Next Article in Journal
Application of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Method in Assessing the Environmental Impact of New Materials Derived from Waste Polymers in Terms of Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
Antecedent and Consequence of Innovation Output: Evidence from Thailand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 22
10.3390/su16229757
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Green Supply Chain Management on Green Innovation, Environmental Performance, and Competitive Advantage

by
Emel Gelmez
1,
Eren Özceylan
2,3 and
Beata Mrugalska
4,*
1
Department of Business Administration, Selçuk University, Konya 42130, Türkiye
2
Department of Industrial Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep 27310, Türkiye
3
Department of Technical Sciences, Western Caspian University, Baku 1001, Azerbaijan
4
Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, 60-965 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(22), 9757; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229757
Submission received: 29 August 2024 / Revised: 3 November 2024 / Accepted: 5 November 2024 / Published: 8 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Products and Services)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Environmental issues are increasing in importance for businesses day by day. Businesses are undergoing an environmentally focused transformation in all their activities within the value chain. Therefore, the necessity of integrating and maintaining the concept of “green” in all processes such as production, technology development, marketing, and supply chains has emerged. Topics such as environmentally sensitive production systems, green supply, and green innovation (GI) are both accepted in practice in various sectors and are examined in the literature. When the impact of green practices on the performance items of businesses is taken into consideration, it is important to examine the issue from this perspective. In this context, the aim of this study is to examine the impact of green supply chain management (GSCM) practices on GI, environmental performance (EP), and competitive advantage (CA). Within the framework of this aim, a survey was conducted on 283 businesses producing plastic, packaging, and textile products in Gaziantep (169) and Konya (114) provinces in Türkiye. In this study, where the quantitative research method was adopted, the hypotheses established were tested by using structural equation modeling (SEM). SPSS 22.0 package program and AMOS 22.0 program were used in the analysis. Within the scope of the analysis, the measurement model (confirmatory factor analysis) was first tested. As a result of the analysis, GSCM practices have a positive impact on GI and CA; GSCM has a positive impact on EP; GI has a positive impact on CA; and EP has not a positive impact on CA. This study is significant as it examines the combined impact of GSCM, GI, EP, and CA. Also, this study is important as it is the first study to examine the impact of GSCM practices on GI, EP, and CA in Türkiye.

1. Introduction

Environmental issues play a crucial role in the profitability of businesses [1]. Since the Industrial Revolution, environmental destruction caused by industrial practices has become a problem on a global scale. Environmental policies and regulations in recent years have been implemented to eliminate such environmental impacts. Environmental management notions such as green management, green marketing, green production, and GI are accepted in practice in reducing environmental pollution [2]. In addition, in this process, green GSCM is gaining interest among production/operations and supply chain management (SCM) researchers and practitioners [3], and is the subject of various studies [4,5,6,7,8,9].
GI plays an important role in the implementation of GSCM practices to achieve the environmental goals of businesses and at the same time increase their added value [10]. As a matter of fact, GI, which has become a popular concept in recent years [11], promotes the implementation of GSCM with new approaches and ideas in manufacturing businesses [12]. Additionally, GI can provide a platform for collaboration between companies and suppliers [13]. Therefore, in recent years, the management of GIs has attracted attention, and the importance of the subject has increased both in practice and in academia [14].
Considering the connections between GSCM and GI, determining their impacts on businesses becomes important. In this direction, the research question is whether GSCM practices have an impact on GI, EP, and CA. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine the impact of GSCM practices on GI, EP, and CA.
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), when Türkiye’s GDP is evaluated, it is the 17th largest economy in the world with USD 1024.5 billion as of 2023. GDP per capita is USD 11,938.8. Poverty has also decreased rapidly with growth. In addition, the poverty rate, calculated as the proportion of people living below the poverty line of USD 6.85 per day, has decreased by more than half between 2007 and 2021, from over 20% to 7.6% [15]. Another important issue is that Türkiye ranks 72nd among 167 countries in the Sustainable Development Report 2024 ranking [16]. Therefore, when Türkiye’s economic structure and sustainable development goals are taken into account, it is seen that it has a growing structure. When Türkiye’s development is evaluated in the context of industry, especially the developing and still developing Gaziantep Industry and Konya Industry attract attention.
When evaluated in terms of regional capacity, employment power, and export potential, the manufacturing industry stands out among other economic units as the strongest aspect of Gaziantep and includes various sectors. In addition, the provincial industry is the most important production center in Türkiye in many sectors [17]. Konya manufacturing industry sector is increasing its product range day by day with its fast-developing and dynamic manufacturing industry structure and is one of the leading production bases of Türkiye [18]. When the sectoral structure of GSO and KSO is taken into consideration, the share of businesses in plastic, packaging, and textile products in both sectors is remarkable. GSO and KSO are important production bases in these sectors [18,19]. In this connection, within the framework of the main aim of the study, a survey was conducted on the manufacturing business of producing plastic, packaging, and textile products operating in Konya and Gaziantep provinces of Türkiye. When the literature on the subject is reviewed, it is seen that there are various studies in which the variables determined as GSCM practices, GI, EP, and CA are evaluated separately. However, although there are studies in which the relevant variables are evaluated separately, it is thought that this study will contribute to the literature, especially in Türkiye, in terms of evaluating the variables together.
Based on the explanations above, Section 2 of the study includes a summary of the literature. Section 3 of the study provides information about the research question, the development of hypotheses, and the conceptual model. In Section 4 of the study, the research methodology is given; in Section 5, the results of the research are given; in Section 6, the implications, limitations and future research are given; and in Section 7, the conclusion and suggestions are given.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Green Supply Chain Management

A new approach has emerged in SCM as a result of the inclusion of environmental responsibility in production systems. This approach is referred to as GSCM. In GSCM, consumers and governments adopt an environmentally friendly approach in both production processes and products [20]. At this point, when the foundations of GSCM are examined, it is seen that it is based on both the SCM and the environmental management literature [3]. GSCM has the ability to minimize the overall environmental impact of both forward and reverse flows. It is also a concept developed as intra-company and inter-company management of upstream and downstream supply chains [21]. Adding the term “green” to SCM brings green supply chain practices such as green production, green marketing, green material management, green distribution, green purchasing, and reverse logistics and aims to create an environmentally conscious mindset in all processes of the supply chain [22].
According to Sarkis et al. [23], GSCM is the integration of environmental concerns into the inter-organizational practices of SCM, including reverse logistics. In other words, GSCM is a supply chain method in which the natural environment is associated with the design, procurement, production, distribution, use, reuse, and disposal of goods/services, and where policies are addressed, actions are taken, and relationships are reshaped in response to concerns about the design, procurement, production, distribution, use, reuse, and disposal of goods/services [24]. Additionally, GSCM is the integration of environmental thinking into SCM [3].
GSCM protects natural resources. It is also included in the literature as a strategy that manages the flow of materials along the value chain at different stages, such as supply, production, and distribution, with the aim of protecting the environment and reducing global warming and carbon emissions [25]. Based on the explanations, it can be stated that GSCM practices make it mandatory for organizations to design, implement, and produce environmentally friendly products that comply with environmental sustainability [26].
The dimensions of GSCM practices have been evaluated in different ways in the literature [27,28,29,30,31]. Within the scope of this study, GSCM practices have been examined as a five-dimensional issue including internal environmental management (IEM), eco-design (ED), green purchasing (GP), cooperation with customers (CWC) including environmental requirements, and investment recovery (IR) [27], and can be explained as follows:
  • IEM: It is an issue that is fundamental to improving corporate performance in terms of senior executive commitment and cross-functional collaboration [32]. IEM factors include operational and managing practices within the organization [33].
  • ED: It is a holistic approach that takes into account the concept of the product life cycle in terms of environmental, health, and safety objectives [34]. It is a process in which ecological aspects are included in green product design and development [33]. ED aims to reduce the negative impacts of a product on the environment and society during the design process of the product without compromising other criteria and features, such as the product’s performance, usage, or appearance [35].
  • GP: It is defined as the idea of purchasing raw materials that prioritize environmental sustainability focused on environmental awareness, such as reducing waste sources, encouraging recycling and reuse, reducing resources, and using environmentally friendly materials [36]. GP practices are important to reduce the negative environmental impacts of producing, using, and recycling processes [37].
  • CWC: According to Zhu et al. [27], CWS involves businesses acting together with customers to design cleaner production processes [29].
  • IR: Investment recovery is the strategic use of techniques such as redeployment, reselling, and recycling to extract more value from materials and products within a business. In IR, the goal is to convert excess resources into revenue by selling idle resources to avoid purchasing additional equipment or materials, reducing storage space, and redistributing idle resources to other corporate locations [38].
Based on the information above, GSCM can be considered an issue consubstantiated with environmental practices in businesses [39]. As a matter of fact, in line with the relevant literature review, it can be stated that GSCM leads to GI [10]. In this context, examining the relationship between GSCM and GI can be considered an important issue.

2.2. Green Innovation

The concept of green innovation has found its place in many sectors thanks to its environmental applications [40]. As a matter of fact, this issue is considered one of the main factors in achieving environmental and economic success [41]. Essentially, GI is based on two concepts. One of these is innovation, and the other is environmental management [42]. GI involves the use of environmental technologies, strategies, and management systems [43].
GI is a process that contributes to the creation of new production and technologies in order to reduce environmental risks and also the negative consequences that may arise with resource use [44]. Additionally, GI can be expressed as hardware or software innovation related to green products or processes or corporate environmental management, including energy saving, pollution prevention, waste recycling, and innovations in technologies included in green product designs [45]. In this context, GI is the creation of new products and processes that have added value for the customer and dealer, but the main aim is to reduce negative environmental impacts [46].
GI, which refers to an innovation that reduces the negative impact of a business’s practices on the environment and includes the entire life cycle process of input and output factors [47], is considered a concept that provides businesses with the opportunity to reduce their negative effects on the environment. Also, GI enables the development of products and production processes that are less harmful to the environment [48].
GI is conceptualized as a multidimensional structure with two main aspects: green product innovation (GPI) and green process innovation (GPII) [49]. Within the scope of this study, GI is evaluated in the context of two dimensions: GPI and GPII [45,49].
GPI strives to protect and enhance the natural environment by conserving energy and resources. Also, GPI is a multifaceted process that aims to minimize environmental impacts [41]. GPII can be defined as the use of innovative methods to reduce the negative environmental effects caused by manufacturing processes [50]. As a matter of fact, GPI and GPII can contribute to environmental sustainability and are becoming increasingly important [48].

2.3. Environmental Performance

With increasing environmental awareness, environmentally friendly products are in demand [51]. Environmental practices have become an important issue in society [52]. Environmental management covers different initiatives to reduce the negative environmental impacts resulting from a business’s practices. The aim of these initiatives is to reduce production costs and on-compliance risks, improve the company image, increase marketing advantage, and generally improve EP. The environmental performance of a business can affect its financial performance; when environmental management is underway, waste is minimized. Thus, natural resources are used better, operating costs decrease, and efficiency and productivity increase [53].
EP is a concept that covers business practices regarding social expectations for an eco-friendly environment [54]. EP is defined by ISO 14001 [55] as the measurable results of environmental management systems related to the management of environmental aspects carried out by an organization based on its environmental policies and objectives [56].
EP has been researched and discussed with various topics such as GI and GSCM [12,29,57,58,59,60]. In one of these studies, Seman et al. [12] finds that GI has a positive impact on EP. When the relationships between EP and GSCM are examined, it is seen that GSCM has an impact on EP [12,29]. The evaluation of the relationships between green GSCM practices, GI, EP, and CA is detailed in the development of hypotheses established within the scope of the research.

2.4. Competitive Advantage

As the number of businesses offering similar goods and services to consumers increases, competition between businesses has also increased. Despite the intensity of competition, a business is able to gain some level of advantage over its competitors. This advantage, also known as CA, makes it possible to generate more sales/margin and retain and attract more customers than competitors. Traditionally, CA arises from sources such as cost structure, quality of products or services, innovation, availability, distribution network, and customer support level. At this point, CA in its simplest form is the advantage an organization has over its competitors [61]. CA, which can be defined as the degree to which businesses can establish a defensible position against their competitors [62], has been studied in association with various topics such as GSCM and GI [46,57,63,64,65,66]. Among these studies, Gürlek and Tuna [67] find that GI has a positive impact on CA, and Novitasari and Agustia [68] find that GSCM has a positive impact on CA. In this context, the relationships between CA, GI, GSCM, and EP are detailed under the title of research question, hypotheses, development, and conceptual model.

3. Research Question, Hypotheses Development, and Conceptual Model

The research question has been determined as “Do GSCM practices have an impact on GI, EP and CA?” and the hypotheses have been created within the framework of the main aim of the research.

3.1. GSCM and Green Innovation

A successful GI implementation helps companies become more efficient and build their core competencies [69]. With this, businesses’ adoption of GI and implementation of GSCM practices in the value chain can be considered a subject that increases its importance [57]. Considering the importance of the life cycle of products, there is a strategic connection between GSCM and GI [10]. When the literature is examined, the relationship between two remarkable topics, GSCM practices and GI, is the subject of various studies [10,12,70,71,72]. Seman et al. [10] examine the relationship between GI and GSCM from a theoretical perspective. In another study, it has been determined that there is a positive and direct relationship between GI and GSCM practices, and at the same time, GI has a mediating role in the relationship between GSCM practices and EP [12]. The relationship between three variables determined by Purwanto et al. [71], namely GSCM, GI, and EP, is examined within the framework of the conceptual model of the research. The study finds that GSCM has a positive impact on EP; GSCM has a positive impact on GI; GI has a positive impact on EP. In this regard, based on the relevant literature, the first hypothesis of the research is as follows:
H1. 
GSCM practices have a positive impact on GI.

3.2. GSCM and Environmental Performance

Considering the fact that with the increase in sustainable consumption habits, environmental responsibility will be demanded not only from businesses but also from various layers of production chains, GSCM practices have emerged as an opportunity to improve the competitiveness and EP of businesses [25]. EP evaluates the positive impact of GSCM and GI practices on the natural environment [12]. In this context, it is seen that the relationship between GSCM and EP is the subject of various studies [12,46,51,71,73,74,75]. According to the study conducted by Green et al. [29], GSCM practices include GP, CWS, ED, and IR. In the study, the impact of GP, CWS, ED, and IR on EP was examined. According to the analysis, it was concluded that GSCM practices positively effect EP. Abdallah and Al-Ghwayeen [76] concluded that GSCM has a positive effect on EP. Similarly, Seman et al. [12] found that GSCM practices have a positive effect on EP. Based on the relevant literature, the following hypothesis has been put forward.
H2. 
GSCM practices have a positive impact on EP.

3.3. GSCM and Competitive Advantage

CA relates to a set of procedures that differentiate the organization from its competitors through its proactive strategies [77]. GSCM, on the other hand, ensures the creation of environmentally sustainable production strategies by minimizing the energy and resource consumption required for the production of goods and services. The cost advantage provided by environmentally sustainable production strategies provides businesses with a significant CA in the markets in the long term [78]. Therefore, it is important to determine the relationship between GSCM practices and CA. It is seen that the relationship between GSCM practices and CA is researched in various studies [63,68,77,79,80,81]. In this direction, the third research hypothesis is as follows:
H3. 
GSCM practices have a positive impact on CA.

3.4. Green Innovation and Competitive Advantage

With environmental concerns, businesses have had to develop new green products and production processes to overcome their competitors through strict environmental regulations and differentiation strategies [82]. Innovation is an important part of an organization’s ability to maintain CA in the business environment [69]. GI, on the other hand, can improve the situation of businesses, positively affect customers, provide green services, and enable CA [83]. Therefore, the importance of GI in providing CA has emerged. The relationship between the two has been evaluated in various studies within the scope of the literature [46,57,67,84]. Chiou et al. [57] conclude in their study that green products, processes, and managerial innovation have a positive impact on CA. Barforoush et al. [84] conclude in their study that GI factors affect CA. Similarly, in the study of Khaksar et al. [46], the hypothesis that there is a significant relationship between GI and CA for organizations is accepted. In this direction, fourth research hypothesis was established as follows:
H4. 
GI has a positive impact on CA.

3.5. Environmental Performance vs. Competitive Advantage

A critical outcome of EP has increased CA due to its important connections with the competitiveness of businesses [85]. When the relevant literature is reviewed, it is seen that the relationship between EP and CA has been the subject of various studies. Among these studies, Khaksar et al. [46] conclude in their study that there is a significant relationship between the EP of organizations and the CA of the organization. Chiou et al. [57] similarly find that EP has a positive relationship with CA. Contrary to these studies, the hypothesis established by Van den Berg et al. [13] that there is a positive relationship between EP and CA was rejected. Within the scope of the study, it is evaluated that the effect of environmental awareness on the weak relationship between EP and CA has not yet gained sufficient momentum to contribute significantly to CA. Lee et al. [53] find in their study that there is a positive relationship between EP and CA, similar to the findings of other studies in the literature. Based on the literature review, the following hypothesis has been created.
H5. 
EP has a positive impact on CA.
In addition to the studies used in determining the hypotheses, some of these studies are summarized in Table 1.
Based on Table 1, where the studies used in determining the hypotheses and some of these studies are presented, the conceptual model and hypotheses of the research within the framework of the main aim of the research are presented in Figure 1.

4. Research Methodology

Research Method and Sample

Within the scope of this study, a survey was conducted on businesses producing plastic, packaging, and textile products. These businesses are registered with the Konya Chamber of Industry (KSO), Konya, Türkiye [87] and Gaziantep Chamber of Industry (GSO), Gaziantep, Türkiye [88]. The data were collected online by telephone from participants between the dates 14 April 2022 and 1 June 2022. Within the scope of the study, a convenience sampling method was used.
The questions were asked about measuring GSCM practices (21 items), GI (8 items), EP (6 items), and CA (6 items). The questions asked for GSCM practices were created using the scale developed by Zhu et al. [27]. The scale consists of five dimensions: IEM (7 items), GP (5 items), CWS (3 items), ED (3 items), and IR (3 items). Questions for measuring GI were asked using the study of Chen et al. [45]. GI consists of two dimensions: GPI (4 items) and GPII (4 items). Questions (6 items) for measuring EP were asked using a one-dimensional scale developed by Zhu et al. [27]. Finally, questions regarding CA were asked in a single dimension (6 items) by using the study of Chang [65].
Within the scope of Konya province, there are 207 businesses registered to the KSO and 299 businesses registered to the Gaziantep Chamber of Industry (GSO) that produce plastic, packaging, and textile products (As of April 2022, there are a total of 506 businesses registered with KSO (207) and GSO (299) producing plastic, packaging, and textile products. The data were obtained from the websites of KSO and GSO). A total of 283 businesses were analyzed in line with the data obtained from 114 businesses in Konya and 169 businesses in Gaziantep. Considering the rate of participants responding to the survey, this number corresponds to a return rate of approximately 56%. Using GPower 3.1 software, the sample size was determined as 269 for a power of at least 80% and a significance level of α = 0.05. However, due to possible sampling error, the sample size was determined as 300. As a result of removing some outliers before conducting the analyses, the study continued with 283 surveys. In light of this information, it can be said that the sample has the power to represent the population.

5. Results

5.1. Characteristics of the Sample

The sample of the research consists of businesses producing plastic, packaging, and textile products in Konya (114) and Gaziantep (169) provinces. Considering the data obtained within the scope of the research, it is found that proportional equivalence is achieved in terms of businesses where the survey was conducted (it is 40.3% in Konya and 59.7% in Gaziantep). When evaluated within the context of the sectors in which the surveyed businesses operate, it has been determined that 41.7% of the businesses produce plastic, 36.7% of them produce textiles, and 21.6% of them produce packaging. In addition, considering the period in which the businesses have been in operation, it is seen that the majority of them (60.1%) have been working for 21 years or more. When businesses are evaluated in terms of the number of employees, the majority (94.3%) are considered to be small and medium-sized. Considering the market structure in which the businesses operate, it is seen that 55.5% of them operate in both markets. In general, it has been determined that the businesses have entirely domestic capital (85.5%). However, considering the importance of research and development (R&D) practices in the competitive global environment, the positive answers given to the questions asked to the businesses about whether they have R&D centers show that they are below the average (14.1%). However, it has been determined that 8.1% of the companies participating in the survey consider opening an R&D center.

5.2. Findings

5.2.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Within the scope of the research, reliability analysis was performed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For CFA, multi-factor confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient were given for reliability. Considering the Cronbach’s alpha (α) values of the scales, GSCM practices are 0.909; GI is 0.960; EP is 0.773; CA is 0.861. In this context, the α values of the scales tested in this study are above the acceptable lower limit of 0.70 [89,90]. According to these situations, the reliability and validity of the scale were confirmed.
The values obtained as a result of CFA are given in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 below. In addition, average variance extracted (AVE), Cronbach’s alpha values, standardized regression loads, t values, and significance levels of these values are given in the relevant tables.
Since the fit values produced by the measurement models to test the validity of the scales are not within acceptable limits, necessary modifications have been made.
In CFA, AVE must be greater than 0.50. In this regard, when Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 are examined, it is seen that the scales used in the study meet these conditions. In addition, it is seen that the t values are statistically significant.
Table 6 below shows the goodness of fit values for confirmatory factor analyses.
As seen in Table 6, the results of the research variables determined as GSCM practices, GI, EP, and CA are included in terms of χ2/df, GFI, AGFI, NFI, CFI, and RMSEA values, as well as good fit values and acceptable fit values. The table was first examined in terms of χ2/df value. The value χ2/df is used to test the fit between the established model and the data. While the value of χ2/df, which is below 3, is considered to be an indicator of a good fit, the value, which is up to 5, is considered an acceptable fit [91,92,93]. In this respect, when Table 6 is examined, it is seen that χ2/df value for CFA for each scale is within the limits of a good fit. Good fit is indicated when the goodness of fit (GFI) index is between 0.95 and 1.00. A value between 0.90 and 0.95 is an indicator of an acceptable fit [94,95]. In this context, it is seen that the GFI value calculated for CFA for each scale is within the limits of an acceptable fit. Adjustment, in terms of the goodness of fit index (AGFI), values between 0.90 and 1 are indicative of a good fit [96]. In this regard, it can be stated that the values obtained for CFA for each scale are within the acceptable limits. In terms of normative fit index (NFI), the range 0.95–1 is an indicator of a good fit [97]. However, there are also studies that consider this value to be above 0.80 as sufficient [98,99]. In this context, it is seen that the value calculated for CFA for each scale is within the acceptable fit range. A comparative fit index (CFI) value between 0.95 and 1 is an indicator of a good fit, and values above 0.90 are considered acceptable [100]. Therefore, it can be stated that the value obtained for CFA for each scale is within the good fit range. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values less than 0.05 can indicate a good fit [101]. In this regard, it is seen that the value calculated for CFA for each scale is within the acceptable limits.

5.2.2. Structural Equation Analysis Results

After verifying the basic variables of the research, namely GSCM, GI, EP, and CA, structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses. Before examining the relationships between the basic variables, the statistical significance and validity of the research model must be determined. Goodness of fit indices are used to determine the statistical significance and validity of the research model. Table 7 below shows these indices and the good fit, acceptable fit, and fit values of the indices for the model.
The SEM analysis results for the model in Figure 2 can be summarized as seen in Table 7 and Table 8. In this context, the evaluation results of the five hypotheses established in accordance with the main aim of the study are given in Table 8.
When Table 8 is examined, it is seen that the H1, H2, H3, and H4 hypotheses are accepted while the H5 hypothesis is rejected. In this context, within the framework of the established conceptual model, GSCM has a positive effect on GI; GSCM has a positive effect on EP; GSCM has a positive effect on CA; and GI has a positive effect on CA. However, it is seen that the research hypothesis that “EP has a positive impact on CA” is rejected.

6. Discussion

As environmental problems increase, customers and buyers demand that suppliers offer products and materials that take these problems into account [57]. Therefore, issues such as GSCM and GI have come to the fore. Various studies have shown that GSCM practices and GI issues, when evaluated together, have positive effects on the performance and CP of businesses [12,71,72].
In this study, hypotheses based on the literature were tested. In line with the SEM analysis results for the model in Figure 2, the hypothesis H1 was first examined. It is seen that the correlation coefficient between GSCM practices and the GI variable is 0.697, and the p value is <0.05. These results support the H1 hypothesis established within the scope of the research. In this context, it has been concluded that GSCM practices have a positive effect on GI. In their study, Novitasari and Agustia [70] examine the mediating role of GI in the relationship between GSCM and BP. In this context, four basic hypotheses are established. According to the analysis, it has been found that GSCM practices have a positive effect on GI but not on BP. However, it has also been found that GI positively affects BP and has a mediating role in the relationship between GSCM and BP. In the research by Purwanto et al. [71], it is concluded that GSCM has a positive effect on EP; GSCM has a positive effect on GI; GI has a positive effect on EP. In another study, Shafique et al. [26] determine that there is a positive relationship (0.852) between GSCM and GI. In addition, in the study conducted by Seman et al. [12], a positive and direct relationship has been found between GI and GSCM. Again, in the same study, it is concluded that GI has a mediating effect on the relationship between GSCM and EP. When the literature is examined, it can be stated that the result obtained within the scope of the study is in accordance with the literature.
When the second hypothesis of the research, which is put forward as “GSCM practices have a positive effect on EP”, is evaluated, it is seen that the correlation coefficient between the variables is 0.670 and the p value is <0.05. These results support H2. When the literature is examined in the context of the relationship between variables, the positive effect of GSCM on EP is supported by other studies. Among these studies, Yu et al. [51] examine GSCM applications as a two-dimensional concept as follows: GP and customer green cooperation. According to the analysis, it has been concluded that GP and customer green cooperation have a positive relationship with EP. Dzikriansyah et al. [102] find that GSCM has a positive effect on EP in their study. Wiredu et al. [103] find that GSCM has a positive effect on EP in their study. Similar to these studies, Karim et al. [9] find that GSCM has a positive effect on EP in their study. In this direction, the result obtained within the scope of the study is in accordance with the literature.
When Table 8 is examined, it is seen that H3, which was established to determine the effect of GSCM practices on CA, is accepted when the relationship coefficient between the variables (0.428) and the significance level (p < 0.05) are examined. In the study conducted by Al-khawaldah et al. [77], GSCM is examined in three dimensions as follows: GP, green manufacturing, and green marketing. It is determined that each dimension positively affects the CA. In another study conducted by Novitasari and Agustia [68], it is concluded that GSCM has a positive effect on CA, while it does not have a positive effect on BP. In the same study, it is also concluded that CA has a positive effect on BP. The last hypothesis of the study, which is that CA has a mediating role in the relationship between GSCM and BP, has been accepted. In this context, it is seen that the result obtained within the scope of the study is in accordance with the literature.
It is seen that the relationship coefficient between the GI and CA variables is 0.311 and the p value is <0.001. These results support the H4 hypothesis established within the scope of the research. As stated in the hypothesis creation section, Chiou et al. [57] evaluate GI in three dimensions as follows: green product, process, and managerial innovation. They conclude that each dimension has a positive effect on CA. Similar to this result, Khaksar et al. [46] find that GI is related to CA in their studies. Maziriri and Maramura [104] conclude that green products and GPII have a positive effect on sustainable CA in their studies. They also find that sustainable CA positively affects BP in their studies. Al-Abdallah and Al-Salim [105] conclude that GPI has an effect on CA. In this context, this result obtained within the scope of the study is in accordance with the literature.
The last hypothesis of the study, which is about the relationship coefficient between EP and CA, is −0.132, and the p value is =0.125 (p > 0.05). With this result, H5 has been rejected. Lee et al. [53] find that there is a positive relationship between green suppliers and both EP and CA. It is also found that EP positively affects CA. One of the results obtained within the scope of this study is that EP has a partial mediating role between green suppliers and competitiveness. Similarly, as explained in the studies used in the creation of the hypotheses, EP has a positive effect on CA [46,57], and it is concluded that the relationship between the variables is not positive [13].

7. Conclusions

The main purpose of this study is to determine the impact of GSCM practices on CA, GI and EP. Within the framework of this main objective, a survey has been applied to businesses operating in plastic production, packaging, and textile production in Konya and Gaziantep cities of Türkiye.
Within the scope of the study, first confirmatory factor analysis was applied. Then, the model established within the scope of the research was examined. The hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 in the model were tested, and the results were compared with the literature. As a result of the analysis, it has been concluded that GSCM practices have a positive effect on GI, EP, and CA. While it has been determined that GI, which is another research hypothesis, has a positive effect on CA, it has been concluded that EP does not have a positive effect on CA. Theoretical and practical implications of the results obtained in the study were examined and discussed.
The striking issue within the scope of this study is that CA can be achieved by increasing the importance given to GSCM applications and GI applications. Therefore, it is necessary to act with the idea that there is a direct relationship between the increase in GSCM, GI levels, and CA. As a matter of fact, when considered in the context of the cities where the application is carried out, it is thought that both businesses operating in plastic production, packaging, textile production, and businesses in other sectors can make improvements and evaluations in their activities in line with the results obtained from this study. This study is also thought to be a guide for the businesses of other sectors operating in Türkiye.

7.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

When the relevant literature is examined, GSCM, which is the main focus of this study, is the subject of various studies along with topics such as EP, CA, and GI. Some of these studies are explained after creating research hypotheses or testing the hypotheses.
H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 in the model established in the study were tested, and the results were compared with the relevant literature. According to the analysis, it was concluded that GSCM practices have a positive effect on GI, EP, and CA. While another research hypothesis, GI, was found to have a positive effect on CA, it was concluded that EP did not have a positive effect on CA.
GSCM practices encourage businesses to improve their overall performance through GI [12]. Today, businesses carry out their activities in line with the importance of GI in reducing waste from manufacturing processes. GI is a part of sustainable programs. In addition, GI plays an important role in improving social, environmental, and economic performance. The production of environmentally friendly products that provide environmental and social benefits by businesses provides various benefits [106]. GPI and GPII not only reduce the negative environmental impacts of the business but also increase the financial and social performance of the business through waste and cost reduction [107]. Seman et al. [12] create a research model in their study, including GSCM, GI, and EP. Within the scope of the study, it is concluded that GSCM has a positive effect on GI, and GI and GSCM have a positive effect on EP. It is also concluded that GI has a mediating effect on the relationship between GSCM and EP. Based on the explanations, the relationship between the concept of GI, which has positive effects on businesses, and GSCM can be stated as one of the important topics studied in recent years. In addition, as stated in the literature section, the effect of GI on CA has been the subject of various studies [53,64]. Therefore, it is thought that this study will contribute to the literature in terms of developing a model using the variables in question together for the first time in Türkiye and using SEM in the analysis of data, with the issues of GI, EP, and CA of GSCM applications, which are remarkable in both providing an increase in various performance items of businesses and providing CA.
The results obtained within the scope of the study provide important results for plastic production, packaging, and textile production businesses operating in Türkiye. It is thought that businesses operating in the manufacturing sector can benefit from these results. Based on the hypotheses established within the scope of the study, it is seen that businesses can increase their GI levels, EP, and CAs, in line with the importance they attach to GSCM practices. In addition, the positive effect of GI on CA is emphasized. However, it is seen that the 5th research hypothesis, which has been established to determine the effect of EP of businesses on CA, is rejected. When the literature is examined, although there is a similar result [13] that the relationship between CA and EP is not positive, it cannot be considered an expected situation. In fact, EP does not only affect the social acceptability of the organization but also forms the basis of CA [108]. This result obtained within the scope of the research can be stated as a result of the sample not covering the whole of Türkiye. However, when the research variables are evaluated as a whole, it is thought to be important in terms of being the first study in the country.

7.2. Limitations and Future Research

This study has some limitations in terms of the generalizability of the results. Although the survey method is frequently used in quantitative research, it also brings with it some limitations. One of these is that the respondents do not want to answer the questions due to the number of items in the survey. To avoid this limitation, care was taken to keep the questions simple and understandable. The fact that the research covers Konya and Gaziantep cities in Türkiye can be considered a limitation in terms of the generalizability of the research. However, the fact that Gaziantep and Konya cities are industrial zones and the fact that these cities have a structure that grows day by day are considered important for the study.
For possible future studies, different variables, such as BP, can be added to the variables. In addition, the mediating effects can be determined based on the relationships between the variables by making comparisons with all the variables or only with the added variables in a larger sample and in similar or different sectors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.Ö. and B.M.; methodology, E.G.; software, E.G.; validation, E.Ö.; investigation, B.M.; resources, E.G.; data curation, E.G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.G. and E.Ö.; writing—review and editing, B.M.; visualization, E.G.; supervision, E.Ö.; funding acquisition, B.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by POZNAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, grant number 0811/SBAD/1071.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data for the study conducted here will be available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Li, S.; Jayaraman, V.; Paulraj, A.; Shang, K.C. Proactive environmental strategies and performance: Role of green supply chain processes and green product design in the Chinese high-tech industry. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 2136–2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, K.C. The nonlinear effect of green innovation on the corporate competitive advantage. Qual. Quant. 2013, 47, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Srivastava, S.K. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007, 9, 53–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gawusu, S.; Zhang, X.; Jamatutu, S.A.; Ahmed, A.; Amadu, A.A.; Djam Miensah, E. The dynamics of green supply chain management within the framework of renewable energy. Int. J. Energy Res. 2022, 46, 684–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bag, S.; Dhamija, P.; Bryde, D.J.; Singh, R.K. Effect of eco-innovation on green supply chain management, circular economy capability, and performance of small and medium enterprises. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 141, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Makhlouf, H.; Chatti, N.; Lakhal, L. The impact of TQM and green innovation on corporate sustainability: The mediating role of green supply chain management. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2023, 40, 2592–2611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Karmaker, C.L.; Al Aziz, R.; Ahmed, T.; Misbauddin, S.M.; Moktadir, M.A. Impact of industry 4.0 technologies on sustainable supply chain performance: The mediating role of green supply chain management practices and circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 419, 138249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abdallah, A.B.; Al-Ghwayeen, W.S.; Al-Amayreh, E.A.M.; Sweis, R.J. The impact of green supply chain management on circular economy performance: The mediating roles of green innovations. Logistics 2024, 8, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Karim, R.A.; Kawser, S.; Rabiul, M.K.; Chowdhury, T.; Murtaza, F.N.Y. Green supply chain management practices and environmental performance in the healthcare sector: The mediating role of green innovation. Glob. Knowl. Mem. Commun. 2024. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Seman, N.A.A.; Zakuan, N.; Jusoh, A.; Arif, M.S.M.; Saman, M.Z.M. The relationship of green supply chain management and green innovation concept. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 57, 453–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, D.; Rong, Z.; Ji, Q. Green innovation and firm performance: Evidence from listed companies in China, Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 144, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Seman, N.A.A.; Govindan, K.; Mardani, A.; Zakuan, N.; Saman, M.Z.M.; Hooker, R.E.; Ozkul, S. The mediating effect of green innovation on the relationship between green supply chain management and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Van den Berg, U.; Labuschagne, J.P.; Van Den Berg, H. The effects of greening the supplier and innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage. J. Transp. Supply Chain Manag. 2013, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schiederig, T.; Tietze, F.; Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management–an exploratory literature review. Rd Manag. 2012, 42, 180–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/tr/country/turkey/overview (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  16. Available online: https://dashboards.sdgindex.org (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  17. Available online: https://gso.org.tr/tr/genel-sayfa/gaziantep-sanayisi/sanayi-yapisi-53.html (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  18. Available online: https://www.kso.org.tr/tr-TR/Dynamic/Page/konya-sanayi-gorunumu (accessed on 8 July 2024).
  19. Available online: https://gso.org.tr/tr/genel-sayfa/gaziantep-sanayisi/sektorel-yapi-54.html (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  20. Alcaraz, J.L.G.; Reza, J.R.D.; Soto, K.C.A.; Escobedo, G.H.; Happonen, A.; Vidal, R.P.I.; Macías, E.J. Effect of Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Environmental Performance: Case of Mexican Manufacturing Companies. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yu, W.; Chavez, R.; Feng, M.; Wiengarten, F. Integrated green supply chain management and operational performance. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2014, 19, 683–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Masoumik, S.M.; Abdul-Rashid, S.H.; Olugu, E.U. Gaining competitive advantage through strategic green supply chain management: From a literature review towards a conceptual model. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2014, 3, 49–58. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q.; Lai, K.H. An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 130, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zsidisin, G.A.; Siferd, S.P. Environmental purchasing: A framework for theory development. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2001, 7, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Vazquez-Brust, D.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Latan, H. Green supply chain practices and environmental performance in Brazil: Survey, case studies, and implications for B2B. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 66, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shafique, M.; Asghar, M.; Rahman, H. The impact of green supply chain management practices on performance: Moderating role of institutional pressure with mediating effect of green innovation. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng. 2017, 15, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.H. Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain management practices implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chien, M.K.; Shih, L.H. An empirical study of the implementation of green supply chain management practices in the electrical and electronic industry and their relation to organizational performances. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 2007, 4, 383–394. [Google Scholar]
  29. Green, K.W.; Zelbst, P.J.; Meacham, J.; Bhadauria, V.S. Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2012, 17, 290–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Laosirihongthong, T.; Adebanjo, D.; Choon Tan, K. Green supply chain management practices and performance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2013, 113, 1088–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khan, S.A.R.; Qianli, D. Impact of green supply chain management practices on firms’ performance: An empirical study from the perspective of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 16829–16844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hsu, C.W.; Hu, A.H. Green supply chain management in the electronic industry. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 5, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Balon, V. Green supply chain management: Pressures, practices, and performance-An integrative literature review. Bus. Strateg. Dev. 2020, 3, 226–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Thamsatitdej, P.; Boon-Itt, S.; Samaranayake, P.; Wannakarn, M.; Laosirihongthong, T. Eco-design practices towards sustainable supply chain management: Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2017, 10, 326–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, J.; Sarkis, J. Product eco-design practice in green supply chain management: A China-global examination of research. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 2022, 13, 124–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sugandini, D.; Susilowati, C.; Siswanti, Y.; Syafri, W. Green supply management and green marketing strategy on green purchase intention: SMEs cases. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. (JIEM) 2020, 13, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hazaea, S.A.; Al-Matari, E.M.; Zedan, K.; Khatib, S.F.; Zhu, J.; Al Amosh, H. Green purchasing: Past, present and future. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Cordeiro, J.J.; Lai, K.H. Firm-level correlates of emergent green supply chain management practices in the Chinese context. Omega 2008, 36, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jabbour, A.B.; Jabbour, C.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Arantes, A.F. Mixed methodology to analyze the relationship between maturity of environmental management and the adoption of green supply chain management in Brazil. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 92, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yang, Y.; Wang, Y. Supplier selection for the adoption of green innovation in sustainable supply chain management practices: A case of the chinese textile manufacturing industry. Processes 2020, 8, 717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, K.H.; Kim, J.W. Integrating suppliers into green product innovation development: An empirical case study in the semiconductor industry. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2011, 20, 527–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Leenders, M.A.; Chandra, Y. Antecedents and consequences of green innovation in the wine industry: The role of channel structure. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2013, 25, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wong, C.Y.; Wong, C.W.; Boon-itt, S. Effects of green supply chain integration and green innovation on environmental and cost performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 4589–4609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Takalo, S.K.; Tooranloo, H.S. Green innovation: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 122474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chen, Y.S.; Lai, S.B.; Wen, C.T. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Khaksar, E.; Abbasnejad, T.; Esmaeili, A.; Tamošaitienė, J. The effect of green supply chain management practices on environmental performance and competitive advantage: A case study of the cement industry. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2016, 22, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vasileiou, E.; Georgantzis, N.; Attanasi, G.; Llerena, P. Green innovation and financial performance: A study on Italian firms. Res. Policy 2022, 51, 104530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Awan, U.; Arnold, M.G.; Gölgeci, I. Enhancing green product and process innovation: Towards an integrative framework of knowledge acquisition and environmental investment. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2021, 30, 1283–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kong, T.; Feng, T.; Huang, Y.; Cai, J. How to convert green supply chain integration efforts into green innovation: A perspective of knowledge-based view. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1106–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wu, G.C. The influence of green supply chain integration and environmental uncertainty on green innovation in Taiwan’s IT industry. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2013, 18, 539–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yu, Y.; Zhang, M.; Huo, B. The impact of supply chain quality integration on green supply chain management and environmental performance. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2019, 30, 1110–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. De Villiers, C.; Naiker, V.; Van Staden, C.J. The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1636–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lee, V.H.; Ooi, K.B.; Chong, A.Y.L.; Lin, B. A structural analysis of greening the supplier, environmental performance and competitive advantage. Prod. Plan. Control 2015, 26, 116–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Asfahani, A.M. Green HRM and servant leadership: Driving competitive advantage and environmental performance in higher education. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. ISO 14001; Environmental Management Systems: Specification with Guidance for Use. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.
  56. Muma, B.O.; Nyaoga, R.B.; Matwere, R.B.; Nyambega, E. Green supply chain management and environmental performance among tea processing firms in Kericho County-Kenya. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Manag. Sci. 2014, 2, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chiou, T.Y.; Chan, H.K.; Lettice, F.; Chung, S.H. The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2011, 47, 822–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rehman, S.U.; Kraus, S.; Shah, S.A.; Khanin, D.; Mahto, R.V. Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 163, 120481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Singh, S.K.; Del Giudice, M.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 150, 119762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ali, S.; Jiang, J.; Rehman, R.U.; Khan, M.K. Tournament incentives and environmental performance: The role of green innovation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 17670–17680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Diugwu, I.A. Building competitive advantage of small and medium sized enterprises through knowledge acquisition and sharing. KCA J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 3, 102–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Li, S.; Ragu-Nathan, B.; Ragu-Nathan, T.S.; Rao, S.S. The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega 2006, 34, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hilal, F. The effect of green supply chain management practices and competitive advantage on financial performance. Int. J. Bus. 2022, 27, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  64. Wang, C.H. How organizational green culture influences green performance and competitive advantage: The mediating role of green innovation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 666–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chang, C.H. The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive advantage: The mediation role of green innovation. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 104, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nanath, K.; Pillai, R.R. The influence of green is practices on competitive advantage: Mediation role of green innovation performance. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2017, 34, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gürlek, M.; Tuna, M. Reinforcing competitive advantage through green organizational culture and green innovation. Serv. Ind. J. 2018, 38, 467–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Novitasari, M.; Agustia, D. Assessing the impact of green supply chain management, competitive advantage and firm performance in PROPER companies in Indonesia. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. 2022, 15, 395–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cheng, C.C. Sustainability orientation, green supplier involvement, and green innovation performance: Evidence from diversifying green entrants. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 161, 393–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Novitasari, M.; Agustia, D. Green supply chain management and firm performance: The mediating effect of green innovation. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2021, 14, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Purwanto, A.; Fahmi, K.; Irwansyah, I.; Hadinegoro, R.; Rochmad, I.; Syahril, S.; Sulastri, E. The role of green innovation and green supply chain management on the sustainability of the performance of SMEs. J. Future Sustain. 2022, 2, 49–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Roh, T.; Noh, J.; Oh, Y.; Park, K.S. Structural relationships of a firm’s green strategies for environmental performance: The roles of green supply chain management and green marketing innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 356, 131877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kalyar, M.N.; Shoukat, A.; Shafique, I. Enhancing firms’ environmental performance and financial performance through green supply chain management practices and institutional pressures. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2020, 11, 451–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Laari, S.; Töyli, J.; Ojala, L. The effect of a competitive strategy and green supply chain management on the financial and environmental performance of logistics service providers. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2018, 27, 872–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Feng, M.; Yu, W.; Wang, X.; Wong, C.Y.; Xu, M.; Xiao, Z. Green supply chain management and financial performance: The mediating roles of operational and environmental performance. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2018, 27, 811–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Abdallah, A.B.; Al-Ghwayeen, W.S. Green supply chain management and business performance: The mediating roles of environmental and operational performances. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2020, 26, 489–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Al-khawaldah, R.; Al-zoubi, W.; Alshaer, S.; Almarshad, M.; ALShalabi, F.; Altahrawi, M.; Al-Hawary, S. Green supply chain management and competitive advantage: The mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2022, 10, 961–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yaprak, İ.; Doğan, N.Ö. Yeşil tedarik zinciri yönetimi: Ilgili literatüre dayalı bir mevcut durum analizi (Green supply chain management: A current state analysis on related literature). Uluslar. Yönet. İktisat Ve İşlet. Derg. (Int. J. Manag. Econ. Bus.) 2019, 15, 1143–1165. [Google Scholar]
  79. Liu, L.; Tang, M.; Xue, F. The impact of manufacturing firms’ green supply chain management on competitive advantage. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 472–475, 3349–3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sharabati, A.A.A. Green supply chain management and competitive advantage of Jordanian pharmaceutical industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tran, H.; Hoang, N.; Do, V.; Nguyen, T.; Nguyen, V.; Phan, T.; Doan, T. Impact of green supply chain management on competitive advantage and firm performance in Vietnam. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2022, 10, 1175–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lin, R.J.; Chen, R.H.; Huang, F.H. Green innovation in the automobile industry. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2014, 114, 886–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rodrigues, M.; Franco, M. Green innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): A Qualitative Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Barforoush, N.; Etebarian, A.; Naghsh, A.; Shahin, A. Green innovation a strategic resource to attain competitive advantage. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2021, 13, 645–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Uddin, M. Exploring environmental performance and the competitive advantage of manufacturing firms: A green supply chain management perspective. Int. J. Econ. Manag. 2021, 15, 219–239. [Google Scholar]
  86. Khan, K.I.; Babar, Z.; Sharif, S.; Iqbal, S.; Khan, M.I. Going green? Investigating the role of GSCM practices on firm financial and environmental performance through green innovation. Int. J. Procure. Manag. 2021, 14, 681–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Konya Sanayi Odası (KSO). Available online: https://www.kso.org.tr/ (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  88. Gaziantep Sanayi Odası (GSO). Available online: https://www.gso.org.tr/ (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  89. Sekaran, U. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 4th ed.; Marshall, J., McFadden, P., Eds.; Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  90. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Wheaton, B.; Muthen, B.; Alwin, D.F.; Summers, G.F. Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociol. Methodol. 1977, 8, 84–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Marsh, H.W.; Hocevar, D. Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychol. Bull. 1985, 54, 562–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Marsh, H.W.; Hocevar, D. A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 1988, 73, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Marsh, H.W.; Grayson, D. Latent variable models of multitrait-multimethod data. In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications; Hoyle, R., Ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995; pp. 177–198. [Google Scholar]
  95. Shevlin, M.; Miles, J. Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1998, 25, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Schermelleh-Engel, K.; Moosbrugger, H.; Müller, H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol. Res. 2003, 8, 23–74. [Google Scholar]
  97. Çakır, V.; Çakır, V. Televizyon reklamlarının algılanan değeri ve reklam tutumu ilişkisi: Bir yapısal eşitlik modeli. Selçuk Üniv. İlet. Fak. Derg. 2007, 30, 37–58. [Google Scholar]
  98. Latan, H.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Wamba, S.F.; Shahbaz, M. Effects of environmental strategy, environmental uncertainty and top management’s commitment on corporate environmental performance: The role of environmental management accounting. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  100. Gürbüz, S.; Şahin, F. Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri; Seçkin Yayıncılık: Ankara, Turkey, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  101. Browne, M.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing Structural Equation Models; Bollen, K., Long, J., Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 136–162. [Google Scholar]
  102. Dzikriansyah, M.A.; Masudin, I.; Zulfikarijah, F.; Jihadi, M.; Jatmiko, R.D. The role of green supply chain management practices on environmental performance: A case of Indonesian small and medium enterprises. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain 2023, 6, 100100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wiredu, J.; Yang, Q.; Sampene, A.K.; Gyamfi, B.A.; Asongu, S.A. The effect of green supply chain management practices on corporate environmental performance: Does supply chain competitive advantage matter? Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2024, 33, 2578–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Maziriri, E.T.; Maramura, T.C. Green innovation in SMEs: The impact of green product and process innovation on achieving sustainable competitive advantage and improved business performance. Acad. Entrep. J. 2022, 28, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  105. Al-Abdallah, G.M.; Al-Salim, M.I. Green product innovation and competitive advantage: An empirical study of chemical industrial plants in Jordanian qualified industrial zones. Benchmarking Int. J. 2021, 28, 2542–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Tjahjadi, B.; Soewarno, N.; Hariyati, H.; Nafidah, L.N.; Kustiningsih, N.; Nadyaningrum, V. The role of green innovation between green market orientation and business performance: Its implication for open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Weng, H.H.; Chen, J.S.; Chen, P.C. Effects of green innovation on environmental and corporate performance: A stakeholder perspective. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4997–5026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Singh, S.K.; Chen, J.; Del Giudice, M.; El-Kassar, A.N. Environmental ethics, environmental performance, and competitive advantage: Role of environmental training. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 146, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 09757 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual model and hypotheses of the research.
Figure 1. Conceptual model and hypotheses of the research.
Sustainability 16 09757 g001
Sustainability 16 09757 g002
Figure 2. SEM analysis results for the conceptual model.
Figure 2. SEM analysis results for the conceptual model.
Sustainability 16 09757 g002
Table 1. Some studies used in determining hypotheses.
Table 1. Some studies used in determining hypotheses.
Author(s)Research Findings
Chiou et al.
[57]		In this study, the relationships between greening the supplier, GI, EP, and CA were examined. Hypotheses were tested within the framework of the conceptual model of the research. In the study, GI was evaluated in three dimensions as green product, process, and managerial innovation, and it was concluded that each dimension had a positive effect on CA. In addition, it was concluded that GPI and GPII had a positive effect on EP; managerial innovation did not have a positive effect on EP.
Seman et al.
[10]		In this study, the connection between GSCM and GI was evaluated in the context of studies in the literature. Suggestions were made for future studies.
Khaksar et al.
[46]		In this study, the relationships between green supplier, GI, EP, and CA were examined. As a result of the analysis, it was concluded that there was a significant relationship between green supplier and GI, EP, and CA; between GI, EP, and CA; and between EP and CA.
Seman et al.
[12]		In this study, the relationships between GSCM, GI, and EP were examined. Four basic hypotheses were established within the scope of the study. In the study, it was determined that GSCM applications had a positive and direct effect on EP and GI; GI on EP. It was also concluded that GI had a mediating effect on the relationship between GSCM applications and EP.
Novitasari et al.
[70]		In this study, the mediating effect of GI on the relationship between GSCM and business performance (BP) was examined. As a result of the analysis, it was determined that GSCM has a positive effect on GI and BP. However, the hypothesis established in the study that GSCM has a positive effect on BP was rejected. The hypothesis established within the scope of the study that GI has a mediating effect on the relationship between GSCM and BP was accepted.
Khan et al.
[86]		In their study, they examined the relationships between four basic variables that they determined as GSCM practices: GI, EP, and financial performance (FP). As a result of the analysis, it was determined that GSCM practices had positively associated with EP, FP, and GI, and GI had positively associated with EP and FP. It was also concluded that GI had a mediating effect on the relationship between GSCM practices and EP, and GI had a mediating effect on the relationship between GSCM practices and FP.
Novitasari and Agustia
[68]		In this study, while GSCM has a positive effect on CA, it has been concluded that it does not have a positive effect on BP. In addition, it has been determined that CA has a positive effect on BP. Finally, the hypothesis that CA has a mediating role in the relationship between GSCM and BP has been accepted.
Source: Created by the authors based on the relevant literature.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis findings regarding green supply chain management practices.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis findings regarding green supply chain management practices.
DimensionsItemsStandardized Regression Weighttp
GSCM PracticesIEMIEM 20.734--
IEM 30.81713.592<0.001
IEM 40.77912.928<0.001
IEM 50.79613.231<0.001
IEM 60.5959.747<0.001
IEM 70.79413.019<0.001
GPGP 10.782--
GP 20.78714.132<0.001
GP 30.78214.019<0.001
GP 40.65111.275<0.001
GP 50.73212.928<0.001
CWCCWC 20.892--
CWC 30.88619.906<0.001
EDED 10.844--
ED 20.65011.959<0.001
IRIR 10.543--
IR 20.8144.246<0.001
IR 30.5314.692<0.001
Notes: n = 283; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.909; KMO = 0.925; Bartlett sph. Testi chi-square = 3043.954; p < 0.001; AVE = 70.566. After the modifications, the GSCM practices scale sub-dimension Question 1 from the IEM scale (IEM 1), Question 1 from the CWC Scale (CWC 1) and Question 3 from the ED Scale (ED 3) have been removed.
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis findings regarding green innovation.
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis findings regarding green innovation.
DimensionsItemsStandardized Regression Weighttp
GIGPIGPI 10.712--
GPI 20.74511.046<0.001
GPI 30.82311.811<0.001
GPIIGPII 10.822--
GPII 20.84016.463<0.001
GPII 30.86517.136<0.001
GPII 40.83316.267<0.001
Notes: n = 283; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.960; KMO = 0.925; Bartlett sph. Testi chi-square = 1175.567; p < 0.001; AVE = 74.454. After the modifications, Question 4 (GPI-4) was removed from the GI scale.
Table 4. Confirmatory factor analysis findings regarding environmental performance.
Table 4. Confirmatory factor analysis findings regarding environmental performance.
DimensionItemsStandardized Regression Weighttp
EPEP 10.678--
EP 20.6268.661<0.001
EP 30.5057.207<0.001
EP 40.6789.207<0.001
EP 50.7179.567<0.001
EP 60.5237.432<0.001
Notes: n = 283; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.773; KMO = 0.834; Bartlett sph. Testi chi-square = 420.164; p < 0.001.
Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis findings regarding competitive advantage.
Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis findings regarding competitive advantage.
DimensionItemsStandardized Regression Weighttp
CACA 10.571--
CA 20.6507.064<0.001
CA 30.7437.486<0.001
CA 40.7427.482<0.001
CA 50.8427.828<0.001
CA 60.8567.866<0.001
Notes: n = 283; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.861; KMO = 0.868; Bartlett sph. Testi chi-square = 775.119; p < 0.001.
Table 6. Goodness of fit values for confirmatory factor analyses.
Table 6. Goodness of fit values for confirmatory factor analyses.
IndexesGood FitAcceptable FitGSCM
Practices		GIEPCA
χ2/df0 < χ2/df < 30 < χ2/df < 53.1892.7762.3622.917
GFI0.95 ≤ GFI ≤ 10.80 ≤ GFI ≤ 0.950.8700.9650.9740.972
AGFI0.90 ≤ AGFI ≤ 10.80 ≤ AGFI ≤ 0.900.8220.9250.9390.935
NFI0.95 ≤ NFI ≤ 10.80 ≤ NFI ≤ 0.950.8720.9700.9500.966
CFI0.95 ≤ CFI ≤ 10.90 ≤ CFI ≤ 0.950.9080.9800.9700.978
RMSEA0 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.050.05 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.100.0760.0790.0690.080
Table 7. Fit measures for the structural model.
Table 7. Fit measures for the structural model.
IndexesGood FitAcceptable FitRecommended ModelConclusion
χ2/df0 < χ2/df < 30 < χ2/df < 52.686Acceptable fit range.
GFI0.95 ≤ GFI ≤ 10.80 ≤ GFI ≤ 0.950.846Acceptable fit range.
AGFI0.90 ≤ AGFI ≤ 10.80 ≤ AGFI ≤ 0.900.811Acceptable fit range.
NFI0.95 ≤ NFI ≤ 10.80 ≤ NFI ≤ 0.950.857Acceptable fit range.
CFI0.95 ≤ CFI ≤ 10.90 ≤ CFI ≤ 0.950.925Acceptable fit range.
RMSEA0 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.050.05 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.100.075Acceptable fit range.
Table 8. Results regarding hypotheses.
Table 8. Results regarding hypotheses.
HypothesisStd.
Estimate		Std.
Error		tpResult
H1—GSCM ---> GI0.6970.4572.770<0.05Supported
H2—GSCM ---> EP0.6700.7832.716<0.05Supported
H3—GSCM ---> CA0.4280.3852.362<0.05Supported
H4—GI ---> CA0.3110.1083.338<0.001Supported
H5—EP ---> CA−0.1320.054−1.5790.125Not supported
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

Gelmez, E.; Özceylan, E.; Mrugalska, B. The Impact of Green Supply Chain Management on Green Innovation, Environmental Performance, and Competitive Advantage. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229757

AMA Style

Gelmez E, Özceylan E, Mrugalska B. The Impact of Green Supply Chain Management on Green Innovation, Environmental Performance, and Competitive Advantage. Sustainability. 2024; 16(22):9757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229757

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gelmez, Emel, Eren Özceylan, and Beata Mrugalska. 2024. "The Impact of Green Supply Chain Management on Green Innovation, Environmental Performance, and Competitive Advantage" Sustainability 16, no. 22: 9757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229757

APA Style

Gelmez, E., Özceylan, E., & Mrugalska, B. (2024). The Impact of Green Supply Chain Management on Green Innovation, Environmental Performance, and Competitive Advantage. Sustainability, 16(22), 9757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229757

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