4.7 Article

Green product development and performance of Brazilian firms: measuring the role of human and technical aspects

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 87, 期 -, 页码 442-451

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.036

关键词

Environmental management; Sustainable product development; Green human resource management; Technological aspects; Performance; Sustainable operations management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of this study is to present and test a conceptual framework that describes the technical aspects (TA), human/organizational aspects (HOA) of the adoption of green product development (GPD) practices and the effect of these practices on firms' environmental (EP), operational (OP) and market performance (MP). To this end, after reviewing the literature on these themes, a conceptual framework with 5 hypotheses is proposed. These hypotheses were tested on 62 Brazilian companies through structural equation modeling using SmartPLS 2.0M3. The main results of this study are as follows: (a) in general, the proposed framework obtained adequate goodness of fit statistics (GoF); (b) technological factors are shown to have an influence on the adoption of GPD practices, and those practices are related to company EP, OP and MP, thus confirming 4 hypotheses of the study; and (c) one of the study's hypotheses is not validated, indicating that the relationship of human/organizational aspects to GPD must be further analyzed. This work extends the literature because: (a) the conceptual framework tested in this study establishes several concepts that have been only partially tested in the previous literature; (b) this work presents evidence about Brazil, where the themes addressed herein have not been yet been thoroughly investigated; and (c) the non-validation of the hypothesis regarding the relationship between human/ organizational aspects with respect to the adoption of product-related environmental practices requires attention. (C) 2014 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