediation procedure, these competencies and engagements are translated into enhanced firm performance. Ref. [76] illustrated that, though in large organizations SCM has a direct impact on company performance, SCM strategies in small- and medium-sized enterprises have an indirect impact on firm performance.
Ref. [77] found that SCM strategy has a favorable influence on logistics effectiveness, and that both logistics effectiveness and SCM strategy have a positive impact on marketing performance, which in turn has a positive impact on financial performance. In contrast with the findings of most other studies, their study also revealed that neither the effectiveness of logistics nor the supply chain management strategy directly affected financial success. Though CRM can increase customer satisfaction and retention, a higher level of consumer satisfaction does not inevitably result in improved organizational performance and profitability [22,63].
Based on the most of findings in previous studies, the following hypothesis may be developed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Sustainable supply chain management has a direct effect on organizational performance.

2.8. Relationship between Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Organizational Performance (OP)

When market volatility yields changing customer expectations, a customer-centric approach to corporate strategy is necessary, one in which the value chain commences with and ends with the consumer [43]. Ref. [78] found that CRM capabilities have indirect effects on financial performance, which indicates that service quality and CRM capabilities of the business are crucial mediators between organizational success and consumer orientation. Ref. [79] found that increasing customer satisfaction does not significantly boost organizational effectiveness.
In contrast, several studies have ascertained that CRM has favorable benefits on organizational performance [14,15,73,80].
Ref. [81] explored the effects of social CRM deployment on organizational performance in the setting of small- and medium-sized organizations (SMEs) and found that the adoption of social CRM and organizational performance are highly associated. Similarly, another study based on telecommunication firms in Jordan implicated a considerable influence of CRM characteristics on the performance of the firms [82]. Ref. [83], in their study conducted on 214 Chinese companies, found that CRM positively influences performance and customer engagement. Recent studies have revealed that organizations can increase their performance over a given period if they are willing to incorporate new technologies or procedures to satisfy customer requirements [41,42].
Considering the findings above, the following hypothesis may be formulated:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Customer relationship management has a direct effect on organizational performance.

2.9. Relationship between Competitive Advantage (CA) and Organizational Performance (OP)

Several studies have demonstrated that organizations should put more emphasis on their customer relationship and the CA of their operations in addition to enhancing their performance [15,72,84]. Ref. [85], based on his study on 74 different organizations, demonstrated that competitive advantage has a greater impact on organizational effectiveness than the quality of the product or service the organization provides. He indicated that quality gives the company a competitive edge in the first place, and that a competitive advantage results in better organizational performance. In another survey of officials of a prominent food retailer in India, Ref. [86] observed that businesses may stand out from their competitors in the marketplace, constantly garner consumer attention, and improve the value they provide to customers through the taking of competitive advantages and by maintaining good client relationships. Ref. [87] demonstrated that companies use innovation as a competitive advantage to strengthen their position in the market, which substantially affects the company’s outstanding performance. Ref. [49] also showed a positive relationship between CA and OP. In a study based on the container shipping sector, ref. [45] found that competitive advantage is positively correlated with organizational performance. From this perspective, the following can be proposed:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Competitive advantage has a direct effect on organizational performance.

3. Methodology

To test the suggested research model as shown in Figure 1, a survey was developed based on previous studies, and measurements for the study variables were adapted from previous studies and modified as needed to match the current study context [14,86,88,89]. Table 1 shows the survey items. The survey was sent to supply chain managers at all the textile companies working in Egypt. There are 203 working companies in the textile industry in Egypt according to the statistical book of the year 2021, which is published annually by the Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (Statistical Book 2021). The Survey was created on Google Documents and shared by email with the supply chain managers. Follow-up emails were then sent, and phone calls were conducted to motivate the managers to fill out the survey and clarify any queries they have. One hundred forty-eight surveys were filled and returned, which reflects a 73% response rate.
The textile industry was chosen because it is one of the major industries in Egypt and contributes significantly to Egyptian economic growth and GDP. In 2019 the textile industry contributed up to 3% of Egypt’s GDP, 30 % of its employment, and 10% of its exports. Due to its importance, the Egyptian government started an initiative to update and develop the whole industry, the estimated cost of the initiative is 21 billion Egyptian pounds, and the initiative will be completed by the end of 2022 (Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics https://www.capmas.gov.eg/) accessed on 25 November 2022.
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the respondents, the majority of which are located in the delta area in Egypt and have more than two years of experience in the supply chain.

4. Data Analysis and Results

4.1. Validity and Reliability Measures

The statistical analysis started by testing the scales’ validity and reliability. The normed-fit index (NFI) was used to measure the validity of the scales. Table 3 shows the values of NFI for all the variables, all of which are above 0.9 and therefore reflect high convergent validity for all the scales according to [90] Table 4 shows the results of the correlation analysis between all the variables, the highest correlation coefficient value is 0.584 and the lowest is 0.469. Accordingly, no correlation coefficient between any two variables is equal to ±1 or close to it which shows strong discriminant validity according to [91] In addition, the results of correlation analysis in Table 3 show a strong correlation between all the variables, which reflects a good predictive validity for the used scales according to [92].
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to test the reliability of the used scales. Table 5 shows that all Cronbach’s alpha coefficients results for the used scales are above 0.9 which indicates good reliability according to [92]. Finally, the fit between all the variables scales was tested by the confirmatory analysis. Table 6 shows the results of the confirmatory analysis, with the results showing a strong fit between the variable scales and the data, according to [93].

4.2. Correlation Analysis

According to Table 4 there are positive relationships between sustainable supply chain management from one side and customer relationship management, competitive advantage, and organizational performance from the other, with a 99% confidence level. Additionally, there are positive relationships between customer relationship management from one side and competitive advantage and organizational performance from the other, with a 99% confidence level. Finally, there is a positive relationship between competitive advantage and organizational performance, with a 99% confidence level. The correlation analysis results support the existence of a strong positive relationship between all the study variables.

4.3. Linear Regression Analysis

A linear regression model was developed between sustainable supply chain management as the independent variable and customer relationship management, competitive advantage, and organizational performance as dependent variables. According to the results of the linear regression analysis in Table 7, the adjusted R2 are 0.035, 0.085, and 0.139, which reflect the direct effect of sustainable supply chain management on customer relationship management, competitive advantage, and organizational performance, respectively. The previous results support H1, H2, and H3. Additionally, a linear regression model was developed between customer relationship management as the independent variable and organizational performance as the dependent variable. The adjusted R2 for the model is 0.047 which indicates a direct effect of customer relationship management on organizational performance. The previous result supports the acceptance of H4.
Finally, a linear regression model was developed between competitive advantage as the independent variable and organizational performance as the dependent variable. The adjusted R2 for the model is 0.138 which shows a direct effect of competitive advantage on organizational performance. Accordingly, H5 is supported.

4.4. Structural Equation Modeling Results

Structural equation modeling was developed for the further testing of research hypotheses. The results of the structural equation modeling analysis are shown in Figure 2. The Chi-square for the model is 2.237 which supports the acceptance of the research model according to [93]. In addition, the values of NNFI and CFI respectively are 0.978 and 0.93, with the previous results reflecting high validity for the research model according to Garver and Mentzer,1999. Figure 2 shows a positive and significant relationship between sustainable supply chain management and customer relationship management, competitive advantage, and organizational performance with estimates and t-values equal to 0.56 (5.68), 0.51 (4.78), and 0.52 (4.77) respectively.
In addition, Figure 2 shows a positive and significant relationship between customer relationship and organizational performance with estimates and t-values equal to 0.57 (5.63) and a positive and significant relationship between competitive advantage and organizational performance with estimates and t-values equal to 0.59 (5.72). The previous results support the acceptance of all the study hypotheses.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

To test the recommended research hypotheses, two main statistical tests were conducted. The first was linear regression analysis and the second was structural equation modeling, the results of the two tests are shown in Table 6 and Figure 2. The results of the two tests recommend the acceptance of the five research hypotheses. H1 suggests the existence of a positive effect of implementing sustainable supply chain management on customer relationship management, the results of the current study support the acceptance of the existence of such an effect. The current results concur with the results of previous studies such as [14,94,95,96,97].
H2 and H3 test the effect of sustainable supply chain management on a company’s competitive advantage and its performance, with the results supporting the acceptance of the two hypotheses. The current study’s results are similar to the results of previous studies such as [14,68,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]. H4 and H5 recommend a positive effect for both customer relationship management and competitive advantage, the statistical results of the current study support the acceptance of both hypotheses. The current study results are similar to the results of previous studies such as [14,45,68,106,107,108].
The positive results of the study could be related to government efforts in previous years to develop and improve the textile industry. The government invested around 21 billion Egyptian pounds (1.07 billion USD) to develop the industry. Accordingly, the current study draws attention to the critical role of the government in creating a suitable environment by the government to support establishing sustainable supply chain management. The current results draw the attention of managers in the textile industry to the importance of developing and managing a sustainable supply chain, due to its positive effect on customer loyalty, in creating a competitive edge for the company and from there to improving the company’s overall company. The managers need to be aware of the difficulties and huge investment associated with developing a sustainable supply chain and the time needed to develop a long-term alliance with the supplier. In addition, the current study results stress the importance of maintaining long-term relationships with customers in order to enhance the company’s performance. Additionally, the results of the study contribute to filling the academic gap in research related to the importance of creating a sustainable supply chain in order to enhance the performance of every company as well as the overall economic performance of countries as a whole, particularly developing countries.

6. Study Limitations

The current study results are limited only to the Egyptian textile industry as the sample was chosen solely from Egypt. Additionally, the study tested only the effect of sustainable supply chain management, customer relationship, and competitive advantage on organizational performance, but there may be other variables that influence the company performance and so this could be considered one of the study’s limitations. There is a need to repeat the study in the same industry to validate the results and in different industries and countries. Finally, there is a need for further studies to test the drivers and obstacles that help or hinder the creation of a sustainable supply chain.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gandhi, A.V.; Shaikh, A.; Sheorey, P.A. Impact of supply chain management practices on firm performance. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2017, 45, 366–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mukhsin, M.; Suryanto, T. The Effect of Sustainable Supply Chain Management on Company Performance Mediated by Competitive Advantage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shekarian, E.; Ijadi, B.; Zare, A.; Majava, J. Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Industrial Practices. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Silva, M.E.; Fritz, M.M.; El-Garaihy, W.H. Practice theories and supply chain sustainability: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Mod. Supply Chain Res. Appl. 2022, 4, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wu, L.; Yue, X.; Jin, A.; Yen, D.C. Smart supply chain management: A review and implications for future research. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2016, 27, 395–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Das, D. The impact of Sustainable Supply Chain Management practices on firm performance: Lessons from Indian organizations. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 203, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aguilera-Caracuel, J.; Guerrero-Villegas, J.; García-Sánchez, E. Reputation of multinational companies. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2017, 26, 329–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Clementino, E.; Perkins, R. How Do Companies Respond to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 171, 379–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Luqmani, A.; Leach, M.; Jesson, D. Factors behind sustainable business innovation: The case of a global carpet manufacturing company. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 24, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Govindan, K.; Shaw, M.; Majumdar, A. Social sustainability tensions in multi-tier supply chain: A systematic literature review towards conceptual framework development. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kyove, J.; Streltsova, K.; Odibo, U.; Cirella, G. Globalization Impact on Multinational Enterprises. World 2021, 2, 216–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fidel, P.; Schlesinger, W.; Cervera, A. Collaborating to innovate: Effects on customer knowledge management and performance. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1426–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Haseeb, M.; Hussain, H.I.; Kot, S.; Androniceanu, A.; Jermsittiparsert, K. Role of Social and Technological Challenges in Achieving a Sustainable Competitive Advantage and Sustainable Business Performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Das, S.; Hassan, H.K. Impact of sustainable supply chain management and customer relationship management on organizational performance. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2022, 71, 2140–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Soltani, Z.; Zareie, B.; Milani, F.S.; Navimipour, N.J. The impact of the customer relationship management on the organization performance. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2018, 29, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Duong, B.A.T.; Truong, H.Q.; Sameiro, M.; Sampaio, P.; Fernandes, A.C.; Vilhena, E.; Bui, L.T.C.; Yadohisa, H. Supply chain management and organizational performance: The resonant influence. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2019, 36, 1053–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xu, H.; Zhao, C. Supply Chain Management Practices Influence Supply Chain Performance with Mediation Role of Innovation and Moderation Role of Top Management Support. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 813828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Attia, A.; Eldin, I.E. Organizational learning, knowledge management capability and supply chain management practices in the Saudi food industry. J. Knowl. Manag. 2018, 22, 1217–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ben Moussa, F.Z.; Rasovska, I.; Dubois, S.; De Guio, R.; Benmoussa, R. Reviewing the use of the theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) in green supply chain problems. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2677–2692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Gorane, S.; Kant, R. Supply chain practices and organizational performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2017, 28, 75–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hazen, B.T.; Russo, I.; Confente, I.; Pellathy, D. Supply chain management for circular economy: Conceptual framework and research agenda. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021, 32, 510–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, R. The Effect of Supply Chain Management Strategy on Operational and Financial Performance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brandenburg, M.; Rebs, T. Sustainable supply chain management: A modeling perspective. Ann. Oper. Res. 2015, 229, 213–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Cricelli, L.; Esposito, E.; Strazzullo, S. The future of sustainable supply chains: A novel tertiary-systematic methodology. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021, 27, 762–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, X. Operations Management of Logistics and Supply Chain: Issues and Directions. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2014, 2014, 701938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Childe, S.J.; Papadopoulos, T.; Wamba, S.F. World class sustainable supply chain management: Critical review and further research directions. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2017, 28, 332–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Panigrahi, S.S.; Bahinipati, B.; Jain, V. Sustainable supply chain management. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2019, 30, 1001–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fahim, F.; Mahadi, B. Green supply chain management/green finance: A bibliometric analysis of the last twenty years by using the Scopus database. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 84714–84740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mastos, T.; Gotzamani, K. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in the Food Industry: A Conceptual Model from a Literature Review and a Case Study. Foods 2022, 11, 2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mc Loughlin, K.; Lewis, K.; Lascelles, D.; Nudurupati, S. Sustainability in supply chains: Reappraising business process management. Prod. Plan. Control 2021, 34, 19–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Thorlakson, T.; de Zegher, J.F.; Lambin, E.F. Companies’ contribution to sustainability through global supply chains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 2072–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Liew, C.A. Strategic integration of knowledge management and customer relationship management. J. Knowl. Manag. 2008, 12, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Mainela, T.; Ulkuniemi, P. Personal interaction and customer relationship management in project business. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2013, 28, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ritter, T.; Geersbro, J. Multidexterity in customer relationship management: Managerial implications and a research agenda. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2018, 69, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hanaysha, J.R.; Al-Shaikh, M.E. An examination of customer relationship management dimensions and employee-based brand equity: A study on ride-hailing industry in Saudi Arabia. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2022, 43, 100719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, F.; Xu, G. AI-driven customer relationship management for sustainable enterprise performance. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 52, 102103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Josiassen, A.; Assaf, A.G.; Cvelbar, L.K. CRM and the bottom line: Do all CRM dimensions affect firm performance? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 36, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ghazian, A.; Hossaini, M.H.; Farsijani, H. The Effect of Customer Relationship Management and its Significant Relationship by Customers’ Reactions in LG Company. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 36, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Lemon, K.N.; Verhoef, P.C. Understanding Customer Experience Throughout the Customer Journey. J. Mark. 2016, 80, 69–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Anshari, M.; Almunawar, M.N.; Lim, S.A.; Al-Mudimigh, A. Customer relationship management and big data enabled: Personalization & customization of services. Appl. Comput. Inform. 2019, 15, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gil-Gomez, H.; Guerola-Navarro, V.; Oltra-Badenes, R.; Lozano-Quilis, J.A. Customer relationship management: Digital transformation and sustainable business model innovation. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2020, 33, 2733–2750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kamalaldin, A.; Linde, L.; Sjödin, D.; Parida, V. Transforming provider-customer relationships in digital servitization: A relational view on digitalization. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 89, 306–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Guerola-Navarro, V.; Gil-Gomez, H.; Oltra-Badenes, R.; Sendra-García, J. Customer relationship management and its impact on innovation: A literature review. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 129, 83–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chatterjee, S.; Mikalef, P.; Khorana, S.; Kizgin, H. Assessing the Implementation of AI Integrated CRM System for B2C Relationship Management: Integrating Contingency Theory and Dynamic Capability View Theory. Inf. Syst. Front. 2022, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kuo, S.Y.; Lin, P.C.; Lu, C.S. The effects of dynamic capabilities, service capabilities, competitive advantage, and organizational performance in container shipping. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 95, 356–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Petera, P.; Wagner, J.; Pakšiová, R. The Influence of Environmental Strategy, Environmental Reporting and Environmental Management Control System on Environmental and Economic Performance. Energies 2021, 14, 4637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Karim, D.N.; Majid, A.H.A.; Omar, K.; Aburumman, O.J. The mediating effect of interpersonal distrust on the relationship between perceived organizational politics and workplace ostracism in higher education institutions. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kenyon, G.N.; Sen, K.C. Creating a Competitive Advantage. In The Perception of Quality; Springer: London, UK, 2015; pp. 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Baah, C.; Jin, Z. Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Organizational Performance: The Intermediary Role of Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. Sustain. 2019, 9, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Baashar, Y.; Alhussian, H.; Patel, A.; Alkawsi, G.; Alzahrani, A.I.; Alfarraj, O.; Hayder, G. Customer relationship management systems (CRMS) in the healthcare environment: A systematic literature review. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2020, 71, 103442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Clarke, M.; Seng, D.; Whiting, R.H. Intellectual capital and firm performance in Australia. J. Intellect. Cap. 2011, 12, 505–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Parveen, F.; Jaafar, N.I.; Ainin, S. Social media’s impact on organizational performance and entrepreneurial orientation in organizations. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 2208–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Christensen, H.B.; Hail, L.; Leuz, C. Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Rev. Account. Stud. 2021, 26, 1176–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Singh, K.; Misra, M. Linking Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Organizational Performance: The moderating effect of corporate reputation. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2021, 27, 100139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sumedrea, S. Intellectual Capital and Firm Performance: A Dynamic Relationship in Crisis Time. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2013, 6, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Zaidi, M.F.A.; Othman, S.N. Organisational Capabilities, Environmental Turbulence, and NPD Performance: A Study on Malaysian Manufacturing Firms. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 172, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Kalaitzi, D.; Tsolakis, N. Supply chain analytics adoption: Determinants and impacts on organisational performance and competitive advantage. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 248, 108466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nielsen, K.; Nielsen, M.B.; Ogbonnaya, C.; Känsälä, M.; Saari, E.; Isaksson, K. Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Work Stress 2017, 31, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Rahman, M.; Hussain, T.; Moon, S.P.; Tisha, M.M.; Lima, M.T. Impact of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) on Organizational Performance: A Study from the Perspective of Bangladesh. Am. J. Trade Policy 2017, 8, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Drucker, P. Management Challenges for the 21st Century; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kyeremeh, E.; Dza, M. Supply Chain Management and Organization Performance: A Value Creation Perspective. Arch. Bus. Res. 2018, 6, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Haroon, S.; Wasif, M.; Khalid, R.; Khalidi, S. Supply Chain Practitioners’ Perception on Sustainability: An Empirical Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vanichchinchai, A. The linkages among supplier relationship, customer relationship and supply performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2021, 36, 1520–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wikhamn, W. Innovation, sustainable HRM and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gurzawska, A. Towards Responsible and Sustainable Supply Chains—Innovation, Multi-stakeholder Approach and Governance. Philos. Manag. 2020, 19, 267–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Prasad, D.S.; Pradhan, R.P.; Gaurav, K.; Sabat, A.K. Critical Success Factors of Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Organizational Performance: An Exploratory Study. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 48, 327–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chauhan, C.; Kaur, P.; Arrawatia, R.; Ractham, P.; Dhir, A. Supply chain collaboration and sustainable development goals (SDGs). Teamwork makes achieving SDGs dream work. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 147, 290–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, J.; Feng, T. The impacts of customer involvement on the relationship between relationship quality and performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2019, 35, 270–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zekhnini, K.; Cherrafi, A.; Bouhaddou, I.; Benghabrit, Y.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. Supply chain management 4.0: A literature review and research framework. Benchmarking Int. J. 2021, 28, 465–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Roy, V.; Schoenherr, T.; Charan, P. Toward an organizational understanding of the transformation needed for sustainable supply chain management: The concepts of force-field and differential efforts. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2020, 26, 100612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Saeed, M.A.; Kersten, W. Drivers of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Identification and Classification. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Parast, M.M.; Shekarian, M. The Impact of Supply Chain Disruptions on Organizational Performance: A Literature Review. In Revisiting Supply Chain Risk; Part of the Springer Series in Supply Chain Management Book Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sukati, I.; Sanyal, S.; Ba Awaain, A.M. Supply chain management practices and organizational performance: An investigation from service industry. Int. J. Supply Chain. Manag. 2020, 9, 207–213. [Google Scholar]
  74. Wang, Z.; Sarkis, J. Investigating the relationship of sustainable supply chain management with corporate financial performance. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2013, 62, 871–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Medjani, F.; Barnes, S. Social customer relationship management and organizational performance: Testing a conceptual model in the North African context. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2021, 121, 1617–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chin, T.A.; Hamid, A.B.A.; Raslic, A.; Heng, L.H. The Impact of Supply Chain Integration on Operational Capability in Malaysian Manufacturers. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 130, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Green, K.W.; Whitten, D.; Inman, R.A. The impact of logistics performance on organizational performance in a supply chain context. Supply Chain Manag. 2008, 12, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Jeong, D.-Y.; Kim, S.-M.; Yoon, D.-J. Customer Orientation and Organizational Performance: Mediating Role of CRM. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2014, 57, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Danaher, P.J.; Conroy, D.M.; McColl-Kennedy, J.R. Who Wants a Relationship Anyway? J. Serv. Res. 2008, 11, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kim, H.-S. How CRM strategy impacts organizational performance: Perspective of customer equity drivers. J. Database Mark. Cust. Strat. Manag. 2012, 19, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Ahani, A.; Rahim, N.Z.A.; Nilashi, M. Firm performance through social Customer Relationship Management: Evidence from small and medium enterprises. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS), Langkawi, Malaysia, 16–17 July 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Al-Weshah, G.A.; Al-Manasrah, E.; Al-Qatawneh, M. Customer relationship management systems and organizational performance: Quantitative evidence from the Jordanian telecommunication industry. J. Mark. Commun. 2019, 25, 799–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Li, S.; Ragu-Nathan, B.; Ragu-Nathan, T.; Rao, S.S. The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega 2006, 34, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Daddi, T.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Marrucci, L.; Rizzi, F.; Testa, F. The effects of green supply chain management capability on the internalisation of environmental management systems and organisation performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 1241–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lakhal, L. Impact of quality on competitive advantage and organizational performance. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2009, 60, 637–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Banerjee, M.; Mishra, M. Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 248–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wang, J.; Omar, A.H.; Alotaibi, F.M.; Daradkeh, Y.I.; Althubiti, S.A. Business intelligence ability to enhance organizational performance and performance evaluation capabilities by improving data mining systems for competitive advantage. Inf. Process. Manag. 2022, 59, 103075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Valmohammadi, C. Customer relationship management: Innovation and performance. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2017, 9, 374–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kot, S. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Small and Medium Enterprises. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Ahire, S.L.; Golhar, D.Y.; Waller, M.A. Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decis. Sci. 1996, 27, 23–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kenny, D.A. Multiple Factor Models: Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Available online: http://davidakenny.net/cm/mfactor.htm (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  92. Garver, M.S.; Mentzer, J.T. Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. J. Bus. Logist. 1999, 20, 33–57. [Google Scholar]
  93. Koufteros, X.A. Testing a model of pull production: A paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. J. Oper. Manag. 1999, 17, 467–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sukati, I.; Hamid, A.B.; Baharun, R.; Yusoff, R.M. The Study of Supply Chain Management Strategy and Practices on Supply Chain Performance. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 40, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Selviaridis, K.; Norrman, A. Performance-based contracting for advanced logistics services challenges in its adoption, design and management. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2015, 45, 592–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yadollahinia, M.; Teimoury, E.; Paydar, M.M. Tire forward and reverse supply chain design considering customer relationship management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 138, 215–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hashim, M.; Baig, S.A.; Amjad, F.; Nazam, M.; Akram, M.U. Impact of supply chain management practices on organizational performance and moderating role of innovation culture: A case of Pakistan textile industry. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management; Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing Book Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 1002, pp. 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gold, S.; Seuring, S.; Beske, P. Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational resources: A literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 230–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Beske, P. Dynamic capabilities and sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2012, 42, 372–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.-H. Institutional-based antecedents and performance outcomes of internal and external green supply chain management practices. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2013, 19, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, Y.; Feng, H. Customer relationship management capabilities: Measurement, antecedents and consequences. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Hsu, C.C.; Tan, K.C.; Mohamad Zailani, S.H. Strategic orientations, sustainable supply chain initiatives, and reverse logistics: Empirical evidence from an emerging market. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2016, 36, 86–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Figueroa, A.; Koh, S.C.L. Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega 2017, 66, 344–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Vargas, J.R.C.; Mantilla, C.E.M.; Jabbour, A.B.L.D.S. Enablers of sustainable supply chain management and its effect on competitive advantage in the Colombian context. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 139, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fantazy, K.; Tipu, S.A.A. Exploring the relationships of the culture of competitiveness and knowledge development to sustainable supply chain management and organizational performance. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2019, 32, 936–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Keramati, A.; Mehrabi, H.; Mojir, N. A process-oriented perspective on customer relationship management and organizational performance: An empirical investigation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2010, 39, 1170–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lee, Y.-C.; Wang, Y.-C.; Lu, S.-C.; Hsieh, Y.-F.; Chien, C.-H.; Tsai, S.-B.; Dong, W. An empirical research on customer satisfaction study: A consideration of different levels of performance. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Ata, U.Z.; Toker, A. The effect of customer relationship management adoption in business-to-business markets. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2012, 27, 497–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 04072 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 04072 g001
Sustainability 15 04072 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural equation modeling with standardized coefficients and (t-value). Chi-square = 2.237; SRMR = 0.66; RMSEA = 0.089; NFI = 0.95; NNFI = 0.978; CFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.934.
Figure 2. Structural equation modeling with standardized coefficients and (t-value). Chi-square = 2.237; SRMR = 0.66; RMSEA = 0.089; NFI = 0.95; NNFI = 0.978; CFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.934.
Sustainability 15 04072 g002
Table
Table 1. Survey items.
Table 1. Survey items.
Construct DimensionSurvey ItemSource
Sustainable supply chain management
-
Strategic supplier collaboration
-
Environment conservation
-
Green product design ensured with green warehousing
-
Logistics optimization
-
Reuse of materials
[89]
Customer relationship management
-
Frequently measuring and evaluating customer satisfaction
-
Facilitating customer’s ability to seek assistance from the company
-
Periodically evaluating the importance of the relationship with customers
-
Joint problem solving
-
Information sharing with customers
[88]
Competitive advantage
-
Selling price
-
Superior quality and on-time delivery
-
Introducing new products and innovation
-
Reliable and durable products
-
Fast product development
[86]
Organizational performance
-
Increase market share.
-
Return on investment
-
Growth in sales
-
Profit margin on sales
-
Growth in ROI
[14]
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the respondents.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the respondents.
Responses Based on Geographic AreaResponses Based on the Number of Experience Years
DeltaReset of EgyptUp to 2 yearsMore than 2 years till 5 yearsMore than 5 years
87%13%13.5%65.9%20.6%
Table
Table 3. Dimensionality and convergent validity assessment.
Table 3. Dimensionality and convergent validity assessment.
ScaleRelative χ2SRMRRMSEANNFICFINFIGFI
Sustainable supply chain management2.7650.6450.0860.920.900.9570.868
Customer relationship management2.8450.6780.0890.930.870.9450.872
Competitive advantage2.8610.6610.0860.930.860.9640.868
Organizational performance2.9150.6780.0960.940.940.9350.856
Table
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
ScaleSustainable Supply Chain ManagementCustomer Relationship ManagementCompetitive AdvantageOrganizational Performance
Sustainable supply chain management1
Customer relationship management0.482 **1
Competitive advantage0.587 **0.478 **1
Organizational performance0.476 **0.469 **0.584 **1
Correlation is significant at * 0.05 and ** 0.01 levels (two-tailed).
Table
Table 5. Reliability assessment.
Table 5. Reliability assessment.
ScaleFactor Loading (0.7)Cronbach’s AlphaConstruct ReliabilityVariance Extracted
Sustainable Supply Chain Management 0.920.980.88
SSCM 10.83
SSCM20.86
SSCM30.79
SSCM40.85
SSCM50.86
Customer Relationship Management 0.930.940.86
CRM10.87
CRM20.93
CRM30.86
CRM40.87
CRM50.85
Competitive Advantage 0.930.940.83
CA10.83
CA20.92
CA30.85
CA40.79
CA50.88
Organizational performance 0.940.930.85
OP10.82
OP20.95
OP30.87
OP40.90
OP50.91
Table
Table 6. Confirmatory analysis. chi-square = 2.237; SRMR = 0.66; RMSEA = 0.089; NFI = 0.95; NNFI = 0.978; CFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.934.
Table 6. Confirmatory analysis. chi-square = 2.237; SRMR = 0.66; RMSEA = 0.089; NFI = 0.95; NNFI = 0.978; CFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.934.
Construct/MeasuresStandardized Coefficientst-Value
Sustainable Supply Chain Management
SSCM10.9612.91
SSCM20.9313.78
SSCM30.9112.89
SSCM40.8712.67
SSCM50.9113.88
Customer Relationship Management
CRM10.8412.65
CRM20.9313.64
CRM30.9213.87
CRM40.8612.98
CRM50.9113.69
Competitive Advantage
CA10.9612.76
CA20.9112.56
CA30.9313.76
CA40.9213.70
CA50.8712.97
Organizational performance
OP10.8712.87
OP20.8513.46
OP30.9112.32
OP40.9012.55
OP50.8812.87
Table
Table 7. Linear regression results.
Table 7. Linear regression results.
VariablesCustomer Relationship ManagementCompetitive AdvantageOrganizational Performance
βR2ΔR2βR2ΔR2βR2ΔR2
Sustainable supply chain Management0.4250.1800.035 *0.5910.3910.085 **0.1940.4760.139 *
Customer relationship management------0.2310.1350.074 *
Competitive advantage------0.1940.4760.138 *
Notes: * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Attia, A. Effect of Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Customer Relationship Management on Organizational Performance in the Context of the Egyptian Textile Industry. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054072

AMA Style

Attia A. Effect of Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Customer Relationship Management on Organizational Performance in the Context of the Egyptian Textile Industry. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):4072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054072

Chicago/Turabian Style

Attia, Ahmed. 2023. "Effect of Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Customer Relationship Management on Organizational Performance in the Context of the Egyptian Textile Industry" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 4072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054072

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop