Accepted Manuscript

Anchor company contribution to cleaner production dissemination: Experience from aMexican sustainable supply programme

Bart van Hoof, Associate Professor Marcus Thiell, Associate Professor

PII: S0959-6526(14)00843-9

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.021

Reference: JCLP 4598

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 2 May 2013

Revised Date: 7 August 2014

Accepted Date: 9 August 2014

Please cite this article as: van Hoof B, Thiell M, Anchor company contribution to cleaner productiondissemination: Experience from a Mexican sustainable supply programme, Journal of CleanerProduction (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.021.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service toour customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Pleasenote that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and alllegal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Dissemination of Sustainable Practices among Suppliers – Experiences from Mexico

Keywords: sustainable supply chain management, public voluntary environmental initiatives, cleaner production dissemination

Bart van Hoof Associate Professor School of Management Los Andes University Bogotá, Colombia bvan@uniandes.edu.co Tel: + 57 1 3394949 ext. 3681

Marcus Thiell Associate Professor School of Management Los Andes University Bogotá, Colombia mthiell@uniandes.edu.co Tel: + 57 1 3394949 ext. 3927

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Anchor company contribution to cleaner production dissemination: Experience from a Mexican sustainable supply programme

Sustainable supply chain approaches consider the role of anchor companies in disseminating environmental improvements among their suppliers. This study analyses the relations between stimuli for anchor companies to contribute to cleaner production dissemination and their actual contribution in terms of programme results, following a stimulus–response approach. Empirical evidence drawn from the Mexican Sustainable Supply Programme pilot featured data from 14 anchor companies and 177 small and medium-sized suppliers. Findings reveal the importance of supply chain structures and the integration of anchor companies in environmental initiatives to disseminate cleaner production among enterprises in emerging markets. Drivers leading anchor companies to participate in initiatives such as the Mexican Sustainable Supply Programme include theory-supported factors, e.g., improving supplier performance, cost reductions, environmental leadership, and improved reputation. These drivers do not coincide with perceived participation benefits and collaborative approaches in project design might cause this shift in importance from dominating "hard" self-centred drivers towards "soft" partner-centred benefits. Moreover, anchor company learning contributes to dissemination of cleaner production practices among suppliers. Anchor company managers should be aware of cleaner production dissemination benefits, and approach sustainable supply initiatives pro-actively as part of their competitive strategy. Policy makers, consultants and services providers seeking improved environmental performance of small and medium-sized enterprises should consider the integrated framework for cleaner production dissemination as a scalable approach for effective diffusion. Differential cleaner production dissemination performance of anchor companies suggests further research on the dynamic capabilities that influence cognitive and behavioural processes in cleaner production dissemination under a stimulus-organism-response model. Keywords: sustainable supply chain management, cleaner production dissemination, anchor companies 1. Introduction The concept of Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) has been found useful for improving environmental, social, and economic performance within a supply chain context (Vermeulen and Seuring, 2009; Carter and Rogers, 2008). The central idea of this approach refers to the role of supply chain management as a catalyst for generating inter-organisational value and sustainable inter-firm competitive advantages by means of collaboration between the focal organisation and its market partners on the supply and distribution sides of the chain (Gold et al., 2010). Additionally, SSCM practices have been shown to contribute to resource efficiency (Cai et al., 2010, Zhu et al., 2010); trigger unique capabilities in relationship management (Walker et al., 2008); improve financial performance (Wang and Sarkis, 2013); and strengthen a firm’s reputation (Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen, 2009).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Supply chain mechanisms are used to disseminate improved environmental practices among groups of companies (Seuring and Müller, 2008). The basic idea of these mechanisms consists in passing on stimuli and actions within organisational systems. Often, an environmental improvement impulse prompts a focal member of a supply chain, the anchor company (Liwarska-Bizukojc et al., 2009; Eilering and Vermeulen, 2004), to pass on the stimulus to its suppliers. Examples of such programmes include the Green Supplier Network Program led by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Smart CEBU Program sponsored by the European Community, and the Mexican Sustainable Supply Program (MSSP) under review. These programmes used Cleaner Production (CP), a key feature of SSCM practices, as the central approach to disseminate environmentally sound practices within supply chains. A growing body of literature examines why anchor companies undertake SSCM initiatives (Hu and Hsu, 2010; Zhu et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2008; Lee, 2008). Also, the challenge of CP dissemination has been studied by, for example, Dieleman, (2007), Baas, (2006), Stone, (2006), Van Berkel, (2006, 1994). But there is little research in the relation between stimuli of anchor companies to contribute to CP dissemination and their actual contribution in terms of programme results. According to Kudla and Klaas-Wissing (2012) and Reuter et al. (2010), this approach follows a stimulus-response paradigm, which links cognitive processes of anchor companies with performance-related CP dissemination among suppliers. This study aims to fill the identified gap in knowledge by posing the following research questions: (1) Why do anchor companies contribute to CP dissemination within SSCM programmes and, (2) How do anchor companies contribute to CP dissemination within SSCM programmes? The MSSP experience offers a unique opportunity to study these questions as its programme design is aimed at improvement of environmental performance among small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), using buyer-supplier relationships for CP dissemination. Moreover, the data collected from 14 anchor companies and their 177 suppliers provided empirical information for research. The contributions of this research refer to four different areas. First, a conceptual framework is proposed as an extension to existing SSCM and CP literature by linking theory-driven contribution stimuli for anchor companies with CP dissemination responses. Second, an assessment model for CP dissemination outcomes in SSCM programmes is proposed and applied to MSSP empirical data. Third, recommendations are given for extending the stimulus-response model towards a stimulus-organism-response model. Fourth, recommendations for launching and managing such projects are proposed for companies and agencies interested in dissemination of cleaner production by means of sustainable supply chain mechanisms. Following sections address the research questions and document these contributions. 2. Theoretical framework: Contribution of anchor companies to cleaner production

dissemination To provide an integrated framework for the research questions, this section offers an overview of the literature on stimuli for anchor companies’ contribution to CP dissemination as part of SSCM, followed by literature on CP dissemination outcomes. The section concludes with a

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

research framework combining theory-driven contribution stimuli for anchor companies with CP dissemination responses. 2.1 Stimuli for anchor company contribution to suppliers’ environmental improvement Several complementary theories have been used in literature to explain stimuli for companies to undertake actions that improve environmental performance in supply chains. This study chose four theoretical approaches of significant importance in management literature: (i) neo-institutional theory, (ii) resource based view of the firm (RBV), (iii) corporate social responsibility (CSR), and, (iv) network theory. Neo-institutional theory explains why managers favour participating in sustainability initiatives by stressing decision-making drivers external to the organisation, such as regulatory pressures, market demands, competitors, and social pressure (Lyon and Maxwell, 2007; Darnall, 2003). In this context, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) offer a framework for gaining legitimacy, stressing isomorphism as a generalised perception that an organisation’s actions are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some social system of norms, values, and beliefs. Based on this theoretical foundation, several works identified regulatory pressure as a main reason why firms participate in sustainability initiatives (Lee, 2008; Lyon and Maxwell, 2007; Rivera, 2004; Darnall, 2003; Christmann and Taylor, 2001). It is held that firms seek to establish and maintain good relations with environmental authorities to pre-empt compulsory restrictions (Rivera, 2004). Participation in sustainability initiatives provides firms with an opportunity to interact proactively with regulators. This may be especially relevant for companies more likely to be monitored or affected by government decisions (Blackman et al., 2010; Henriques and Sadorsky, 1996). Normative forces, such as industry and business association membership, may also stimulate environmental practices along the supply chain (Walker et al., 2008). Complementary institutional pressure, or mimicry, presumes organisations model themselves on other enterprises (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Competitors serving as environmental leaders may become benchmarks for others to follow (Walker et al., 2008; Christmann and Taylor, 2001). Moreover, suppliers can provide valuable suggestions for implementing environmental projects (Vachon and Klassen, 2008). Montiel and Husted (2009) extend this framework to institutional entrepreneurship, understood as “first movers that shape institutional order”; they analyse the role of leadership in the legitimisation and diffusion process of a new idea. This concept may be especially relevant for this research as the analysis concerns a pilot programme. The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (Hart, 1995; Barney, 1989) offers a second theoretical perspective. Under this lens, an organisation’s competitiveness is derived from specific organisational capabilities, such as less tangible, knowledge-based advantages, organisational processes and reputational assets (Darnall, 2003; Grant, 1996). These capabilities result from an accumulative process of organisational learning creating “unique resources” (Sharma, 2000). This process is “embedded” in such assets as existing basic

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

routines and slack resources that underlie more advanced practices (Hart, 1995). Applying these thoughts to this research, an anchor company’s contribution to CP dissemination might be viewed as learning to acquire unique capabilities that lead to competitive advantages, such as cost reductions, access to free resources, and employee commitment (Lyon and Maxwell, 2007). A third theoretical perspective, corporate social responsibility (CSR), highlights the role a company plays in society as it strives to improve overall relations with stakeholders (Carroll, 2008). From this standpoint, companies contribute to societal interests by undertaking philanthropy, seeking legitimacy, or pursuing CSR to gain competitive advantage. Accordingly, the CSR paradigm explains firms’ participation in CP dissemination as part of SSCM programmes as a way to contribute to society (Mont and Leire, 2009; Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen, 2009; Walker et al., 2008). Anchor companies, as focal members of a supply chain, are often charged with responsibility for negative environmental and social impacts (Vermeulen and Seuring, 2009; Kovács, 2008). Such charges may be echoed by the press and opinion leaders, and thus impact a firm’s reputation, profit or share price (Mont and Leire, 2009; Welford and Frost, 2006). Following the CSR perspective, anchor companies are expected to value the MSSP as a means to contribute to society and enhance their reputation. Fourth and last, network theory describes the business world as a web of interdependent relationships, developed and fostered through collaboration, aimed at deriving mutual benefits (Miles and Snow, 1986). As does RBV, network theory considers inter-organisational relationships as a source of competitive advantage (Chen et al., 2004). In their analysis of green purchasing behaviour, Xu et al. (2007) identify companies, consumers and governments as key network actors, and show how their interaction and power relations may explain business reasoning. According to this logic, Bowen et al. (2001) show that partnering with suppliers is a key step to facilitate dissemination of practices such as CP, as applied in the MSSP programme under review. Literature reviewed generally agrees that the motivation for firms to take part in CP dissemination varies and may change over time (Lyon and Maxwell, 2007; Darnall, 2003). Nevertheless, the four theoretical perspectives reviewed here, together provide a useful frame to study the question: Why do anchor companies contribute to CP dissemination within SSCM programmes? 2.2 Responses of anchor company contribution to cleaner production dissemination among suppliers CP has been heralded as a powerful strategy to improve environmental performance of firms (Baas, 2006; Baas, 1998). Hence CP should also serve as a potentially attractive strategy for companies to spur continuous environmental improvement along supply chains. Examples of CP practices include changes in management or operational procedures that spawn improved efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, and water by recycling waste and installing cleaner technologies (Hirschhorn, 1997).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Outcomes of CP dissemination become visible when firms participate, design and implement environmentally sound measures within their productive activities (Baas, 2006). Implicit in such dissemination is a process of organisational change that includes virtual breakthroughs in existing routines and prevailing paradigms (Vickers and Cordey-Hayes, 1999). As part of dissemination mechanisms, specialised external consultants often carry out pre-assessments, gauge viability, and propose project-based interventions. Other assumptions of such mechanisms are that economic and environmental benefits resulting from CP interventions suffice to motivate management decision-making; hence dissemination success stories of firms adopting CP practices are viewed as key mechanisms in the spread of CP (Baas, 2006). Complementary strategies, such as knowledge management, policy advice, technical assistance, interfacing with financial institutions, and matchmaking for networking, are proposed as secondary approaches for CP dissemination (UNEP, 2004). Reviews of CP dissemination programmes reveal modest outcomes: Dieleman (2007) found that less than 40 percent of firms receiving CP technical assistance improved performance; Stone (2006) and Sage (2000) found even lower success rates. Yet impact assessment of CP dissemination programmes is scarce (Baas; 2006; Stone, 2006). Performance indicators generally include firms assisted, number of people trained, and number of guides published (Van Berkel, 2006); quantitative environmental and economic feedback have seldom been obtained (Van Hoof and Lyon, 2013), nor have there been many studies that evaluated levels of CP implementation (Dieleman, 2007, Stone, 2006). Yet the latter would appear indispensable for assessing CP dissemination performance in terms of actual change of organisational routines. Seuring and Müller (2008) proposed SSCM as a mechanism for disseminating environmentally friendly practices, such as CP, among firms. They described how incentives and pressures for improvement of sustainable performance pass from markets to anchor companies to suppliers. The complexity and inherent forces of supply chain structures can drive supply side actors –anchor companies and suppliers– to not only participate in SSCM programmes, but also alter existing routines in order to design and implement CP practices (Baas, 2006). Given anchor company power in supply chains, they may influence CP dissemination among their suppliers (Fayet and Vermeulen, 2012; Seuring and Müller, 2008; Lee and Klassen, 2008). CP dissemination literature addresses approaches for spreading environmental improvements among companies, mentions measures of dissemination outcomes, and assigns an important role to anchor companies. Accordingly, literature supports the research question: How do anchor companies contribute to CP dissemination within SSCM programmes? Figure 1 summarises how theory-driven “stimuli” for anchor companies to contribute to CP dissemination among suppliers are linked with dissemination outcomes as the “response”. The use of a stimulus–response model provides a useful approach, as it relates cognitive processes to actions and performance (Kudla and Klaas-Wissing, 2012; Reuter et al., 2010).

======================== Figure 1 about here =======================

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3. The Mexican Sustainable Supply Program: Context, operating structure, and participating anchor companies

The Mexican Sustainable Supply Programme (MSSP) offers a unique opportunity to study the proposed framework in an empirical setting for several reasons. First, the MSSP design fits within the scope of the research questions aimed at improving environmental performance among SMEs using buyer-supplier relationships for CP dissemination. Second, empirical information about anchor companies’ stimuli to participate in the MSSP and their contributions to CP dissemination offers a solid basis for quantitative and qualitative research. Third, the MSSP can be seen as a “critical case” (Flyvbjerg, 2006), useful to provide logical deductions: MSSP objectives were comparable to those of other types of CP dissemination initiatives based on technical assistance methods, thus enabling comparison of research findings, and their construct validation, as a criterion for the research design (Rowley, 2002). 3.1 Context in which the MSSP was designed The MSSP was launched in 2005, in the context of Mexico’s growing international trade and mounting industrial pollution attributed to SMEs. In emerging economies such as Mexico, ensuring SMEs comply with environmental regulations is especially challenging (Maranto-Vargas and Gómez-Tagle Rangel, 2007; Blackman, 2000; Dasgupta et al., 1997); also, technical assistance efforts by public and multilateral agencies generally prove futile (Fernández-Viñé et al., 2010; Blackman et al., 2010). Moreover, multinational companies and large national firms relying on global supply chains reportedly pay growing attention to improved environmental performance by emerging economy SMEs (Jenkins et al., 2007; Moltke and Kuik, 1998). Aware of these challenges, the Commission of Environmental Cooperation in North America (CEC) designed the MSSP. The Commission is part of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), signed by Canada, Mexico and the United States. The CEC mandate seeks to enhance regional environmental cooperation, reduce potential trade and environmental conflicts, and promote the effective enforcement of environmental regulations. By means of the MSSP, the CEC aimed to develop an innovative and replicable mechanism for disseminating sustainable practices among SMEs. To ensure effective programme functioning, (multi-) national anchor companies played a key role in motivating participation of SME suppliers. CP was the approach selected to drive environmental improvements and yield cost reductions among suppliers. From the start, the scale of MSSP was significant: a three-year pilot phase led by CEC from 2005 to May 2008, featured 14 anchor companies and 177 suppliers. Thereafter, SEMARNAT1 and PROFEPA2 continued the programme across Mexico, recruiting about 400 anchor companies and 6,000 suppliers by December 2012. The MSSP design remained the same throughout the programme. This research only considers companies participating in the pilot phase.

1 Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales [Secretary of Environmental Affairs and Natural Resources] 2 Procuradoria Federal para el Ambiente [Federal Environmental Attorney]

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.2 MSSP operating structure The MSSP design included state-of-the-art features of CP dissemination, integrating concepts for strengthening buyer-supplier relationships, optimising operational processes through CP, and building capacities through experiential learning. To launch the pilot phase, the coordination team invited large private companies to collaborate in the involvement of SME suppliers. The coordination team also provided financial support for the pilot’s operational cost, thus playing a facilitating role in engaging private sector participation. Each participating anchor company selected a group of suppliers to join the programme. At the heart of the programme was a three-month series of ten interconnected workshops on CP, based on learning-by-doing, offered by specialised services providers. Suppliers were required to design and implement CP projects to improve economic and environmental performance. Upon completion of each workshop series, a well-publicised ceremony was held to recognise participants’ efforts. Anchor companies were asked to commit to the following responsibilities: (i) invite at least 10 closely located suppliers; (ii) provide logistical support; (iii) assign a representative to oversee activities and communication; (iv) support design and implementation of emerging CP projects; and assess programme outcomes. No additional out-of-pocket expenses were required for anchor company participation. Figure 2 illustrates the MSSP operating structure and the key activities of each actor.

======================== Figure 2 about here ======================= 3.3 Participating anchor companies As noted earlier, 14 large corporations with operations in Mexico participated in the pilot phase. Several industrial sectors were represented, including pharmaceuticals, chemicals, food processing, auto-parts, aircraft, electronics, publicity and communications. Seven were of US origin, three Mexican, one Canadian, one Swiss, one German, and one Japanese. Most of these companies had operated in Mexico for over 10 years, and drew inputs from a significant number of local suppliers. Coordination of eight anchor companies in Mexico City was assigned to the Mexican Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI)3, whereas those with operations in Querétaro were selected and coordinated by the regional environmental authority SEDESU4. Most

3 The Mexican chapter of the Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) is a business association of leading multinationals with operations in Mexico, which promote and share their sustainability practices and leadership (www.gemi.org.mx). 4 Secretaria del Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Querétaro [Secretary of Sustainable Development for the state of Queretaro].

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

companies were represented by environmental managers, and in some instances by mixed teams of environmental and purchasing managers. During the 2005–2008 MSSP pilot phase, three anchor companies, codified as CP, BM and JM, participated in two subsequent programme cycles with a different group of suppliers. All anchor companies invited their respective suppliers to voluntarily join the program. Suppliers included manufacturers of packaging materials, printing materials, raw material supplies, services such as cleaning and food operations, and indirect supplies such as office equipment. The largest group of anchor company suppliers comprised 25 firms, and the smallest, 6 firms. In total, 177 suppliers agreed to participate in the pilot; 44 withdrew without presenting a CP project plan; 133 suppliers completed the training cycle and presented CP project plans, and 93 follow-up questionnaires confirmed project implementation (see Appendix A for anchor company and supply group information). 4. Methods The exploratory research methods featured two complementary research instruments: semi-structured interviews and a Survey I to gauge drivers and perceived benefits of anchor company managers concerning stimuli deployed for MSSP pilot participation. As stimuli are related to managers’ cognitive perceptions, interviews validated survey findings, and vice-versa. An additional Survey II asked suppliers about the level of implementation of CP projects designed under the MSSP. These survey outcomes allowed statistical analysis of CP dissemination responses. Descriptive statistics were used for examining drivers and perceived benefits, whereas cluster analysis supported assessment of anchor company responses to CP dissemination. 4.1 Constructs and their operationalisation In accordance with the research framework, stimuli of anchor company participation in the MSSP pilot were deduced from theoretical approaches used in management literature. Drivers and perceived benefits represent stimuli for action and performance (Kudla and Klaas-Wissing, 2012; Reuter et al., 2010; Partington, 2000; McGill et al., 1992). The behavioural response of anchor companies represents the dissemination of CP practices among their respective suppliers. The six forces presented in Figure 1 were used as constructs to design the interview guidelines and Survey I. Drivers were used to understand anchor company stimuli to join the MSSP, while perceived benefits illustrate additional stimuli for programme participation based on programme experience. The contribution of anchor companies to CP dissemination performance (response) was measured by supplier behaviour determined as follows: i. Number of suppliers that participated in the programme and designed CP projects;

presenting a CP project was deemed evidence of awareness of CP opportunities (Van Berkel, 1994). Accordingly, the research design considered anchor firms featuring a

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

larger group of suppliers designing CP projects as superior contributors to CP dissemination. Absolute numbers were used to consider the number of project designs as the basis for leveraging CP dissemination efforts (Van Hoof, 2013).

ii. Percentage of suppliers per supply group that implemented CP projects; implementing a

CP project implies organisational change and appropriation of the concept in organisational routines (Dieleman, 2007; Stone, 2006). Preceding project implementation is project design (as described in i). Accordingly, the higher the percentage of suppliers that implement a CP project, the greater the anchor company contribution to CP dissemination.

4.2 Data gathering Data gathering for the study followed established approaches used in SSCM (Andersen and Skjoett-Larsen, 2009; Vachon and Klassen, 2008; Vachon and Klassen, 2006a). Table 1 presents the research instruments in relation to research objectives, information sources, number of replies, and time of application.

======================== Table 1 about here ======================= Representatives of anchor companies participating twice in the MSSP pilot were interviewed only once, following their second participation. Respondents included two general directors, two technical directors, one corporate sustainability director, and four environment, health, and safety (EHS) directors. Survey I was e-mailed by CEC to anchor company managers who personally participated in the MSSP pilot. Three of the 14 anchor companies participated twice, completing workshop series with two different supply groups. 11 anchor companies responded to the questionnaire, including those participating twice. Data collection for Survey II was directed to participating suppliers and carried out by CEC, free from any interference by anchor companies. A total of 133 suppliers provided information on design and implementation of CP projects. The 44 firms that withdrew from the MSSP at an early stage in the workshop series were not included in Survey II; it was assumed these firms did not continue CP activities. 5. Results: Anchor company contributions to cleaner production dissemination in the

MSSP pilot This section presents answers to the research questions. First, stimuli for anchor company programme participation are presented, followed by analysis of CP dissemination as it occurred in the MSSP.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5.1 Stimuli for MSSP participation To address the first research question, why do anchor companies contribute to CP dissemination within SSCM-programmes, stimuli of anchor companies were explained by studying manager drivers for joining the MSSP, together with their perceived benefits following programme completion. Table 2 presents the rank order of drivers given by anchor firm managers for participating in the MSSP. “Development of supplier performance” was the most important stimulus, followed by “leadership in sustainability” and “corporate social responsibility reputation”. Cost-related arguments, such as qualifying for subsidies or cost of logistics and raw materials, showed least importance. Drivers related to pressure from environmental regulators show mixed results: low priority was assigned to regulator pressure, but moderate priority for collaborating with CEC and other environmental agencies. Forces related to improving environmental performance appear to have outscored those cost-related, as indicated by the top three drivers versus those ranked least important. ======================== Table 2 about here ======================= Interviews provided further insights into the diversity of anchor-company drivers for participating in the MSSP. One manager stated that once the programme was under way, a call from an important client contributed to upgrading the strategic importance of participation; in this instance, pressure from a client influenced company commitment. Other managers noted that existing institutional and personal relationships among programme coordinators (CEC, SEDESU), managers of anchor firms, and the business association GEMI influenced the decision to participate. The perceived benefits of programme participation serve as additional stimuli for future participation based on programme experience. As shown in Table 3, the strongest perceived benefit of programme participation was “strengthening corporate reputation with suppliers”, followed by “strengthened relations with suppliers” and “strengthened trust with suppliers”. The ranks of these supplier-related benefits reveal that anchor companies perceived the MSSP as a contributor to improve supply chain relationships. Other benefits such as “economic benefits from own CP projects”, “strengthened general corporate reputation” and “strengthened corporate reputation with environmental authority” were perceived as moderate. Ranked least important were benefits related to “strengthened operational capacity in CP”, “strengthened corporate reputation with clients” and “economic benefits obtained from increased supplier performance”.

======================== Table 3 about here ======================= Only one anchor firm, when interviewed, deemed economic improvements in supplier relations a benefit. All others expressly confirmed that economic gains obtained from the programme mainly supported suppliers. Interviews also confirmed recognition of other

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

benefits from MSSP participation, such as capacity building, aligning the supply and environmental departments, and attaining improvements in sustainable supply. Comparing results of Table 2 and Table 3, it is noteworthy that such “hard” factors as improvement of supplier performance were perceived as most significant drivers, but least important benefits. Instead, “soft” factors related to supplier relations were ranked as highest perceived benefit after participation. Overall, it can be observed that “soft” partner-centred benefits overtook “hard” self-centred drivers in importance. This outcome indicates how learning processes of participating anchor companies might have linked theory-supported rationale to perceived benefits. The programme design, combining theory-based learning in workshops with project design and implementation, might support this idea. Additional insights drawn from interviews indicate that programme participation stimuli were unclear. Several responses mentioned that benefits from participating in the programme turned out to be more significant than initially expected. Five anchor companies publicised programme participation in environmental reports and global corporate sustainability publications; three reported that participation led to recognition from corporate headquarters. Other responses from interviews suggest that EHS managers were not familiar with their respective firm’s supply management practices. Once purchasing managers became involved in the programme, several EHS managers confirmed the programme provided a first opportunity for strengthening inter-departmental collaboration. Some interviewees even mentioned collaboration with the purchasing departments of their firm as a perceived benefit from participation. Mode and variance analysis of perceived benefits shows high dispersion in anchor company perceptions. Nonetheless, perceived benefits from participating in the programme obtained higher weight than drivers identified at the outset. Hence Table 3 shows higher arithmetic means and smaller variations in benefit perceptions in comparison with the initial stimuli for participation shown in Table 2. An explanation for variations displayed in drivers for participation versus perceived benefits may be that, for most companies, MSSP was their first SSCM experience in Mexico, rendering unfamiliarity with potential benefits of participation plausible. Once the pilot programme was under way, most companies brought in their purchasing managers, making supply chain benefits clearer. 5.2 Outcomes of anchor company contribution to CP dissemination in the MSSP Cluster analysis findings provide evidence of the dissemination outcomes (response) to address the second research question: How do anchor companies contribute to CP dissemination within SSCM-programmes? Figure 3 shows performance scores for each anchor company’s supply group. The horizontal scale shows the number of suppliers per group that completed participation in the programme, i.e., designed CP projects. The vertical scale indicates the percentage of firms per group that implemented CP projects. Hence the upper-right quadrant shows the top performing anchor companies together with their corresponding supply groups; these groups attained the highest rate of implementation, involving the largest number of suppliers.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Anchor companies identified by the codes BM2, CP2, CR, GM, HK, JM1, and JM2 formed the cluster achieving “top CP dissemination”. Two other clusters mainly differ in terms of CP project implementation, while supply group sizes for CP project design were similar. Two companies, CL and SK, are classified as a cluster with “poor CP dissemination”, because their participating suppliers designed CP projects but did not implement them. The manager of anchor company CL stated in the interview that they did not pursue follow-up activities with suppliers after completion of the workshop series. In addition, suppliers of anchor company CL did not evidence any implementation in their answers to Survey II. The same occurred with anchor company SK, which reduced involvement following the workshop series. Interpretation of these two outcomes might suggest anchor company involvement to be crucial for CP dissemination among suppliers. The cluster represented by anchor companies BB, BM1, CP1, GI, IA, JC, NE, and RD achieved “average CP dissemination” performance. The difference of this cluster with “top CP dissemination” refers to the number of suppliers completing the workshop series and designing CP projects. While the percentage of projects implemented was similar, the “top performers” were capable of achieving commitment by a larger group of suppliers as part of their actual contribution to CP dissemination.

======================== Figure 3 about here ======================= Cluster analysis findings show that two different dynamic effects may have improved anchor company outcomes in CP dissemination: first, as demonstrated in Figure 3, BM2, CP2 and JM2 showed superior performance in their second participation. This may be a result of increased learning on how to disseminate sustainable practices among suppliers. Second, all anchor companies in the “top CP dissemination” cluster participated in later periods of the MSSP pilot, suggesting a system learning process occurred as the programme evolved. 6. Discussion: Interpreting results of the MSSP study Following the stimulus–response approach applied in this research, stimuli were represented by anchor company drivers and perceived benefits of programme participation. At the outset, anchor company managers were vague about MSSP expectations; no specific driver for participating was compelling. Some drivers for participation expressed by managers relate to the literature on strategic supplier collaboration (Miles and Snow, 1986). Another organisational capability, such as organisational slack (Darnall, 2003), was mentioned in personal interviews. Greater importance was assigned to competitive forces related to reputation, such as sustainability leadership, relations with environmental authorities and the CEC international agency. These expectations reflect current theory, such as CSR perspectives (Carroll, 2008), explaining reputation-based reasons, and RBV-related perspectives (Hart, 1995), mainly relating to unique organisational capabilities. Research outcomes also pointed to the influence of social networks on decision-making for participation in sustainable supply chain initiatives, as emphasised by network theory (Miles and Snow, 1986).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Drivers such as regulation enforcement and cost reductions are mentioned in literature on sustainable supply chains as important reasons for participation (Jun et al., 2010, Vachon and Klassen, 2006a), but were not proven significant in manager decision-making concerning MSSP participation. Manager perceptions lend credence to the notion that, at the time of the programme, environmental regulation enforcement in Mexico was weak (Montiel and Husted, 2009). Only one anchor company manager mentioned pressure from a client as having impacted decision-making in a manner similar to that proposed in network theory (Miles and Snow, 1986). No other anchor companies mentioned market forces. This finding coincides with Dasgupta et al. (1997), noting that demand for environmentally friendly products and services in Mexico’s domestic market was limited, and that regulatory pressure from NGOs and local communities was lax. Managers cited relations-related benefits vis-à-vis suppliers as the main perceived benefit of supply chain collaboration, as proposed by Inkpin (1998). Cost- and efficiency-related benefits were also attained; this finding echoes Lyon and Maxwell (2007), who stressed the importance of this argument for participating in voluntary environmental initiatives. Additionally, interviews confirmed other benefits from MSSP participation, such as CP capacity building, integrating the purchasing and environmental departments, and improvements in sustainable supply. Blackman, et al. (2009), Jiménez (2007), and Dasgupta et al. (1997), found similar arguments as significant reasons for company participation in environmental initiatives in Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. Findings also reveal that drivers and perceived post-programme benefits do not coincide in rank, value and deviation. An explanation for these variations may be that, for most anchor companies, MSSP participation was their first sustainable supply chain experience in Mexico. When the MSSP was launched, EHS managers became the key anchor company representatives, notwithstanding their generally limited knowledge of their respective firms’ purchasing policies. Their relationship-based approach contributed to the creation of “soft” factors such trust and reputation with suppliers and their understanding of positive supply chain effects became clearer. Mixed drivers for programme participation noted by anchor companies coincide with the idea advanced by Montiel and Husted (2009), suggesting that some firms participate in voluntary environmental initiatives largely in order to legitimise their business practices; institutional entrepreneurs were identified as early adopters of new ideas offered in a manipulative environment. Surprisingly, not a single anchor company considered important the availability of free resources to MSSP participants provided by CEC and SEDESU. This contrasts with Montiel and Husted’s (2009) finding that availability of free resources represents a main attraction for “institutional entrepreneurs” to join new initiatives. Within the stimulus-response approach, anchor company responses were represented by the number of CP projects designed by suppliers and their implementation rates as result of their participation in the MSSP pilot. Outcomes from this study show a relatively high average rate, in comparison to values reported in the literature (e.g. Dieleman, 2007; Van Berkel, 2006; Baas; 2006; Stone, 2006; Sage, 2000). This finding confirms the idea of Seuring and Müller

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(2008), who propose anchor company involvement as a strategy to accelerate environmental improvement among SME suppliers. Moreover it proves the operating structure of the MSSP, featuring anchor company participation, to be more effective for CP dissemination than approaches based on technical assistance in bilateral relations between supporting institutions and firms. Learning effects might have influenced dissemination contributions as anchor companies repeating programme participation, increased the number of participating suppliers and the implementation rates of supplier-designed CP projects. This finding is consistent with results of studies undertaken in different settings, such as UK and US (Vachon and Klassen, 2006b; Hines and Johns, 2001). Significant differences between anchor firm outcomes point out the need to identify additional factors as determinants of CP dissemination – as for example, anchor firm characteristics and dynamic capabilities (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005). The primary implication of this research is to focus on supply chain structures for the dissemination of CP, including anchor firms, their suppliers and service organisations. Anchor companies that pursue environmental leadership and have experience in supply chain programmes are effective allies for the dissemination of environmentally sound practices among their suppliers. Their drivers to participate in such initiatives can be supported by theoretical perspectives such as CSR, network theory, neo-institutional theory and RBV. As drivers of anchor companies are generally mixed, complementary arguments to pursue anchor company collaboration include improving relationships with suppliers, cost reductions, environmental leadership, and improved reputation. Anchor company managers should be aware of these benefits, and approach sustainable supply initiatives pro-actively as part of their competitive strategy. Policy makers, consultants and services providers interested in improvement of environmental performance of SME should consider the integrated and operationalised framework of SSCM stimuli and CP dissemination responses as a scalable approach for effective diffusion. The stimulus–response approach, as used in this study of the MSSP, shows advances over existing single dimensional methods for assessing CP dissemination based on performance indicators such as firms assisted, number of people trained, and number of guides published (Baas, 2006; Van Berkel, 2006, Stone, 2006). Analysing the link between stimuli and responses, measured in terms of drivers and actions undertaken, the proposed approach helps understand how programme effectiveness may be enhanced by programme features, target focus, and operating structure. Explaining the differential performance of anchor companies calls for further research on the impact of dynamic capabilities to understand the cognitive and behavioural processes involved in CP dissemination. Such research involves broadening the stimulus-response research approach used in this study towards a stimulus–organism–response approach (Kudla and Klaas-Wissing, 2012; Partington, 2000).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

7. Conclusions This study analysed the relations between stimuli of anchor companies to contribute to CP dissemination, and their actual contribution using a stimulus–response approach. Within this model, stimuli were represented by anchor company drivers and perceived benefits of programme participation. Responses to CP dissemination referred to CP project design and implementation by suppliers as a result of their participation in the MSSP. Findings uncover the importance of supply chain structures, and the integration of anchor companies in environmental initiatives aimed at disseminating CP among SMEs in emerging markets. Moreover, learning effects by anchor companies contribute to dissemination of CP practices among suppliers. Heterogeneous drivers for anchor companies to participate in initiatives like the MSSP include improving supplier performance, cost reductions, environmental leadership, and improved reputation. These stimuli to participate in such initiatives can be supported by theoretical perspectives such as corporate social responsibility, network theory, neo-institutional theory and a resource-based view of the firm. Among perceived post-participation benefits, network theory supported findings stressing buyer-supplier relationships appear predominant. Collaborative approaches in project design might cause a shift from “hard” self-centred drivers towards “soft” partner-centred benefits. The stimulus–response approach helps understand how theoretically supported participation stimuli are linked to dissemination outcomes. This approach relates cognitive processes to actions, useful in the context of motivating anchor companies to join and contribute to voluntary environmental initiatives. The use of a combination of quantitative and qualitative research instruments offered complementary insights: statistical analyses of surveys provided empirically supported answers to the questions addressed in this research, whereas semi-structured interviews enabled a better understanding of statistical results. The overall positive perception of MSSP benefits should encourage other anchor companies to contribute to dissemination of environmentally sound practices among their suppliers, especially those with previous experience in supply chain programmes. The study also offers recommendations for project launch and management to regulatory and environmental agencies: the most suitable anchor companies to disseminate sustainable practices among suppliers are those with previous experience in supply chain programmes. The finding that perceived benefits outscore expectations shows the importance of communicating programme potential. Similarly, disseminating success stories should prove helpful in promoting future programmes. Anchor companies studied included multinational and local companies operating in different industrial sectors based in Mexico. Suppliers were local SME, diverse in size, industrial sectors and locations. The context in which the study was undertaken was one of growing export markets, challenging enforcement of environmental regulations for SME, difficulties in controlling industrial pollution, and little market-generated demand for environmentally

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

friendly products and services; conditions that are not unlike those of many other emerging economies, especially in Latin America. Admittedly, the database employed for this exploratory study focused on a small group of anchor firms – too small to support more advanced statistical analysis. Moreover, the network design of the MSSP was limited to first-tier suppliers. These limitations suggest fruitful opportunities for future research related to expand database and network structure. Furthermore, such research should expand the stimulus-response model to a stimulus-organism-response model. Additionally, longitudinal studies into the dissemination effects of sustainable practices, together with cross-country studies, may deepen understanding of how anchor companies can contribute to strengthening economic and environmental performance in emerging markets. Acknowledgements The authors thank Donald Huisingh, Leo Baas, Desiré Knoppen, and Joseph Sarkis for their valuable comments to earlier versions of this manuscript. Especially we thank Henry Gomez for fruitful discussions of the content. References Andersen, M., Skjoett-Larsen, T., 2009. Corporate social responsibility in global supply

chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14(2): 75-86. DOI: 10.1108/13598540910941948

Baas, L., 1998. Cleaner production and industrial ecosystems, a Dutch experience. Journal of Cleaner Production 6: 189-197. DOI: 10.1016/S0959-6526(98)00015-8

Baas, L., 2006. To make zero emissions technologies and strategies become a reality, the lessons learned of cleaner production dissemination have to be known. Journal of Cleaner Production 15(13-14): 1205-1216. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.017

Barney, J.B., 1989. Asset stocks and sustained competitive advantage: a comment. Management Science 35(12): 1511-1513. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1511

Blackman, A., 2000. Informal sector pollution control: What policy options do we have? World Development 28: 2067-2082.

Blackman, A., Uribe, E., Van Hoof, B., Lyon, T., 2009. Voluntary environmental regulation in Colombia: lessons for capacity building. Resources for the Future (RFF), RFF Report.

Blackman, A., Lahiri, B., Pizer, W.A., Rivera-Planter, M., Muñoz-Piña, C., 2010. Voluntary environmental regulation in developing countries: Mexico’s Clean Industry Program. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 60(3): 182-192. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.006

Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Farukt, A.C., 2001. The role of supply management capabilities in green supply. Production and Operations Management 10(2): 174-189. DOI: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00077.x

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Cai, S., Jun, M., Yang, Z., 2010. Implementing supply chain information integration in China: the role of institutional forces and trust. Journal of Operations Management 28(3): 257-268. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2009.11.005

Carroll, A.B., 2008. The history of corporate social responsibility: concepts and practices. The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Crane, A., Matten, D., McWilliams, A., Moon, J., Siegel, D. (eds). Oxford University Press: New York: 20-46.

Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38(5): 360-387. DOI: 10.1108/09600030810882816

Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., Lado, A.A., 2004. Strategic purchasing, supply management and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management 22(5): 505-523. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2004.06.002

Christmann, P., Taylor, G., 2001. Globalization and the environment: determinants of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies 32(3): 439-458. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490976

Darnall, N., 2003. Motivations for participating in a US voluntary environmental initiative: the multi-state working group and EPA´s EMS pilot program. In Research in corporate sustainability: the evolving theory and practice of organizations and the natural environment, Sharma, S., Starik, M. (eds). Edward Elgar Publishing: Boston; 123-154.

Dasgupta, S., Hettige, H., Wheeler, D., 1997. What improves environmental performance? Evidence from the Mexican industry. World Bank Development Research Group: Washington. DOI: 10.1596/1813-9450-1877

Dieleman, H., 2007. Cleaner production and innovation theory: social experiments as a new model to engage in cleaner production. Revista Internacional de Contaminación Ambiental 23(2): 79-94.

DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147-160.

Eilering, J.A.M., Vermeulen, W.J.V., 2004. Eco-industrial parks: toward industrial symbiosis and utility sharing in practice. Progress in Industrial Ecology 1: 245-270. DOI: 10.1504/PIE.2004.004681

Fayet, L., Vermeulen, W., 2012. Supporting smallholders to access sustainable supply chains: lessons from the Indian cotton supply chain. Sustainable Development. DOI: 10.1002/sd.1540

Fernández-Viñé, M.B., Gomez-Navarro, T., Capuz-Rizo, S.F., 2010. Eco-efficiency in the SMEs of Venezuela: current status and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18: 736-746. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.005

Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research, Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219-245. DOI: 10.1177/1077800405284363

Gold, S, Seuring, S., Beske, P., 2010. Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational resources: a literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17(4): 230-245. DOI: 10.1002/csr.207

Grant, R.M., 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 109-122.

Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review 20(4): 986-1014. DOI: 10.2307/258963

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Henriques, I., Sadorsky P., 1996. The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: an empirical approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(3): 381-395. DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0026

Hines, F., Johns, R., 2001. Environmental supply chain management: evaluating the use of environmental mentoring through supply chains. 9th International Conference of Greening of Industry Network: Bangkok.

Hirschhorn, J.S., 1997. Why the pollution prevention revolution failed – and why it ultimately will succeed. Pollution Prevention Review 7(1): 11-31. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6815(199724)7:1<11::AID-PPR2>3.0.CO;2-B

Hu, A. H., Hsu, C-W., 2010. Critical factors for implementing green supply chain management practice: an empirical study of electrical and electronics industries in Taiwan. Management Research Review 33(6): 586-608. DOI: 10.1108/01409171011050208

Inkpin, A., 1998. Learning, knowledge acquisition and strategic alliances. European Management Journal, Vol. 16(2): 223-229. DOI: 10.1016/S0263-2373(97)00090-X

Jenkins, B., Akhalkatsi, A., Roberts, B., Gardiner, A., 2007. Business linkages: lessons, opportunities and challenges, IFC, International Business Leaders Forum, and the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Jiménez, O., 2007. Voluntary agreements in environmental policy: an empirical evaluation for the Chilean case. Journal of Cleaner Production 15(7): 620-637. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.025

Jun, M., Cai, S., Yang, Z., 2010. Implementing supply chain information integration in China: The role of institutional forces and trust. Journal of Operations Management 28(3): 257-268. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2009.11.005

Kovács, G., 2008. Corporate environmental responsibility in the supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 16(15): 1571-1578. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.013

Kudla, N.L., Klaas-Wissing, T., 2012. Sustainability in shipper-logistics service provider relationships: a tentative taxonomy based on agency theory and stimulus-response analysis. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 18: 218-231. DOI: 10.1016/j.pursup.2012.04.001

Lee, S.-Y., 2008. Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain initiatives. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13(3): 185-198. DOI: 10.1108/13598540810871235

Lee, S.-Y., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Drivers and enablers that foster environmental management capabilities in small and medium-sized suppliers in supply chains. Production and Operations Management 17(6): 573-586. DOI: 10.3401/poms.1080.0063

Liwarska-Bizukojc, E., Bizukojc, M., Marcinkowski, A., Doniec, A., 2009. The conceptual model of an eco-industrial park based upon ecological relationships. Journal of Cleaner Production 17: 732-741. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.004

Lyon, T.P., Maxwell, J.W., 2007. Environmental public voluntary programs reconsidered. Policy Studies Journal 35(4): 723-750. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00245.x

Maranto-Vargas, D., Gómez-Tagle Rangel, R., 2007. Development of internal resources and capabilities as sources of differentiation of SME under increased global competition: a field study in Mexico. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74: 90-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.007

McGill, M.E, Slocum Jr., J.W., Lei, D., 1992. Management practices in learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics 21(1): 5-17. DOI: 10.1016/0090-2616(92)90082-X

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., 1986. Organizations: new concepts for new forms. California Management Review 28(3): 62-73.

Moltke, K., Kuik, O., 1998. Global product chains: northern consumers, southern producers and sustainability, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, UNEP report 2/26/98, 2-31.

Mont, O., Leire, C., 2009. Socially responsible purchasing in supply chains: drivers and barriers in Sweden. Social Responsibility Journal 5(3): 388-407. DOI: 10.1108/17471110910977302

Montiel, I., Husted, B.W., 2009. The adoption of voluntary environmental management programs in Mexico: first movers as institutional entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Ethics 88(2): 349-363. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-009-0282-y

Partington, D., 2000. Building grounded theories of management action. British Journal of Management 11(2): 91-102. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.00153

Reuter, C., Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E., Blome, C., 2010. Sustainable global supplier management: the role of dynamic capabilities in achieving competitive advantage. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46(2): 45-63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.2010.03189.x

Rivera, J., 2004. Institutional pressures and voluntary environmental behavior in developing countries: evidence from the Costa Rican hotel industry. Society & Natural Resources 17(9): 779-797. DOI: 10.1080/08941920490493783

Rowley, J., 2002. Using case studies in research. Management Research News 25(1): 16-27. DOI: 10.1108/01409170210782990

Sage, J., 2000. Continuous learning and improvement in a regional cleaner production network. Journal of Cleaner Production 8: 381-389. DOI: 10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00041-X

Seuring, S, Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16(15): 1699-1710. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020

Sharma, S., 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 681-697. DOI: 10.2307/1556361

Simatupang, T., Sridharan, R., 2005. An integrative framework for supply chain collaboration. International Journal of Logistics Management 16(2): 257-274. DOI: 10.1108/09574090510634548

Stone, L.J., 2006. Limitations of cleaner production programmes as organizational change agents. I. Achieving commitment and on-going improvement. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(1): 1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.12.008

UNEP, 2004. Guidance manual; how to establish and operate cleaner production centres, United Nations Environmental Programme, available at www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/WEBx0072xPA-CPcentre.pdf.

Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006a. Extending green practices across the supply chain: the impact of upstream and downstream integration. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26(7): 795-821. DOI: 10.1108/01443570610672248

Vachon S., Klassen, R.D., 2006b. Green project partnership in the supply chain: the case of the package printing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(6-7): 661-671. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.07.014

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2008. Environmental management and manufacturing performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 111(2): 299-315. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.030

Van Berkel R., 2006. Cleaner production and eco-efficiency initiatives in Western Australia 1996-2004, Journal of Cleaner Production, 20: 1-15.

Van Berkel, R., 1994. Comparative evaluation of cleaner production working methods. Journal of Cleaner Production 2(3-4): 139-152. DOI: 10.1016/0959-6526(94)90036-1

Van Hoof, B., 2013. Organizational learning in cleaner production among Mexican supply networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, In Press, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.041

Van Hoof, B., Lyon T.P., 2013. Cleaner production in small firms taking part in Mexico’s Sustainable Supplier Program. Journal of Cleaner Production, 41: 270-282. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.023

Vermeulen, W.J.V, Seuring, S., 2009. Sustainability through the market – the impacts of sustainable supply chain management: introduction. Sustainable Development 17(5): 269-273. DOI: 10.1002/sd.422

Vickers, I., Cordey-Hayes, M., 1999. Cleaner production and organizational learning. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 11: 75-94. DOI: 10.1080/095373299107591

Wang, Z, Sarkis, J., 2013. Investigating the relationship of sustainable supply chain management with corporate financial performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62(8): 871-888. DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-03-2013-0033

Walker, H, Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private sectors. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 14(1): 69-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.pursup.2008.01.007

Welford, R., Frost, S., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in Asian supply chains. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13(3): 166-176. DOI: 10.1002/csr.121

Xu, S.X., Walker, H., Nairn, A., Johnsen, T., 2007. A network approach to understand “Green buying”: a literature review. 23rd IMP Conference: Manchester.

Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Fujita, T., Hahimoto, S., 2010. Green supply chain management in leading manufactures: case studies in Japanese large companies. Management Research Review 33(4): 380-392. DOI: 10.1108/01409171011030471

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTTable 1. Features of the instruments applied in the process of data gathering.

Features

Instrument Research objective

Information source Replies Moment of

application

(1) Interview • Stimuli of anchor

companies - Drivers - Perceived benefits

• Managers of anchor companies

9 / 14

• After completion of MSSP workshop series

(2) Survey I • Stimuli of anchor

companies - Drivers - Perceived benefits

• Managers of anchor companies

11 / 14

• 3-4 months after interviews

(3) Survey II

• Response of anchor company (CP dissemination) - Project design - Project implementation

• Managers of suppliers

133 / 177

• 6-8 months after MSSP workshop series

Table 2. Factors that drove anchor companies to participate in the MSSP.

Drivers Min.* Max.* Mean S.D. Mode n

Development of the supplier performance 2 5 4,1 1,2 5 11

Leadership in sustainability 1 5 3,5 1,6 5 11 CSR reputation 1 5 3,4 1,5 4 11 Collaborate with environmental authority 1 5 3,3 1,0 3 11

Collaborate with CEC 1 4 3,0 1,4 3 11 Participate in a new initiative 1 5 2,9 1,8 1 11 Prospect of higher raw material costs 1 5 2,5 1,4 1 11 Capture subsidies 1 5 2,2 1,5 1 11 Regulatory pressure 1 4 1,6 1,0 1 11 Prospect of higher logistical costs 1 4 1,5 1,0 1 11 * Likert scale: 1 = not important, 2= little importance, 3 = some importance, 4 = important, 5 = very important

Table 3. Benefits of MSSP participation perceived by anchor company managers.

Perceived benefits Min.* Max.* Mean S.D. Mode n

Strengthened corporate reputation with suppliers 3 5 4,4 0,81 5 11

Strengthened relations with suppliers 3 5 4,3 0,6 4 11 Strengthened trust with suppliers 3 5 4,1 0,7 4 11 Economic benefits from own CP projects 1 5 3,7 1,3 5 11 Strengthened general corporate reputation 1 5 3,6 1,4 5 11

Strengthened corporate reputation with environmental authority 1 4 3,5 1,5 5 11

Strengthened operational capacity in CP 1 5 3,3 1,5 3 11 Strengthened corporate reputation with 1 5 3,0 1,5 1 11

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTclients Economic benefits obtained from increased supplier performance 1 5 2,5 1,4 2 11

* Likert scale: 1 = no benefits, 2= little benefits, 3 = some benefits, 4 = significant benefits, 5 = very significant benefits

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Source: Authors Figure 1. Theory driven contribution stimuli of anchor companies linked with CP dissemination responses.

Source: Authors Figure 2. Operating structure of the MSSP and key activities performed by each actor.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Source: Authors Figure 3. Outcomes demonstrating anchor company contribution to CP dissemination in the MSSP.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTHighlights • Experience of 14 anchor companies and 177 suppliers in Mexico. • Theory-founded stimuli for SSCM differ from perceived benefits. • Research framework integrates SSCM stimuli and CP dissemination

responses. • Anchor companies are important players in CP dissemination. • Anchor company experience improves CP dissemination outcomes.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

Appendix A Profile of anchor companies that participated in the pilot phase of the MSSP.

Sector Company code Main characteristics Location Origin Period of

participation

Total number of suppliers

Suppliers with project

design

Suppliers with project

implementation

Pharmaceutical

BM

• Pharmacy company • Annual sales 19 billon USD (2009 worldwide) • 2 production plants in Mexico since 1999 • About 3.000 suppliers in Mexico

Mexico DF US 2005-2007 18 17 11

JC

• Development, production and commercialisation of pharmacy products

• Representatives in more than 50 countries around the world

• Two production plants in Mexico • About 1.100 suppliers in Mexico

Mexico DF US 2005 9 7 5

Chemical

CP

• Development, production and commercialisation of products for personal care

• Multinational with representation in 200 countries around the world

• 2 production plants in Mexico • Operations in Mexico since 1925 • 700-800 suppliers in Mexico

Mexico DF US 2005-2007 19 16 9

SK

• Chemical company for the industrial and construction industry

• Worldwide presence in more than 70 countries • 1 production plant in Mexico • Operations in Mexico since 1962

Queretaro Swiss 2007 11 5 0

HK

• Chemical company (personal care products, industrial applications)

• Worldwide presence (over 50.000 employees) • Operations in Mexico since 1981

Mexico DF German 2008 15 12 11

CR

• Development and production of personal care products

• 1 production plant and a distribution network throughout Mexico

• 3.800 employees • Operations in Mexico since 1920 • About 300 suppliers in Mexico

Mexico DF Mexican 2008 13 9 6

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2

Sector Company code Main characteristics Location Origin Period of

participation

Total number of suppliers

Suppliers with project

design

Suppliers with project

implementation

Food

JM

• Mexican company in the juice and nectar industry founded in 1965

• Commercialises its products in over 25 countries across five continents

• 7 production plants in Mexico • 2.500 employees • About 10.000 suppliers in Mexico

Mexico DF Mexican 2007-2008 25 19 15

GM

• Beer brewery of Mexican origin • 7 production plants in Mexico • 37.000 employees • Operations in Mexico since 1925 • About 15.000 suppliers in Mexico

Mexico DF Mexican 2007-2008 18 12 12

NE

• World leader in food and nutrition with over 8.500 different products

• Over 500 plants in 70 countries world wide • 13 production plants around Mexico • About 1.000 suppliers in Mexico

Mexico DF US 2008 8 6 4

Auto parts

IA

• World leader in glass, automotive and building products

• Annual revenues above 5 billon U$D (2007) • Employs 19.000 people that operate facilities

in North America, Europe, South America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East

• One production plant in Mexico since 2004 • About 500 suppliers in Mexico

Queretaro US 2008 8 5 5

GI

• International automotive components • Leading global supplier of automotive

components and systems. • 13.000 employees in facilities in the United

States, Canada and Mexico

Queretaro US 2008 10 6 4

Aircraft BB

• Canadian multinational in the transport industry

• Over 20 production plants in different countries around the world

• Annual sales around 15 billon USD • Installed operations in Mexico in 2007

Queretaro Canadian 2008 6 6 6

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3

Sector Company code Main characteristics Location Origin Period of

participation

Total number of suppliers

Suppliers with project

design

Suppliers with project

implementation

Electronic CL

• Electronics company • Operations in 7 countries • Annual turnover of its operations in Mexico:

USD 125 million • 90 first-tier foreign suppliers + 15 local

suppliers

Queretaro Japanese 2005 7 7 0

Publicity & communication RD

• World's premier full-service provider of print and related solutions

• DD global reach connects the world with approximately 160 manufacturing locations in North America, Latin America, Europe, Middle East, and Asia

Queretaro US 2008 10 6 6

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

chain

motive

leadership

motive raw mat

cost

motive

regulation

motive log

Cost

motive col

author

motive col

CEC

motive develop

supplych

motive new

initiative

motive limmited cost

participation

motive

CSR

BB . . . . . . . . . .

BM 3 1 1 1 4 5 5 5 2 4

CL 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 2

CP 3 1 1 1 5 4 3 4 1 3

CR 5 4 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 4

GI 1 3 1 1 4 1 4 3 1 1

GM 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 5

HK 5 2 2 2 3 3 4 1 4 3

IA 2 5 2 4 3 2 5 1 4 1

JC 4 1 1 1 4 4 5 5 1 4

JM 5 3 1 1 3 2 5 4 1 5

NE 5 4 4 1 3 5 5 5 5 5

RD . . . . . . . . . .

SK . . . . . . . . . .

variable mean sd min max N Moda

motive leadership 3.454545 1.572491 1 5 11 5

motive raw mat cost 2.545455 1.439697 1 5 11 1

motive regulation 1.636364 1.026911 1 4 11 1

motive log Cost 1.545455 1.035725 1 4 11 1

motive col author 3.272727 1.00905 1 5 11 3

motive col CEC 3 1.414214 1 5 11 3

motive develop supplych 4.090909 1.221028 2 5 11 5

motive new initiative 2.909091 1.758098 1 5 11 1

motive limmited cost

participation 2.181818 1.47093 1 5 11 1

motive CSR 3.363636 1.501514 1 5 11 4

Motives

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

chain

Benefits

econ. Proj.

Benefits econ.

Supply

Benefits

reputation sup

Benefits

reputation corp.

Benefits reputation

clients

Benefits reputation

author.

Benefits relation

suppliers

Benefits

confi

Benefits

training

BB . . . . . . . . .

BM 2 2 4 4 1 3 5 5 3

CL 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4

CP 4 5 4 3 3 5 4 4 3

CR 5 1 5 4 4 4 4 4 4

GI 4 2 4 1 2 3 3 4 2

GM 3 2 3 4 4 1 4 4 3

HK 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 1

IA 5 2 5 2 1 1 4 5 5

JC 1 1 5 5 1 4 5 3 1

JM 5 2 5 5 4 5 5 4 5

NE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

RD . . . . . . . . .

SK . . . . . . . . .

5 2 5 5 1 5 4 4 3

variable mean sd min max N Moda

Benefits econ. Proj. 3.727273 1.3484 1 5 11 5

Benefits econ. Supply 2.545455 1.439697 1 5 11 2

Benefits reputation

sup 4.363636 0.8090398 3 5 11 5

Benefits reputation

corp. 3.636364 1.433369 1 5 11 5

Benefits reputation

clients 3 1.549193 1 5 11 1

Benefits reputation

author. 3.545455 1.507557 1 5 11 5

Benefits relation

suppliers 4.272727 0.6466698 3 5 11 4

Benefits confi 4.090909 0.700649 3 5 11 4

Benefits training 3.272727 1.489356 1 5 11 3

Planned Benefits

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

grupo Statistics planned benefits number of employees CO2 savings Water savings Waste savings

mean 203782.2 55.83333 33.73603 0 8.351667

sd 187576.4 58.90473 72.70792 0 19.41695

cv 0.9204751 1.05501 2.155201 . 2.324919

skewness 1.505412 0.9736634 1.73684 . 1.785557

kurtosis 3.719133 2.578282 4.098462 . 4.194034

median 142262.5 35 0.0220412 0 0.385

mean 336433.1 177.7143 24.37151 342.8571 6.571429

sd 261570.6 160.2973 50.41827 907.1147 8.829065

cv 0.7774818 0.9019947 2.068738 2.645751 1.343553

skewness 1.04161 0.2766811 1.941337 2.041241 1.468655

kurtosis 3.6365 1.197143 4.939959 5.166667 3.829991

median 278571 80 0.0204615 0 4

mean 636007.3 127.0909 34.01492 71.424 0.7

sd 660865.4 124.337 106.1816 160.1894 2.213594

cv 1.039085 0.9783312 3.12162 2.242795 3.162278

skewness 1.525995 1.085176 2.666191 2.200358 2.666667

kurtosis 4.254038 2.757019 8.109621 6.380743 8.111111

median 447016 85 0 0 0

mean 308349.9 162.5714 52.64598 1842.857 4.642857

sd 365890.1 198.3825 111.6508 4875.742 7.845988

cv 1.186607 1.220279 2.120786 2.645751 1.689905

skewness 1.846124 0.5472626 1.838153 2.041241 1.017866

kurtosis 4.751377 1.526007 4.650811 5.166667 2.137108

median 217800 30 0 0 0

mean 583053.3 283.6 2.139439 4 48

sd 214393.5 251.339 2.943515 6.928203 59.09315

cv 0.3677083 0.8862448 1.375835 1.732051 1.231107

skewness -0.6686807 0.6602745 0.6298704 0.7071068 0.507672

kurtosis 1.5 2.28192 1.5 1.5 1.5

BB

BM

BM2

CL

CP

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

median 682460 250 0.921938 0 30

mean 368101.5 153.2857 83.04408 1323.154 127.8923

sd 370608.3 171.7308 278.1016 3494.598 460.3416

cv 1.00681 1.120331 3.348843 2.641112 3.599447

skewness 1.174274 1.170901 3.159283 2.826363 3.175413

kurtosis 3.513614 2.747106 11.01898 9.573903 11.08328

median 225000 85 0 0 0

mean 394221.6 253.5 311.9133 495.5 0.159

sd 683172 215.1796 986.3565 860.7376 0.5028022

cv 1.732964 0.8488348 3.162278 1.737109 3.162278

skewness 2.570048 0.7752453 2.666667 1.33064 2.666667

kurtosis 7.799953 1.910954 8.111111 3.305022 8.111111

median 150136 147.5 0 0 0

mean 1740409 114.9091 474.7482 215.3314 233.4571

sd 2334091 139.2454 749.3945 569.5723 585.5586

cv 1.341117 1.211788 1.578509 2.645096 2.508206

skewness 1.703438 1.751799 0.986712 2.041241 2.03253

kurtosis 4.443616 5.132652 2.121087 5.166666 5.147031

median 1249048 75 0.0350646 0 0

mean 1448818 626.3684 78.35756 4701.828 0

sd 2275817 1372.811 110.0423 9426.372 0

cv 1.57081 2.1917 1.404362 2.004831 .

skewness 1.828417 2.519651 0.9939512 2.178894 .

kurtosis 4.70097 7.452599 2.402741 6.383369 .

median 629200 127 14.64368 780 0

mean 547531.2 393.8 75.92622 3487.021 83.7525

sd 541682.1 754.5028 132.3565 7052.476 282.0769

cv 0.9893174 1.915954 1.743225 2.022493 3.367982

skewness 1.283616 3.017989 1.87277 1.850114 3.011921

kurtosis 3.28597 10.93034 5.345761 4.925094 10.07916

median 316201.5 148 11.52119 0 0

mean 1344183 65.125 4.943742 0 287.1

sd 1729482 66.81838 11.05454 0 513.2371

CP2

CR

GI

GM

HK

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

cv 1.286641 1.026002 2.236068 . 1.78766

skewness 1.08006 1.031671 1.5 . 1.457981

kurtosis 2.5805 2.643458 3.25 . 3.193436

median 552400 35.5 0 0 92

mean 362350.3 106.8889 4.963166 3.428571 11.14286

sd 358231.9 55.80422 8.476273 9.071147 19.659

cv 0.9886344 0.5220769 1.707836 2.645751 1.764269

skewness 1.2131 -0.2058637 0.9487252 2.041241 1.906635

kurtosis 2.941577 2.642268 1.900141 5.166667 4.868017

median 217470 120 0 0 3

mean 676667.8 78.54545 65.99763 342.1 12

sd 933798.7 69.92762 197.0397 954.2418 37.94733

cv 1.379996 0.8902823 2.985557 2.789365 3.162278

skewness 1.800434 1.491087 2.652487 2.591988 2.666667

kurtosis 4.789481 4.252356 8.065258 7.857959 8.111111

median 285940 50 0 0 0

mean 1077608 322.6429 129.5626 26.77778 0.0644444

sd 2252636 779.3832 256.0836 63.48972 0.1933333

cv 2.090403 2.415622 1.976523 2.370985 3

skewness 2.2765 3.20234 2.127114 2.190487 2.474874

kurtosis 6.496655 11.549 6.056267 6.176924 7.125

median 138600 76.5 13.87526 0 0

mean 2039833 223.75 21.84398 488.5 0.7166667

sd 4346916 216.7934 44.14671 960.2258 1.293703

cv 2.131015 0.9689088 2.021002 1.965662 1.805167

skewness 1.777317 1.367548 1.733841 1.61295 1.406329

kurtosis 4.178748 4.03882 4.096782 3.833208 3.350724

median 220000 190 3.332445 0 0

mean 615335.8 119.3 7.07372 124.9733 4.326667

sd 665417.9 171.9955 15.35121 244.7263 10.23032

cv 1.08139 1.441706 2.170174 1.958228 2.364481

skewness 0.9284741 1.287949 1.742498 1.605858 1.785344

kurtosis 2.461853 3.270231 4.109923 3.817368 4.193571

IA

JC

JM

JM2

NE

RD

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

median 363276 33.5 0 0 0

mean 1156455 329.8182 18.87404 2586.6 43.6

sd 1076403 631.5617 32.88744 4580.361 51.64591

cv 0.9307775 1.914878 1.74247 1.770804 1.184539

skewness 0.7280365 1.645686 1.302401 1.347968 0.5490364

kurtosis 2.23249 3.780024 2.936242 3.013359 1.711266

median 870912 30 0 81 25

mean 791151.7 243.1944 93.33228 1198.216 47.53949

sd 1509945 585.6159 347.9713 4161.374 233.6218

cv 1.908541 2.408015 3.728306 3.472974 4.914268

skewness 4.128693 5.609985 6.264173 4.879018 5.81985

kurtosis 22.41387 37.24432 48.30502 29.35998 36.35118

median 284462 89 0 0 0

grupo 0 1

BB 6 6 2 1 3

BM 7 7 1 1

BM2 10 1 11 1 2 3

CL 7 7 3 1 4

CP 3 2 5 1 1

CP2 13 1 14 4 4

CR 10 4 14 2 2

GI 6 5 11 2 3 5

GM 13 6 19 1 1

HK 12 3 15 1 1

IA 5 3 8 1 4 5

JC 7 2 9 1 1 2

JM 10 1 11 6 6

JM2 9 5 14 1 5 6

NE 6 2 8 2 2

Total

SK

WithdrawnNumero de empresas Micro & SmallSmallMicro

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RD 6 4 10 4 3 7

SK 5 6 11 1 5 6