10 1108 - SCM 06 2021 0275

Supply chain relational capital for
sustainability through governance: the

moderating effect of network complexity
Md Maruf Hossan Chowdhury
UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Mesbahuddin Chowdhury
Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, UC Business School, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand
Eijaz Ahmed Khan
School of Business, Melbourne Institute of Technology – Sydney Campus, Sydney, Australia, and
Shahriar Sajib
UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the conditional direct and indirect effects of supply chain relational capital (RC) on supply chain
sustainability via sustainability governance.
Design/methodology/approach – In line with the study’s aims, a quantitative survey-based approach was adopted. This study uses a random
sample of 272 manufacturing firms from the apparel industry in Bangladesh. This study assesses the measurement model using partial least square-
based structural equation modelling and test the proposed hypotheses using the Hayes PROCESS.
Findings – The results reveal that the indirect effect of supply chain RC on supply chain sustainability via sustainability governance is significant.
While at low levels of network complexity (NC), the conditional indirect effect of supply chain RC on supply chain sustainability via sustainability
governance is significant, this study finds that such indirect effects are insignificant at high levels of NC. This study further shows that NC positively
moderates the relationship between supply chain RC and supply chain sustainability.
Originality/value – While previous studies have demonstrated the role of RC in adopting sustainability practice, this study explores this link further
by investigating the conditional direct and indirect effects of supply chain relational capital on supply chain sustainability via sustainability
governance.
Keywords Sustainability governance, Relational capital, Supply chain sustainability, Network complexity, Conditional indirect effect, Governance,
Sustainability, Surveys, Collaboration
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction for largest proportion (i.e. 20%) of total greenhouse gas

emission (Dubey et al., 2017; Qorri et al., 2018). To further
In today’s hyper-competitive and dynamic markets, firms (e.g.
address the concerns related to supply chain’s environmental and
BMW, Walmart, HP, IBM) are more inclined to adopt
social impacts, various stakeholders (such as government,
sustainability principles into their supply chain Supply Chain
consumers, Non government organizations (NGOs)) are
(SC) (Qorri et al., 2018). In the past two decades, a number of
building pressure on firms to mitigate these harmful impacts in
incidents occurred on the misconduct of sustainability practices
their supply chain (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2021; Hassini
that compelled firms to cease their working relations with
partners, for example – Walmart discontinued working et al., 2012). All these evidences clearly portray the challenges
with some suppliers from Bangladesh and Uzbekistan in associated to ensure sustainability performance of today’s
2011 and 2008, respectively (Varsei et al., 2014). Carbon complex supply chain.
disclosure project, on the other hand, mentioned that In many manufacturing industries, firms (located in
2,500 largest firms and their supply chains are responsible developed countries) shift a core part of their value adding
activities to countries in emerging economics to take the
advantage of low cost while maintaining product quality
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2014). While this strategy is widely
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1359-8546.htm adopted by many firms to improve cost efficiency and profit, it
Received 2 June 2021

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Revised 28 November 2021
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546] 22 December 2021
[DOI 10.1108/SCM-06-2021-0275] Accepted 23 December 2021
Supply chain relational capital Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Shahriar Sajib et al.
creates a challenging environment to ensure sustainability resources, which expedite collective actions (Adler and Kwon,
performance. Particularly in the context of emerging and low- 2002). Among the three key distinct elements of social capital
cost countries, focal firms (located in developed countries) may structural and cognitive capital are the antecedents of RC
find it difficult to institute and monitor sustainability practices (Carey et al., 2011; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998) that influence
along their supply chains (Chowdhury et al., 2019a). In different performance outcomes (Preston et al., 2017). In this
emerging economies, uncertainty related to economic returns regard, Granovetter (1985) suggests that RC must be
from environmental investments imply firm’s less emphasis on integrated and embedded in the relationship network to
environmental performance (Kumar et al., 2018). As a result, overcome distrust and opportunism. Extant literature (Wu
firms are more inclined to invest money in social and et al., 2020; Yang and Lien, 2018; Yu and Huo, 2019; Yu et al.,
community development initiatives such as health, education, 2020) suggests that RC or close relationships play a critical role
food and sanitation (Katiyar et al., 2018). However, many of in the effective implementation of supply chain sustainability.
these sustainability initiatives have a compliance- and In particular, Yang and Lien (2018) have argued that a
operations-based focus; in short, they do not integrate significant number of green initiatives have failed due to the
sustainability in their list of strategic priorities (Rana and absence of effective collaboration and coordination
Majmudar, 2016). Scholars have called for more research on arrangements among supply chain partners. To improve
the social and environmental aspects of supply chain collaboration with suppliers in green supply chain management
performance within emerging economies (Katiyar et al., 2018). (SCM), social network such as guanxi networks are beneficial
In particular, Yadlapalli et al. (2018) have suggested (Luo et al., 2014). However, limited investigation has been
implementing social responsibility practices in Bangladesh’s conducted on the underlying mechanisms of sustainable SCM
apparel industry, including practices designed to manage from a network perspective (Lu et al., 2018). While sustainable
human rights abuses, ensure employees’ rights are upheld (for SCM requires the active involvement of supply chain partners
example, the right to join a union), to guarantee compliance (Tachizawa and Wong, 2015) scholars have not yet examined
with minimum labour standards and to provide employee how to ensure that partners play an active role in this process
training. In a recent study, Huq and Stevenson (2020) (Lu et al., 2018).
proposed that buyers (in developed countries) should exert To make sure the effective implementation of sustainability
collective coercive pressure to reduce the tendency to represent practices, firms not only require to build RC but also develop
business practices or consumer choices as separate from ethical incentive-based governance practices with their supply chain
issues. members (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2021; Vurro et al.,
There is growing pressure on manufacturing firms in 2009). For example, Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021) have
emerging economies to comply with social and environmental showed that a combination of collaborative (for example,
sustainability practice. These concerns intensified after a fire in cooperation and incentivzation) and control based (for
a Tazreen garment factory in Dhaka in 2012 resulted in the example, monitoring and performance evaluation) governance
deaths of 112 people, and again following the 2013 Rana Plaza approach positively influences supply chain sustainability
accident where 1,129 workers from five garment factories practices and ultimately improves performance. Chowdhury
housed in the same building complex died (Kamal and Deegan, and Quaddus (2021) and Vurro et al. (2009) have devised a
2013). These two accidents demonstrate some inherent taxonomy of supply chain sustainability governance (SCG)
problems of global apparel supply chain. This labour-intensive models which rely on different network structures. They have
industry is purely buyer (located in developed countries) driven demonstrated that the effectiveness of the governance approach
in terms of keeping low price, maintaining high product quality, is context sensitive. Effective governance mechanisms in a
offering short lead time and changing product design that leads supply chain may reduce opportunistic behaviour (Dyer and
to lower employee wages, poor health and safety practices and Singh, 1998) and minimize the risk of non-compliance with
violation of worker’s right (Vanpeperstraete, 2021). This price sustainability standards (Chowdhury et al., 2019a). Aligned
pressure and other demands force apparel manufacturers to with a relational view of firms (Bhattacharya et al., 2009;
maintain a thin profit margin for their survival. It is also Tencati and Zsolnai, 2009), it is apparent that a top-down
necessary to mention here that these apparel manufacturers approach to sustainability governance (such as imposing
also subcontract their work to third parties, which is often sustainability codes on SC members) is far riskier than a
unknown to the buyer. In such circumstances, complying with collaborative and incentive-based approach. While existing
environmental and social performance is beyond their ability or studies have separately investigated the influence of RC
interest to focus on. Therefore, this further demonstrates that (Dauvergne and Lister, 2012; Wu et al., 2020) and
complying sustainability performance requires buyer and sustainability governance practices (Chowdhury and Quaddus,
supplier to work closely to find a win-win solution for both. In 2021; Vurro et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2020; Yu and Huo, 2019;
this regard, studies suggested to build RC; (Lee, 2015) and Yu et al., 2020) for achieving supply chain sustainability, this
sustainability governance (Yadlapalli et al., 2018) among study aim to empirically test the indirect effect of RC on supply
supply chain members. chain sustainability via sustainability governance.
The notion of RC is rooted in social capital theory (SCT; In this study, we further investigate the boundary conditions
Adler and Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) in which that influence the impact of RC on supply chain sustainability
social capital comprised three key distinct elements structural, via sustainability governance. In particular, we argue that
relational and cognitive capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). network complexity (NC) may influence this relationship
Social capital envisages that the relationship among the (Chowdhury et al., 2019b). Our core argument is that NC
network of organizations can be considered as valuable creates a challenging environment for firms to extract the
sustainability benefits of RC, implementing governance 2.2 Relational capital and supply chain sustainability
mechanisms in a complex network requires the focal firm to A supply chain is a network of interconnected firms that are
invest a significant amount of time and resources. We also often nurtured by close relationships characterized by trust,
argue that this complexity may have a detrimental effect on the obligations, reciprocity, and the recognition of mutual benefits
relationship between RC and supply chain sustainability (Lu et al., 2018). In this type of relationship, RC is embodied
performance. Empirical studies which investigate the effect of (Jia et al., 2020) that facilitate the exchange of critical
supply chain NC on the relationship between supply chain RC, information, resources and knowledge (Yu and Huo, 2019). In
sustainability governance and sustainability performance are essence, RC is a critical resource that enhances relational
notably absent. We are addressing this gap by investigating the strength in a supply chain network by building trust, improving
conditional direct and indirect effects of supply chain RC on cooperation and gaining commitment to achieve common goals
sustainability via sustainability governance at different levels of for the entire network (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
NC. Literature has identified the critical role that RC or close
The study’s contributions are twofold. First, the study relationships play in the implementation of green SCM (Wu
investigates the mediation effect of sustainability governance in et al., 2020; Yu and Huo, 2019; Yu et al., 2020). Scholars have
the relationship between RC and supply chain sustainability argued that better relationships and increased coordination
performance. This has not been empirically tested in the prior with external partners and internal functions can help a firm to
literature. Second, this study examines the conditional direct achieve their environmental goals (for example, environmental
and indirect effects of RC on supply chain sustainability via purchasing) (Carter and Carter, 1998; Gunasekaran et al.,
2015; Youn et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2020). A focal firm is
sustainability governance at different levels of NC. This study
dependent upon its supply chain partners to achieve its desired
has several managerial implications that are explained in the
sustainability goals (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012). The
discussion section. The remaining sections present the
triple bottom line approach, which covers the environmental,
theoretical background and hypothesis development, followed
social and economic aspects, emphasizes the long-term
by methodology and the results. The article discusses the
perspective and highlights the importance of considering and
results and implications before concluding.
including key stakeholders’ (for example, suppliers, consumers,
customers, government and employees) interests (Kumar et al.,
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis 2018). This perspective argues that as various supply chain
development partners add value to the products and services, supply chain
2.1 Theoretical background sustainability goals may become more difficult to achieve,
SCT (Coleman, 1990; Lin, 2001; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, particularly if partners do not meet the sustainability standards
1998) is used as underpinning theoretical lens to develop our (Kumar et al., 2018). Sustainability initiatives focus on
conceptual framework. SCT postulates that actors can access transforming existing business strategies in response to broader
critical resources through their network of social relationship societal issues (Touboulic et al., 2014). In short, it is not only
(Coleman, 1990; Lin, 2001). Social capital is a the focal firm which must work towards sustainability but also
the partners (Paulraj, 2011). As firms are embedded in a
multidimensional construct which is composed of three
network of supply chain partners, they can only achieve their
dimensions – structural, relational and cognitive (Nahapiet and
sustainability goals if they are addressed at the supply chain
Ghoshal, 1998). This study mainly emphasises on relational
level (Paulraj, 2011). Thus, it is necessary to develop close
dimension of social capital (i.e. trust, commitment and
relationships with supply chain partners or build RC to ensure
cooperation) that plays a critical role in enhancing
the firm’s sustainability performance (Vachon and Klassen,
sustainability performance. Maintaining RC does not
2008). Such relationships not only indicate a firm’s and its
necessarily imply that firm can “mobilize” critical resources
partners’ willingness to commit resources to this goal (Blome
embedded in the relations (Kwon and Adler, 2014) to ensure et al., 2014) but also reflect “a good understanding of each
sustainability performance. We argue that effective other’s responsibilities and capabilities” (Vachon and Klassen,
implementation of sustainability governance helps in mobilizing 2008, p. 301). Scholars have indicated that collaboration with
sustainability related resources (e.g. information, knowledge internal and external actors is an important strategic issue for
and practices) to enhance sustainability performance. sustainable supply chain management (Chen et al., 2017b;
Grounding on this argument, we proposed the mediating role Mehdikhani and Valmohammadi, 2019; Touboulic and
of sustainability governance in our model. Ensuring Walker, 2015; Van Hoof and Thiell, 2014). Collaborative
sustainability practice along the supply chain has become a relationships facilitate the exchange of critical information,
challenging task considering the complexity of global supply knowledge and resources that are necessary for sustainability
chain. In this study, we attempt to capture this complexity performance. For example – trust and commitment-based
aspect using SCT. When firm’s NC increases, it becomes a relationships not only ensure the direct involvement of partner
daunting task to maintain RC with partners located in diverse firms in planning and executing joint environmental solutions
geographical locations and lose control over it (Daghar et al., but also imply that their goals are aligned (for example, they
2020). As a result, it hampers firm’s effort to comply with follow the same environmental policies) (Vachon and Klassen,
sustainability performance and diminishes the effectiveness of 2008). Firms must work closely with their partner firms to
mobilization function highlighted in SCT theory. Based on this reduce CO2 emissions from production, logistics and other
argument, we propose the conditioning and moderating role of operations (Ramanathan et al., 2014). The study of Gimenez
NC in our model. et al.(2012) has provided empirical evidence of the role of
supply chain collaboration in enhancing social and H1. SCG mediates the relationship between RC and
environmental performance. In this study, we argue that RC, in sustainability.
which trust, cooperation and commitment are embedded, is
important for achieving supply chain sustainability goals.
2.4 Conditional and moderating effect of network
2.3 Mediating role of sustainability governance complexities
To ensure the effective implementation of sustainability While we argue that sustainability governance is acting as an
practices, a focal firm must establish governance mechanisms effective mechanism to extract the sustainability benefits of RC,
along its supply chain (Boström et al., 2015; Tachizawa and we are extending this line of argument considering the
Wong, 2015). A lack of appropriate governance may hamper boundary condition that influence this relationship. As global
supply chain has inherently become complex, we argue that
the focal firm’s sustainability initiatives and its supply chain
NC may diminish the direct and indirect effect of RC on
partners, which may create risks for the entire supply chain
sustainability performance. This also helps us to extend our
(Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2021). In addition to supply
understanding of SCT in the sense that in a complex supply
chain-related governance mechanisms (Tachizawa and Wong,
chain RC may not produce the expected outcome.
2015), firms often implement sustainability-related governance
Complexity is one of the key characteristics of today’s global
mechanisms (which are often more tricky). In this study, we
and modern supply chains. It is not seen as a very desirable feature
define sustainability governance as any practice, initiative and
(Bode and Wagner, 2015; Macchion et al., 2020). Modern supply
process that the focal firm has designed/implemented to
chains consist of many partners (for example, customers and
influence the behaviour of their supply chain partners and which suppliers) located around the globe. The relationships between
ensure compliance with sustainability-related performance these partners can generate tension in the supply chain due to
measures (Formentini and Taticchi, 2016). To ensure the their diverse visions and approaches (Macchion et al., 2020). As
successful implementation of sustainability practice, a focal firm complexity increases, it often raises the level of difficulties for focal
must be committed for the long-term and must engage in firms to plan and implement different activities or decisions along
strategic behaviour to mitigate conflict among supply chain the supply chain (Sarkis et al., 2011). In this study, supply chain
partners and restrain opportunistic behaviour (Li et al., 2014). NC is measured in terms of the number of supply chain partners
Organisational design literature (Jones et al., 1997; Powell, 1990) (for example, customers and suppliers) and a supply chain’s
has argued that governance in supply chains can be either formal geographic spread; this definition is consistent with previous
or informal (Howard et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2014; Pilbeam studies (Brandon-Jones et al., 2015; Chowdhury et al., 2019b;
et al., 2012). Formal governance uses written procedures/ Tachizawa and Wong, 2015). Literature has provided empirical
contracts for monitoring the supply chains. It provides details of evidence of the role of complexity in supply chains in terms of
the roles and responsibilities to be performed and outcomes to mitigating performance (Bozarth et al., 2009; Larsen et al., 2013),
be delivered (Huang et al., 2014). In contrast, informal complicating decision-making (Manuj and Sahin, 2011) and
governance emphasizes the use of shared values, social and/or causing disruptions (Craighead et al., 2007; Narasimhan and
cooperative norms, trust, mutual goals. It encourages a Talluri, 2009). Recent sustainability studies (Chen et al., 2017a;
cooperative atmosphere to motivate partners to adopt certain Tachizawa and Wong, 2015) have demonstrated the negative
behaviour and reduce opportunism (Huang et al., 2014). effect of complexity on sustainability practices due to challenges
Scholars have identified the importance of both governance associated with introducing and coordinating sustainability
approaches in the successful implementation of sustainability initiatives along the supply chain. As a firm’s network size and
practices (Formentini and Taticchi, 2016; Vurro et al., 2009). connections increase the network’s complexity, firms struggle to
This study focuses on a combination of formal and informal implement sustainability initiatives. In particular, when supply
aspects of sustainability governance. chain partners (for example, suppliers) are geographically
SCT suggest that having RC does not necessary imply the dispersed, there are increased monitoring costs and reduced
desired access to critical resource until an effective mechanism transparency along the supply chain (Bode and Wagner, 2015). In
is in place to mobilize those resources (Kwon and Adler, 2014). short, NC increases the efforts required to a monitor partner’s
In sustainability context, we argue that to extract the sustainability practices and performance (Chowdhury and
sustainability benefits from RC, firms must adopt a Quaddus, 2021); this ultimately reduces the indirect effect of RC
sustainability governance approach. Such an approach provides on sustainability performance. Based on these arguments, we offer
a sign of commitment and a way to improve coordination and the following hypothesis:
adaptation (Chakkol et al., 2018). When firms build their RC,
H2. A lower level of NC strengthens the mediating effect of
they create an opportunity for reciprocal learning through the
sustainability governance between RC and supply chain
exchange of information and knowledge of each other’s
sustainability performance.
sustainability practices. It enables the establishment of
sustainability goals and requirements before a firm sets up a While NC emphasizes a higher level of interconnectedness with
formal monitoring system (Green et al., 2012). In short, RC supply chain partners, it may generate unpredictable behaviour
acts as a precursor. Before instituting a monitoring system to that may appear to be a chaotic (Turner et al., 2018). Industry
ensure partners meet their sustainability obligations and leaders view complexity not only as performance destroyer but
performance goals, focal firms must establish and maintain a also as a cancer that firms need to fight (Chand et al., 2020). In
healthy relationship. Based on the above arguments, we a survey conducted by Gartner in 2016 involving supply chain
propose the following hypothesis: executives reveal that 63% respondents consider increasing
complexity is a risk to business continuity. NC in terms of Likert scale to avoid the “central tendency error/bias”; this term
geographically dispersed suppliers, controlling consistency and refers to instances where respondents choose the middle option
sharing activities often becomes more difficult due to (“neutral” or “neither agree or disagree”) without really meaning
differences in time zones and languages, as well as it (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2017).
communication difficulties (Bode and Wagner, 2015). In a To purify the items and to ensure content validity, we pre-
collaborative effort where both firms are located in two tested the survey (Straub, 1989). We drew on the expertise of
different cultural context (one is in Western culture and other is two doctoral research students who had knowledge of the
in Asian culture), maintaining a close working relation is always specific topic, five industry experts and two academic experts to
challenging due to the involvement of context specific factors test the survey instrument. As a result of this process,
(Huang et al., 2020). This may create barrier to comply with ambiguous items/questions were either changed or removed
sustainability performance. Recent empirical evidence also from the questionnaire. We used the pre-test to assess whether
shows that NC negatively impacts supply chain sustainability the respondents of our questionnaire pre-test process
(Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2021). Based on these arguments, understand the questions and to evaluate the length of time
we postulate the following hypothesis: required to complete the survey (Thong and Yap, 1995). The
respondents informed that the survey questionnaire was easy to
H3. NC negatively moderates the relationship between RC
understand and did not take long time to complete.
and supply chain sustainability performance. Conceptual
framework of this study is presented in Figure 1.
3.2 Sampling and data collection
After pre-testing, the final version of the questionnaire was
3. Methodology administered to supply chain decision makers of apparel
This study adopted a quantitative approach and obtained manufacturing companies and their suppliers. Respondents
primary information by using a survey on apparel were selected from a list of apparel manufacturers and
manufacturers and their suppliers in Bangladesh. Survey data accessory producers in the Bangladesh Garment
were analysed by using structural equation modelling and Manufacturers and Exporters Association directory (http://
multiple regression. The following sub-sections explain the www.bgmea.com.bd/member/memberlist). The respondents
research design in detail. were chosen carefully to ensure that they possessed relevant
knowledge of the subject area. For example, we selected supply
3.1 Survey instrument development chain managers or the managers who dealt with supply chain
As shown in Table 1, this study developed its survey instrument functions in each organization. We telephoned 655 apparel
from existing research. Supply chain sustainability was measured supply chain professionals. We sent them a copy of the survey
using four sub-constructs. Their corresponding scale items were instrument. In total, 236 respondents agreed to participate in
selected from Chowdhury and Quaddus’ (2021) study. Similarly, the survey after the first round of contact. Respondents who did
SCG scale items were developed from Chowdhury and not show interest with the first call were approached again.
Quaddus’ (2021) work. As shown in Table 1, the RC construct Finally, we received 289 responses: 236 were early respondents
comprised three first-order constructs obtained from existing who responded to the survey at the first approach and 53 were
studies: trust, cooperation (Chowdhury et al., 2019b; Kwon and late respondents who participated in the survey after several
Suh, 2005; Redondo and Fierro, 2005). Finally, NC was round of reminder. After checking the data for missing
measured using five items identified in prior studies (Chowdhury responses and outliers, we remained with 272 usable responses,
et al., 2019b). All the items were measured using a six-point consisting of 179 apparel manufacturers and 83 suppliers
Figure 1 Conceptual framework
Supply chain
Network sustainability
complexity governance
H2
H1
H3
Supply chain
Supply chain
sustainability
relational capital
performance
Table 1 Scale items with sources
Dimensions Sub-dimensions Items References

Supply Chain Social Sustainability We emphasize on paying fair wages to the employees in our Shafiq et al. (2014)
Sustainability (SCS) supply chain (SC)
We emphasize on providing proper benefits and facilities to Shafiq et al. (2014)
the employees in our SC
We emphasize on managing Hazard and safety issues in our Shafiq et al. (2014)
SC
Our SC members manage health and sanitation issues for the Shafiq et al. (2014)
employees
Our SC members do not use Child labour in their plants Shafiq et al. (2014)
Our SC members do not force their employees to work Shafiq et al. (2014)
We emphasize on employee satisfaction in our SC Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
Environmental We take measures to control water pollution in our SC Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
Sustainability We take measures to control Air pollution in our SC Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
We take measures to control Soil pollution in our SC Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
Our SC members recycle wastes or sell wastes to recyclers Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021);
Zhu et al. (2008)
Our SC members do not use any environmentally hazardous Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021);
material Zhu et al. (2005)
We emphasize on environmental certification in our SC Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021);
Zhu et al. (2008)
Our SC members use energy efficient technology Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021);
Zhu et al. (2005)
Operational Our SC members take measures to meet desired lead-time Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021);
Sustainability Stank et al. (2003)
Our SC members take measures to maintain performance Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021);
quality Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017)
Our SC members conform to the specifications (send accurate Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
product) of buyers.
Our SC members use updated machinery and technology Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
Economic Our SC members manage satisfactory sales volume Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021);
Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017)
Our SC members manage low cost of sales Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021);
Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017)
Our SC members manage desired profit Chowdhury and Quaddus (2017)
Supply Chain We evaluate suppliers’ sustainability performance while Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
Governance (SCG) selecting supplier
We monitor our suppliers’ social performance Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
We provide incentives to our suppliers to improve social Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
performance
We monitor suppliers’ environmental performance Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
We provide incentives to our suppliers to improve Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
environmental performance
We train our suppliers to improve social and environmental Chowdhury and Quaddus (2021)
performance
Relational Capital Trust We keep promise with each other Kwon and Suh (2005), Redondo
(RC) and Fierro (2005)
We are sincere to each other relationship Kwon and Suh (2005), Redondo
and Fierro (2005)
We trust each other on the accuracy of information Kwon and Suh (2005), Redondo
and Fierro (2005)
Cooperation We cooperate each other to bring positive changes Wieland and Wallenburg (2013)
We resolve problems cooperatively Wieland and Wallenburg (2013)
We do not take unfair advantage of strong bargaining Wieland and Wallenburg (2013)
position
Commitment
(continued)
Table 1
Dimensions Sub-dimensions Items References

We have the willingness to invest time and resource in the Kwon and Suh (2005), Redondo
relationship and Fierro (2005)
We have the willingness to increase business with each other Kwon and Suh (2005), Redondo
and Fierro (2005)
We are committed to comply with agreed terms Redondo and Fierro (2005)
Network We have multiple buyers for each product Chowdhury et al. (2019a, 2019b)
Complexity (NC) We have multiple suppliers for each material/part Chowdhury et al. (2019a, 2019b)
Our buyers are located in diverse geographical area Chowdhury et al. (2019a, 2019b)
Our suppliers are located in diverse geographical area Chowdhury et al. (2019a, 2019b)
We have multiple production facilities in different areas Chowdhury et al. (2019a, 2019b)
(accessory producers) (see supplementary materials for MacKenzie et al., 2011). Similarly, based on previous studies
respondent profiles). (Chowdhury et al., 2019b; Kwon and Suh, 2005; Redondo and
In the data collection process, we addressed the issues of Fierro, 2005), we operationalized RC as a multidimensional
response bias. To ensure that our study did not have a problem reflective–reflective construct. All items associated with the
with a late response bias, we performed a response bias test on corresponding constructs were modelled as reflective scales.
the early and late respondents (Groves, 2006) using selected
variables. Table 2 results show that there were no significant 3.4 Data analysis
differences between the early and late responses for all of the We used partial least squares-based structural equation
constructs within both samples. modelling (PLS-SEM) to evaluate the measurement model.
We checked our data for common method bias (CMB) using We evaluated the structural model’s ability to test the proposed
both ex-ante and ex-post measures (Chowdhury et al., 2019a, hypotheses using the Hayes PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). We
2019b). For the ex-ante approach, we included both negatively adopted PLS-SEM for several reasons. First, unlike PLS-SEM,
worded or reverse-coded items as well as a positively worded in the context of hierarchical models, covariance-based SEM
statements; we explained the study’s purpose and highlighted (CB-SEM) typically results in positively biased model fit
the privacy and confidentiality of the respondents’ answers; we indices (Chin and Newsted, 1999; Chowdhury and Quaddus,
carefully collected information from respondents who possessed 2016). Second, the higher-order models which use CB-SEM
relevant knowledge of the subject area; questions were simple are prone to empirical under-identification due to a high degree
and specific to avoid ambiguity; we addressed independent and of factor correlations which can lead to improper solutions
dependent variables in the survey separately. As an ex-post (Chin, 2010; Wetzels et al., 2009). Third, unlike CB-SEM,
measure, we used the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) marker PLS-SEM can handle hierarchical and complex models
technique (Lindell and Whitney, 2001; Williams et al., 2010). We parsimoniously (Chin and Newsted, 1999). Therefore, we
used “transportation in Chittagong is better than other cities in chose to use PLS-SEM for this study.
Bangladesh” as a marker variable and examined the correlations We validated the second-order latent construct of supply chain
with other variables. The result of correlation between marker sustainability and RC separately using CFA. To conduct CFA,
variable and other variables are presented in the result section. we used the four first-order latent constructs as manifest variables
of supply chain sustainability and the three first-order latent
3.3 Model operationalization constructs as manifest variables of RC. We also performed
Like a previous study (Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2021), the CFA for all of the first-order constructs. These first-order
construct supply chain sustainability was operationalized as a constructs were social sustainability, environmental sustainability,
multidimensional reflective–reflective construct which meets operational sustainability, economic sustainability trust,
the criteria of a higher order construct (Johnson et al., 2012; cooperation, and commitment, supply chain governance and NC.
We used the Hayes PROCESS to test our hypotheses. The
constructs’ latent variable scores, derived from PLS-SEM,
Table 2 Mann–Whitney test results
were used in the regression models. We used nonparametric
Construct Z-Value Significance (1-tailed) bootstrapping (Efron and Tibshirani, 1994; Wetzels et al.,
2009) to obtain the standard errors of these estimates. We
Social Sustainability (SoS1) 0.735 0.462
evaluated the models by analysing the t-value of each path
Environmental Sustainability (EN1) 1.811 0.09
Economic Sustainability (EC1) 1.119 0.263
coefficient, the bootstrap results of conditional effect at 95%
Operational Sustainability (OP1) 1.590 0.112
confidence intervals (Hayes, 2013) and the explanatory power
Sustainability Governance (SG1) 0.726 0.433
of the models. In the process of hypothesis testing, we
Trust (Tr1) 0.142 0.751 introduced some control variables (firm size/the number of
Cooperation (Cop1) 0.436 0.689 employees and firm age/the number of years in business), based
Commitment (Com1) 1.427 0.093 on our assumption that larger firms and firms with more years
Network Complexity (NC1) 1.941 0.087 of experience would have better supply chain sustainability
performance.
4. Results and analysis Table 3 shows that all item loadings corresponding to the
constructs are greater than 0.7 and significant at p < 0.01
We evaluated the measurement model using different
except for SoCS7 (employee satisfaction), SCG5 (provide
psychometric properties, such as item loadings and
incentives to suppliers to improve environmental
corresponding t-values, composite reliabilities (CRs), the
performance), RC6 (do not take unfair advantage of strong
average variance extracted (AVE) and construct correlations.
Table 3 Psychometric properties

Dimensions Sub-dimensions Variables L L t-v CR AVE
Supply Chain Social Sustainability SoCS1- Fair wages 0.815 23.78 0.859 0.692
Sustainability (SCS) (SoS) SoCS2- Benefits and facilities 0.691 11.07
SoCS3- Hazard and safety 0.750 22.20
SoCS4- Health and sanitation 0.724 16.86
SoCS5- Child labour 0.693 14.29
SoCS6- Force our employees to work 0.815 23.82
SoCS7- Employee satisfaction
Environmental ENS1- Control water pollution 0.656 10.83 0.816 0.729
Sustainability (ENS) ENS2- Control Air pollution 0.785 40.62
ENS3- Control Soil pollution 0.786 32.76
ENS4- Recycle wastes 0.694 19.17
ENS5- Environmentally hazardous material 0.786 30.38
ENS6- Environmental certificates 0.647 9.78
ENS7- Energy efficient technology
Operational OPS1- Meeting lead-time 0.724 34.08 0.758 0.661
Sustainability (OPS) OPS2- Maintain performance quality 0.873 36.67
OPS3- Conformance to the specifications 0.709 27.91
OPS4- Using updated machinery and technology 0.727 19.54
Economic ECS1- Sales volume 0.726 18.61 0.848 0.736
Sustainability (ECS) ECS2- Cost of production is low 0.759 25.37
ECS3-Return on investment 0.736 19.75
Supply Chain SCG1- Evaluate suppliers’ sustainability performance 0.611 5.93 0.722 0.564
Governance (SCG) during selecting supplier
SCG2- Monitor suppliers’ social performance 0.697 5.42
SCG3- Provide incentives to suppliers to improve 0.608 4.17
social sustainability performance
SCG4- Monitor suppliers’ environmental 0.653 8.31
performance
SCG5- Provide incentives to suppliers to improve
SCG6- Train suppliers to improve social and
Relational Capital Trust (Tr) RC1- Keep promise with each other 0.817 24.36 0.821 0.739
(RC) RC2- Sincere to each other relationship 0.741 18.31
RC3- Trust each other on the accuracy of information 0.643 7.36
Cooperation (Cop) RC4- Cooperate each other to bring positive changes 0.645 9.81 0.753 0.644
RC5- Resolve problems cooperatively 0.737 9.67
RC6- Do not take unfair advantage of strong
bargaining position
Commitment (Com) RC7- Willingness to invest time and resource in the 0.745 6.83 0.828 0.582
relationship
RC8- Willingness to increase business with each 0.859 12.67
other
RC9- Committed to comply with agreed terms 0.837 16.59
Network NC1- Have multiple buyers for each product 0.739 12.51 0.714 0.526
Complexity (NC) NC2- Have multiple suppliers for each material/part 0.674 8.32
NC3- Have buyers from different parts of the world 0.792 16.73
NC4- suppliers are in diverse geographical area 0.731 11.38
NC5- Have multiple production facilities
Notes: Significant p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.005 L-Loadings, L t-v-Loadings; t-value; W-Weights; W t-v- Weights t-value
bargaining position) and NC3 (have multiple production and significant (Model 3: b = 0.565, t = 11.76). Further, the
facilities). As per Hair et al.’s recommendations (2011), we indirect effect between RC and sustainability via SCG was
dropped these four low loaded items from the measurement positive and significant (Model 6: b = 0.078, LLCL = 0.0257,
model. The AVE and CRs of all scales exceeded the minimum ULCL = 0.1602). In short, H1 states that SCG mediates the
thresholds of 0.5 and 0.7, respectively (Fornell and Larcker, relationship between RC and sustainability was significant.
1981; Hair et al., 2011; Henseler et al., 2009). Model 5 in Table 5 shows that the effect of NC on
From construct correlations (Table 4), it is evident that the sustainability governance is negative and significant. As a
square root of AVE is greater than the off-diagonal elements across corollary, we found that the interaction effect of RC and NC
the row and down the column (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). (RC NC) on sustainability governance was negative and
Further, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio, presented in significant ( b = 0.061, t = 2.267). Therefore, NC
Table 4a, is also lower than 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015). Both negatively moderates the link between RC and sustainability
approach show evidence of our measurement model’s governance. In relation to H2, we found that the conditional
discriminant validity. From the construct correlation table (Table indirect effect of RC on sustainability via governance was
4), we also confirmed that the marker variable was not highly significant when NC was low (Model 7: the indirect effect =
correlated with the other model constructs; this result indicates 0.0275 at LLCL = 0.0037 and ULCL = 0.733). However, the
that our study did not suffer from a common-method bias. conditional indirect effect was insignificant when the NC
As noted previously, to test the hypotheses we used was high (Model 7: the indirect effect =0.0035 at LLCL=
regression analysis and more specifically, using the Hayes 0.0108, ULCL = 0.0264).
PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). In relation to hypothesis 1, the Referring to H3, we found that despite a negative and
mediating role of sustainability governance in the relationship significant relationship between NC and sustainability, the
between RC and sustainability, we found that the direct interaction effect of NC and RC on sustainability was positive
relationship between supply chain RC and sustainability was and significant in Model 4. If NC is increased, the impact of RC
positive and significant (Model 1: b = 0.833, t = 25.784). The on sustainability does not decrease. In short, the moderation
direct relationship between SCG and sustainability was positive effect is not true as hypothesised; in short, H3 is rejected.
Table 4 Inter-correlations of the first-order constructs

Constructs SoS ENS ECS OPS SG Tr Cop Com NC FS FA M1
SoS 0.832
ENS 0.401 0.852
EcS_ 0.517 0.435 0.858
OPS 0.512 0.379 0.556 0.871
SG 0.378 0.411 0.329 0.381 0.751
Tr 0.296 0.307 0.409 0.431 0.339 0.860
Cop 0.217 0.159 0.415 0.391 0.346 0.522 0.802
Com 0.319 0.257 0.428 0.399 0.396 0.451 0.406 0.763
NC 0.346 0.432 0.226 0.335 0.476 0.388 0.357 0.329 0.725
FS 0.115 0.217 0.153 0.316 0.151 0.214 0.151 0.319 0.228 1
FA 0.225 0.154 0.194 0.213 0.155 0.315 0.219 0.156 0.219 0.214 1
M 0.211 0.071 0.135 0.191 0.106 0.108 0.051 0.355 0.221 0.016 0.032 1
Note: Discriminant validity: square root of AVE on the diagonal > correlation coefficients
Table 4a HTMT Criteria for discriminant validity test

Constructs SoS ENS ECS OPS SG Tr Cop Com NC FS FA M1
SoS 1
ENS 0.392 1
EcS_ 0.504 0.426 1
OPS 0.498 0.368 0.545 1
SG 0.366 0.403 0.318 0.373 1
Tr 0.287 0.298 0.397 0.422 0.327 1
Cop 0.208 0.148 0.406 0.383 0.335 0.509 1
Com 0.311 0.246 0.419 0.387 0.385 0.439 0.397 1
NC 0.338 0.423 0.215 0.324 0.462 0.376 0.346 0.318 1
FS 0.109 0.208 0.146 0.307 0.143 0.206 0.142 0.308 0.218 1
FA 0.217 0.146 0.182 0.202 0.146 0.308 0.213 0.142 0.207 0.205 1
M 0.202 0.063 0.126 0.183 0.093 0.099 0.046 0.346 0.212 0.012 0.027 1
Notes: All HT-MT < 0.85, as a result the model show discriminant validity
4.1 Robustness check along with monitoring and controlling them, focal firm supply
We undertook multiple measures to check robustness and chain managers should focus on incentivizing their suppliers;
ensure our results were valid. First, we tested both non- this should improve their sustainability performance. Using
response bias and CMB and affirmed that our results do not empirical test result, our findings validate the existing
have those problems. Second, we carefully designed our governance literature (for example, Tachizawa and Wong,
research model to avoid issues associated with endogeneity. To 2015; Vurro et al., 2009) by introducing the complementary
avoid “simultaneity” problems (that is, “direction of causality” role of collaborative (incentive based) and control (monitoring
problems), we carefully developed our research hypotheses to and evaluation based) based governance mechanisms to
ensure confidence in the direction of causality of our model. As improve sustainability performance; a relationship based on
such, our model had no issues related to direction of causality cooperation and informal governance may offset the
(Chowdhury and Quaddus, 2017; Guide and Ketokivi, 2015). inflexibility of contractual governance and increase trust
Further, we carefully selected measurement items to minimize (Blome et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2014). Our study reveals that
the possibility of measurement errors. We also conducted RC is a necessary precursor to instituting formal sustainability
extensive reliability and validity tests on our instruments, which governance measures, such as control-based governance. As
also means that there was less of a chance of measurement formal governance requires firms to share different types of
errors. In addition, we used Gaussian copula (GC) approach report and documents as part of the monitoring practice, it is
(Hult et al., 2018) for endogeneity test. Before applying the GC necessary to nurture RC to ensure the smooth exchange of this
approach, we confirmed that none of the constructs have critical information and knowledge. A lack of RC may
normally distributed by running the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test encourage SC partners to falsify reports and/or provide
with Lilliefors correction (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014) on the misleading information to temper sustainability performance
standardized composite scores of RC, SCG and NC. Next, we for their own interest.
create three regression models in which we consider the Our findings also show that the indirect effect of RC on
intendent construct RC (Model 1), SCG (Model 2) and NC supply chain sustainability via sustainability governance is
(Model 3) as possibility of exhibiting endogeneity. Further, we higher when the NC is low; conversely, the indirect effect is
create four regression models (Table 6) that include all possible insignificant when the NC is high. Thus, this study extends the
combinations of multiple endogenous variables such as RC and existing body of knowledge of SCT in the sense that in a
SCG (Model 4), RC and NC (Model 5), SCG and NC (Model complex supply chain RC may not yield the expected outcome
6) and RC, SCG and NC (Model 7). For data analysis, we used (i.e. sustainability performance in this study). This finding
the REndo package of the R program. The results in Table 6 indicates that managers must carefully design their networks
show that all GCs are insignificant. Therefore, the results and leverage their relational ties with network members to
confirmed that there was no indication of endogeneity. Third, ensure effective sustainability governance for enhanced
to check robustness of our model, we tested our research sustainability practices. In the context of the Bangladeshi
models with and without control variables. The findings did apparel industry, managers should develop and maintain
not differ significantly. Finally, to ensure that our model was relationships with a few key suppliers instead of many small
robust to heteroscedasticity we checked the independence of suppliers; this will enable them to establish control and ensure
the residuals. Our test showed that the residuals were random cooperation, ultimately enhancing the entire SC’s sustainability
and did not follow any specific pattern. performance. The Tazreen garment and Rana Plaza incidents
remind us of the importance of sustainability governance and
how weaknesses in a complex supply chain’s sustainability
5. Discussion and implications
governance can lead to tragic disasters. The factories in the
Our findings have several theoretical implications. We found Rana Plaza building were used on a sub-contract basis which
that SCG mediates the relationship between RC and supply made this particular supply chain even more complex. It was
chain sustainability performance. Although monitoring and thus a challenging task for the focal firm (that is, the fashion
evaluating supply chain partners’ sustainability practices may retail chain buying apparel from the specific Bangladeshi
hamper the relationship and collaboration among supply chain supplier) to enforce sustainability governance practices or
members (Klassen and Vachon, 2003), our study affirms the monitor and audit the sub-contractor’s factory. To enhance
focal firm’s supports and incentives offset these effects. Thus, operational and economic sustainability (for example, to
in contrast to previous studies, our study postulates that reduce lead times and costs, improve product quality and
governance mechanism does not necessarily affect RC and increase profitability), many firms need to redesign their supply
performance. Instead, our study establishes that an effective networks by developing their own backward linkages.
sustainability governance mechanism, an amalgamation of Alternatively, they could buy locally instead of from
both collaborative (for example, providing incentives) and foreign suppliers. Vertical integration helps a focal firm to
control (monitoring and evaluating suppliers) based simplify their supply chain network and achieve more control
governance, facilitates a supply chain relational network in over sustainability governance which will ultimately enhance
mobilizing sustainability-related resources (e.g. information, their sustainability.
knowledge and practices) to enhance sustainability While we hypothesized that NC would negatively moderate
performance along the supply chain. Our study thus offers the relationship between RC and supply chain sustainability
managers new insight into how they should develop effective performance, our findings did not support this hypothesis. Our
governance mechanisms to extract the sustainability benefits of results revealed that supply chain NC positively moderates the
relational ties among supply chain partners. More specifically, relationship between RC and sustainability performance. The
Table 5 Results of structural model
Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4 Model 5 Model 7:

IDVs Outcome SCS Outcome SCG Outcome SCS Outcome SCS Outcome SCG Model 6: Outcome SCS Outcome SCS
RC b = 0.833 b = 0.564 B = 0.66 B = 0.075 b = 0.741 (direct effect) b = 0.741 (direct effect)
t = 25.784 t = 11.70 t = 16.42 t = 2.068 t = 19.67 t = 19.67
b = 0.078 (LLCL = conditional indirect effect-

0.0257, ULCL = 0.1602) at low NC effect = 0.0275 (LLCL
Supply chain relational capital
(indirect effect via SCG) = 0.0037, ULCL = 0.733)

at medium NC
effect =0.0155 (LLCL = 0.0003,
ULCL = 0.0463)
at high NC
effect =0.0035 (LLCL= 0.0108,
ULCL = 0.0264)
SCG b = 0.565 b = 0.198 b = 0.198
t = 11.76 t = 3.68 t = 3.68
NC b = 0.279 b = 0.437 b = 0.437
t = 6.366 t= 11.114 t= 11.114
RC* NC b = 0.095 b = 0.061
t = 3.18 t = 2.267
Firm Size b = 0.018 b = 0.070 b = 0.035 b = 0.008 b = 0.019 b = 0.001 b = 0.001
t = 0.533 t = 1.428 t = 0.707 t = 0.259 t = 0.507 t = 1.428 t = 0.242
Firm Age b = 0.026 b = 0.023 b = 0.038 b = 0.018 b = 0.001 b = 0.003 b = 0.004
t = 0.755 t = 0.458 t = 0.775 t = 0.555 t = 0.004 t = 0.458 t = 0.694
R2 = 0.695 R2 = 0.324 R2 = 0.322 R2 = 0.722 R2 =0.603 R2 = 0.706 R2 = 0.707
Notes: Supply chain sustainability = SCS; Supply chain governance = SCG; Relational capital = RC; Network complexity = NC; Independent Variables = IDV
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Table 6 Endogeneity test results

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
IDVs Est Pr(>jtj) Est Pr(>jtj) Est Pr(>jtj) Est Pr(>jtj) Est Pr(>jtj) Est Pr(>jtj) Est Pr(>jtj)
RC 0.251 0.000 0.261 0.000 0.255 0.000 0.243 0.000 0.228 0.000 0.256 0.000 0.222 0.000
SCG 0.625 0.000 0.645 0.000 0.622 0.000 0.655 0.000 0.621 0.000 0.628 0.000 0.645 0.000
NC 0.136 0.000 0.137 0.000 0.231 0.000 0.137 0.000 0.243 0.000 0.230 0.000 0.241 0.000
RC_star 0.007 0.748 0.011 0.611 0.017 0.422 0.020 0.369
SCG_star 0.018 0.692 0.027 0.576 0.005 0.913 0.021 0.674
NC_star 0.084 0.084 0.096 0.060 0.084 0.093 0.094 0.067
Bootstrapped 0.744 0.577 0.109 0.613 0.442 0.876 0.392
0.472 0.115 0.130 0.578
0.113
Note: IDV – Independent variable
finding indicates that firms with strong RC in the supply chain performance via sustainability governance at different level of
are able to better manage complex networks with many buyers NC is novel in sustainability literature.
and suppliers in geographically dispersed locations (Tachizawa This study provides insight into managerial practices,
and Wong, 2015). The findings of both H2 and H3 jointly particularly in regard to RC, sustainability governance and
suggest that NC is not always a bad thing. This is aligned with supply chain network design. This study’s findings will assist
the “strategic” and “dysfunctional” role of complexity (Aitken apparel supply chain managers in developing strategies that will
et al., 2016). With the advancement of information technology, improve supply chain sustainability initiatives by leveraging
maintaining a higher level of RC in a complex supply chain is relational ties among supply chain network members and
not difficult; these technologies help focal firms and their SC establishing effective governance mechanisms. This study also
partners to fulfil their sustainability performance goals. In provides new information for apparel supply chain managers
short, our study suggests that a focal firm should expect a designing their supply chain networks: it reveals that NC may
certain level of complexity in their supply chain and that they weaken the role of sustainability governance because it affects
should have the ability to manage such complexity to ensure RC. Managers thus need to invest time and resources to ensure
their sustainability performance. However, in the presence of a the effectiveness of their governance mechanisms in a complex
traditional control-based governance mechanisms, such supply chain. To implement sustainability practices, managers
relationships may not be effective in producing the desired must establish strategies for supply chain design issues as well
outcome, as the effort required to collaborate and control (for as buyer–supplier relational issues.
example, incentivise, monitor and evaluate) network partners’
sustainability practices may be enormous. It is often difficult to 6. Conclusion
institute any form of governance mechanisms beyond the
immediate supplier or customer. The Rana Plaza incident is a Our study has several limitations. Firstly, our study has focused
perfect example of this argument. While our findings (related to on apparel manufacturers and accessory producers in a
H3) show the dysfunctional role of complexity, firms should developing country. Future research should replicate this study
focus on how to manage their complex supply chains and devise in other countries, including developed and cross-country
effective governance mechanisms. In other words, supply chain settings, and assess their findings against this study.
managers need to carefully design their supply chain network, Researchers and practitioners could also consider cross-
so that they can manage relational ties adequately and cultural examinations. Secondly, our study used cross-sectional
operationalize governance mechanism over the supply chain design. Future research could conduct longitudinal research to
network to implement sustainability practices. reveal the influence of NC on outcome factors over time.
In short, our study has two main theoretical contributions. Finally, our study did not consider any contextual factors in its
First, it extends the SCT by extending the relationship between models. Future research could examine the influence of
RC and sustainability by testing and validating the mediating contextual factors such as demographic variables (the
effects of sustainability governance, a relationship which has managers’ gender, age and level of education) and other types
not been tested in prior sustainability literature. Second, by of complexity (for example, product complexity and
testing the conditional direct and indirect effects of RC on environmental complexity) in the model Figure 1.
supply chain sustainability via sustainability governance at
different levels of NC, this study extends our understanding of
References
the relationship between RC and sustainability performance
from NC perspective. Existing literature on supply chain Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. (2002), “Social capital: prospects
sustainability has not investigated the boundary conditions of for a new concept”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27
the relationship between RC and sustainability performance. No. 1, pp. 17-40.
Therefore, our study’s focus on the conditional direct and Aitken, J., Bozarth, C. and Garn, W. (2016), “To eliminate or
indirect effects of supply chain RC on sustainability absorb supply chain complexity: a conceptual model and
case study”, Supply Chain Management: An International Chin, W.W. and Newsted, P.R. (1999), “Structural equation
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 759-774. modeling analysis with small samples using partial least
Bhattacharya, C.B., Korschun, D. and Sen, S. (2009), squares”, Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research,
“Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 307-341.
mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility Chowdhury, M.M.H. and Quaddus, M. (2016), “Supply chain
initiatives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. S2, readiness, response and recovery for resilience”, Supply
pp. 257-272. Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6,
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T. and Eckstein, D. (2014), “The pp. 709-731.
impact of knowledge transfer and complexity on supply Chowdhury, M.M.H. and Quaddus, M. (2017), “Supply chain
chain flexibility: a knowledge-based view”, International resilience: conceptualization and scale development using
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147, pp. 307-316. dynamic capability theory”, International Journal of
Bode, C. and Wagner, S.M. (2015), “Structural drivers of Production Economics, Vol. 188, pp. 185-204.
upstream supply chain complexity and the frequency of Chowdhury, M.M.H. and Quaddus, M.A. (2021), “Supply
supply chain disruptions”, Journal of Operations Management, chain sustainability practices and governance for mitigating
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 215-228. sustainability risk and improving market performance: a
Boström, M., Jönsson, A.M., Lockie, S., Mol, A.P. and dynamic capability perspective”, Journal of Cleaner
Oosterveer, P. (2015), “Sustainable and responsible supply Production, Vol. 278, p. 123521.
chain governance: challenges and opportunities”, Journal of Chowdhury, M.M.H., Agarwal, R. and Quaddus, M. (2019a),
Cleaner Production, Vol. 107, pp. 1-7. “Dynamic capabilities for meeting stakeholders’
Bozarth, C.C., Warsing, D.P., Flynn, B.B. and Flynn, E.J. sustainability requirements in supply chain”, Journal of
(2009), “The impact of supply chain complexity on Cleaner Production, Vol. 215, pp. 34-45.
manufacturing plant performance”, Journal of Operations Chowdhury, M.M.H., Quaddus, M. and Agarwal, R. (2019b),
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 78-93. “Supply chain resilience for performance: role of relational
Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B. and Van Rossenberg, Y.G. practices and network complexities”, Supply Chain
(2015), “The impact of supply base complexity on Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5,
disruptions and performance: the moderating effects of slack pp. 659-676.
and visibility”, International Journal of Production Research, Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Belknap
Vol. 53 No. 22, pp. 6903-6918. Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Carey, S., Lawson, B. and Krause, D.R. (2011), “Social capital Craighead, C.W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M.J. and
configuration; legal bonds and performance in buyer- Handfield, R.B. (2007), “The severity of supply chain
supplier relationships”, Journal of Operations Management, disruptions: design characteristics and mitigation
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 277-288. capabilities”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 131-156.
Carter, C.R. and Carter, J.R. (1998), “Interorganizational Daghar, A., Alinaghian, L. and Turner, N. (2020), “The role of
determinants of environmental purchasing: initial evidence collaborative interorganizational relationships in supply
from the consumer products industries”, Decision Sciences, chain risks: a systematic review using a social capital
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 659-684. perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Chakkol, M., Selviaridis, K. and Finne, M. (2018), “The Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 279-296.
governance of collaboration in complex projects”, Dauvergne, P. and Lister, J. (2012), “Big Brand sustainability:
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, governance prospects and environmental limits”, Global
Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 997-1019. Environmental Change, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 36-45.
Chand, P., Thakkar, J.J. and Ghosh, K.K. (2020), “Analysis of Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S.J.,
supply chain sustainability with supply chain complexity, Shibin, K. and Wamba, S.F. (2017), “Sustainable supply
inter-relationship study using Delphi and interpretive chain management: framework and further research
structural modeling for Indian mining and earthmoving directions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142,
machinery industry”, Resources Policy, Vol. 68, p. 101726. pp. 1119-1130.
Chen, H., Zeng, S., Lin, H. and Ma, H. (2017a), Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), “The relational view:
“Munificence, dynamism, and complexity: how industry cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational
context drives corporate sustainability”, Business Strategy and competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Review,
the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 125-141. Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 660-679.
Chen, L., Zhao, X., Tang, O., Price, L., Zhang, S. and Zhu, W. Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1994), An Introduction to the
(2017b), “Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: a Bootstrap, CRC Press, New York, USA.
literature review and future research agenda”, International Formentini, M. and Taticchi, P. (2016), “Corporate
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 194, pp. 73-87, sustainability approaches and governance mechanisms in
December. sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS Production, Vol. 112, pp. 1920-1933.
analyses”, in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, equation models with unobservable variables and
Methods and Applications in Marketing and Related Fields, measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
Springer, Berlin, pp. 655-690. No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gimenez, C. and Tachizawa, E.M. (2012), “Extending Hult, G.T.M., Hair, J.F. Jr., Proksch, D., Sarstedt, M.,
sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review”, Pinkwart, A. and Ringle, C.M. (2018), “Addressing
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 endogeneity in international marketing applications of partial
No. 5, pp. 531-543. least squares structural equation modeling”, Journal of
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V. and Rodon, J. (2012), “Sustainable International Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1-21.
operations: their impact on the triple bottom line”, Huq, F.A. and Stevenson, M. (2020), “Implementing socially
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, sustainable practices in challenging institutional contexts:
pp. 149-159. building theory from seven developing country supplier
Granovetter, M.S. (1985), “Economic action and social cases”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 161 No. 2,
structure: the problem of embeddedness”, American Journal pp. 415-442.
of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510. Jia, X., Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G. and Chowdhury, M.M.H.
Green, K.W., Zelbst, P.J., Bhadauria, V.S. and Meacham, J. (2020), “The role of social capital on proactive and reactive
(2012), “Do environmental collaboration and monitoring resilience of organizations post-disaster”, International
enhance organizational performance?”, Industrial Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 48, p. 101614.
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 186-205. Johnson, R.E., Rosen, C.C., Djurdjevic, E. and Taing, M.U.
Groves, R.M. (2006), “Nonresponse rates and nonresponse (2012), “Recommendations for improving the construct
bias in household surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 70 clarity of higher-order multidimensional constructs”, Human
No. 5, pp. 646-675. Resource Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 62-72.
Guide, V.D.R.J. and Ketokivi, M. (2015), “Notes from the Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S. and Borgatti, S.P. (1997), “A general
editors: redefining some methodological criteria for the theory of network governance: exchange conditions and
journal”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, social mechanisms”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22
pp. 5-8. No. 4, pp. 911-945.
Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N. and Rahman, S. (2015), Kamal, Y. and Deegan, C. (2013), “Corporate social and
“Green supply chain collaboration and incentives: current environment-related governance disclosure practices in the
trends and future directions”, Transportation Research Part E:
textile and garment industry: evidence from a developing
Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 74, pp. 1-10,
country”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 23 No. 2,
February.
pp. 117-134.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM:
Katiyar, R., Meena, P.L., Barua, M.K., Tibrewala, R. and
indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Kumar, G. (2018), “Impact of sustainability and
Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
manufacturing practices on supply chain performance:
Hassini, E., Surti, C. and Searcy, C. (2012), “A literature
findings from an emerging economy”, International Journal of
review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a
Production Economics, Vol. 197, pp. 303-316, March.
focus on metrics”, International Journal of Production
Klassen, R.D. and Vachon, S. (2003), “Collaboration and
Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 69-82.
evaluation in the supply chain: the impact on plant-level
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and
Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, environmental investment”, Production and Operations
Guilford Publications, New York, NY. Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 336-352.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The Kumar, G., Subramanian, N. and Arputham, R.M. (2018),
use of partial least squares path modeling in international “Missing link between sustainability collaborative strategy
marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), New and supply chain performance: role of dynamic capability”,
Challenges to International Marketing, Vol. 20, Emerald International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 203,
Group, Bingley, UK, pp. 277-319. pp. 96-109, September.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new Kwon, I.-W.G. and Suh, T. (2005), “Trust, commitment and
criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based relationships in supply chain management: a path analysis”,
structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10
Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135. No. 1, pp. 26-33.
Howard, M., Roehrich, J.K., Lewis, M.A. and Squire, B. Kwon, S.-W. and Adler, P.S. (2014), “Social capital:
(2019), “Converging and diverging governance mechanisms: maturation of a field of research”, Academy of Management
the role of (dys) function in long-term inter-organizational Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 412-422.
relationships”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, Larsen, M.M., Manning, S. and Pedersen, T. (2013),
pp. 624-644. “Uncovering the hidden costs of offshoring: the interplay of
Huang, M.-C., Cheng, H.-L. and Tseng, C.-Y. (2014), complexity, organizational design, and experience”, Strategic
“Reexamining the direct and interactive effects of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 533-552.
governance mechanisms upon buyer–supplier cooperative Lee, S.-Y. (2015), “The effects of green supply chain
performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43 management on the supplier’s performance through social
No. 4, pp. 704-716. capital accumulation”, Supply Chain Management: An
Huang, Y., Han, W. and Macbeth, D.K. (2020), “The International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 42-55.
complexity of collaboration in supply chain networks”, Li, Y., Zhao, X., Shi, D. and Li, X. (2014), “Governance of
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 25 sustainable supply chains in the fast fashion industry”,
No. 3, pp. 393-410. European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 823-836.
Lin, N. (2001), Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and and retailers”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 70,
Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 231-241.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for Rana, N. and Majmudar, U. (2016), “Gearing up for responsible
common method variance in cross-sectional research growth: India’s top companies for sustainability and CSR 2016”,
designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, p. 114. The Economic Times, Coleman & Co, Bennett.
Lu, H.E., Potter, A., Rodrigues, V.S. and Walker, H. (2018), Redondo, Y.P. and Fierro, J.J.C. (2005), “Moderating effect of
“Exploring sustainable supply chain management: a social type of product exchanged in long-term orientation of firm-
network perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An supplier relationships: an empirical study”, Journal of Product
International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 257-277. & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 424-437.
Luo, J., Chong, A.Y.-L., Ngai, E.W. and Liu, M.J. (2014), Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.-H. (2011), “An organizational
“Green supply chain collaboration implementation in China: theoretic review of green supply chain management
the mediating role of guanxi”, Transportation Research Part E: literature”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 71, pp. 98-110, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
November. Sarstedt, M. and Mooi, E. (2014), A Concise Guide to Market
Macchion, L., Moretto, A., Caniato, F., Danese, P. and Research, 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany.
Vinelli, A. (2020), “Static supply chain complexity and Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R. (2014), “Measuring and
sustainability practices: a multitier examination”, Corporate managing sustainability performance of supply chains:
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27 review and sustainability supply chain management
No. 6, pp. 2679-2691. framework”, Supply Chain Management: An International
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Podsakoff, N.P. Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 232-241.
(2011), “Construct measurement and validation procedures Shafiq, A., Klassen, R.D., Johnson, P.F. and Awaysheh, A.
in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing (2014), “Socially responsible practices: an exploratory study
techniques”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 293-334. on scale development using stakeholder theory”, Decision
Manuj, I. and Sahin, F. (2011), “A model of supply chain and Sciences, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 683-716.
supply chain decision-making complexity”, International Stank, T.P., Goldsby, T.J., Vickery, S.K. and Savitskie, K.
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, (2003), “Logistics service performance: estimating its
Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 511-549. influence on market share”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Mehdikhani, R. and Valmohammadi, C. (2019), “Strategic Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 27-55.
collaboration and sustainable supply chain management”, Straub, D.W. (1989), “Validating instruments in MIS
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 147-169.
pp. 778-806. Tachizawa, E.M. and Wong, C.Y. (2015), “The performance
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, of green supply chain management governance mechanisms:
intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage”, a supply network and complexity perspective”, Journal of
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266. Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 18-32.
Narasimhan, R. and Talluri, S. (2009), “Perspectives on risk Tencati, A. and Zsolnai, L. (2009), “The collaborative enterprise”,
management in supply chains”, Journal of Operations Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 367-376.
Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 114-118. Thong, J.Y. and Yap, C.-S. (1995), “CEO characteristics,
Paulraj, A. (2011), “Understanding the relationships between organizational characteristics and information technology
internal resources and capabilities, sustainable supply adoption in small businesses”, Omega, Vol. 23 No. 4,
management and organizational sustainability”, Journal of pp. 429-442.
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 19-37. Touboulic, A. and Walker, H. (2015), “Love me, love me not:
Pilbeam, C., Alvarez, G. and Wilson, H. (2012), “The a nuanced view on collaboration in sustainable supply
governance of supply networks: a systematic literature chains”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
review”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 178-191.
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 358-376. Touboulic, A., Chicksand, D. and Walker, H. (2014),
Powell, W.W. (1990), “Neither market nor hierarchy: network “Managing imbalanced supply chain relationships for
forms of organization”, Research in Organizational Behavior, sustainability: a power perspective”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 45
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 295-336. No. 4, pp. 577-619.
Preston, D.S., Chen, D.Q., Swink, M. and Meade, L. (2017), Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value
“Generating supplier benefits through buyer-enabled creation: the role of intrafirm networks”, Academy of
knowledge enrichment: a social capital perspective”, Decision Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-476.
Sciences, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 248-287. Turner, N., Aitken, J. and Bozarth, C. (2018), “A framework
Qorri, A., Mujkic, Z. and Kraslawski, A. (2018), “A conceptual for understanding managerial responses to supply chain
framework for measuring sustainability performance of complexity”, International Journal of Operations & Production
supply chains”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 189, Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1433-1466.
pp. 570-584. Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2008), “Environmental
Ramanathan, U., Bentley, Y. and Pang, G. (2014), “The role management and manufacturing performance: the role of
of collaboration in the UK green supply chains: an collaboration in the supply chain”, International Journal of
exploratory study of the perspectives of suppliers, logistics Production Economics, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 299-315.
Van Hoof, B. and Thiell, M. (2014), “Collaboration capacity Yadlapalli, A., Rahman, S. and Gunasekaran, A. (2018),
for sustainable supply chain management: small and “Socially responsible governance mechanisms for
medium-sized enterprises in Mexico”, Journal of Cleaner manufacturing firms in apparel supply chains”, International
Production, Vol. 67, pp. 239-248. Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 196, pp. 135-149,
Vanpeperstraete, B. (2021), “’The rana plaza collapse and the February.
case for enforceable agreements with apparel brands’”, in Yang, C.-L. and Lien, S. (2018), “Governance mechanisms for
Saage-Maaß, M., Zumbansen, P., Bader, M. and Shahab, P. green supply chain partnership”, Sustainability, Vol. 10
(Eds), Transnational Legal Activism in Global Value Chains, No. 8, pp. 1-15.
Springer, Cham, pp. 137-169. Youn, S., Yang, M.G.M., Hong, P. and Park, K. (2013),
Varsei, M., Soosay, C., Fahimnia, B. and Sarkis, J. (2014), “Strategic supply chain partnership, environmental supply
“Framing sustainability performance of supply chains with chain management practices, and performance outcomes: an
multidimensional indicators”, Supply Chain Management: An empirical study of Korean firms”, Journal of Cleaner
International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 242-257. Production, Vol. 56, pp. 121-130.
Vurro, C., Russo, A. and Perrini, F. (2009), “Shaping Yu, Y. and Huo, B. (2019), “The impact of environmental
sustainable value chains: network determinants of supply orientation on supplier green management and financial
chain governance models”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 90 performance: the moderating role of relational capital”,
No. S4, pp. 607-621. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 211, pp. 628-639,
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Van Oppen, C. February.
(2009), “Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical Yu, Y., Zhang, M. and Huo, B. (2020), “The impact of
construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”, relational capital on green supply chain management and
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 177-195. financial performance”, Production Planning & Control,
Wieland, A. and Wallenburg, C.M. (2013), “The influence of pp. 1-14.
relational competencies on supply chain resilience: a Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K.-h. (2008), “Confirmation of a
relational view”, International Journal of Physical Distribution measurement model for green supply chain management
& Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 300-320. practices implementation”, International Journal of Production
Williams, L.J., Hartman, N. and Cavazotte, F. (2010), Economics, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 261-273.
“Method variance and marker variables: a review and Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain
comprehensive CFA marker technique”, Organizational management in China: pressures, practices and
Research Methods, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 477-514. performance”, International Journal of Operations &
Wu, R., Huo, B., Yu, Y. and Zhang, Z. (2020), “Quality and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 449-468.
green management for operational and environmental
performance: relational capital in supply chain management”, Corresponding author
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Mesbahuddin Chowdhury can be contacted at: mesbahuddin.
pp. 1-22, doi: 10.1080/13675567.2020.1836138. [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

10 1108 - SCM 06 2021 0275

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1108 - SCM 06 2021 0275

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1108 - SCM 06 2021 0275

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supply chain relational capital for

sustainability through governance: the

1. Introduction for largest proportion (i.e. 20%) of total greenhouse gas

Received 2 June 2021

Figure 1 Conceptual framework

Table 1 Scale items with sources

Dimensions Sub-dimensions Items References

Dimensions Sub-dimensions Items References

Table 3 Psychometric properties

Table 4 Inter-correlations of the ﬁrst-order constructs

Table 4a HTMT Criteria for discriminant validity test

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4 Model 5 Model 7:

b = 0.078 (LLCL = conditional indirect effect-

(indirect effect via SCG) = 0.0037, ULCL = 0.733)

Table 6 Endogeneity test results

You might also like