4.7 Article

Evaluating green supply chain management among Chinese manufacturers from the ecological modernization perspective

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tre.2010.09.013

关键词

Green supply chain management; Ecological modernization; China

资金

  1. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [71025002]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71033004, 70772085]
  3. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University in China [NCET-09-0082]
  4. One Hundred Outstanding Scholars Project [CAS2008-318]
  5. NSFC-JSPS [70911140101]
  6. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [GRF PolyU 5434/08H]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Green supply chain management (GSCM) has become an emergent ecological modernization tool amongst Chinese manufacturers to balance environmental performance with productivity and business performance gains. Ecological modernization at the society level is influenced by restructuring policies and regulations. Some of these policies and regulations in China are focusing on enhancing energy savings and pollution reduction (ESPR). Based on a survey of 376 responses, we investigate whether different Chinese manufacturer clusters varying in their extent of implementing GSCM exist from this ecological modernization perspective. We also examine if Chinese manufacturers' awareness of domestic and international environmental ESPR-oriented compliance is related to GSCM implementation and whether a mediating effect of regulatory pressure plays a significant role. The results highlight the varying pace of Chinese manufacturers to ecologically modernize with GSCM practices and the significance of regulatory pressure to diffuse the practices adoption by Chinese manufacturing industry. Implications of this research go beyond the manufacturers investigated in this study where similar occurrence of these relationships may exist in other regions. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据