1 s2.0 S0959652623036557 Main

Journal of Cleaner Production 428 (2023) 139497
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Drivers of low-carbon practices in green supply chain management in

construction industry: An empirical study in China
Chun Fu , Ya-Qi Liu , Ming Shan *
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, 22 South Shaoshan Road, Changsha, China
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bôas de Understanding the drivers of low-carbon practices in green supply chain management in the construction in
Almeida dustry is essential because it largely addresses the major problem of global warming due to carbon dioxide
emissions. The purpose of this study is to investigate key drivers of low-carbon practices in green supply chain
Keywords: management in construction industry. Based on institutional theory, relational view theory, and self-
Green supply chain management
determination theory, three drivers for low-carbon practices were identified, namely, environmental regula
Construction project
tion, supply chain relationship, and organizational culture. Then a questionnaire was administered and data were
Drivers
Low-carbon collected from the owners, contractors, designers, and other relevant parties of the construction project. Partial
least squares structural equation modeling was used to analyze data. The results show that supply chain rela
tionship and organizational culture are positively and directly correlated with the low-carbon practices level of
green supply chain management. In addition, this study also found that organizational culture partially mediates
the relationship between supply chain relationship and low-carbon practices. Contrary to expectations, envi
ronmental regulation has no direct effect on practices, while supply chain relationship and organizational culture
fully mediate the relationship between environmental regulation and practices. As limited research has been
conducted to examine the drivers for green supply chain management low-carbon practices in the construction
industry, this study bridges the knowledge gap and contributes to the current knowledge system of green supply
chain management. Additionally, the findings of this study can provide authorities and practitioners with a
deeper understanding of low-carbon practices in green supply chain management, and helping to propose more
feasible measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve environmental performance.
1. Introduction crucial to achieving the goals of carbon neutrality.

At the same time, due to growing environmental concerns, many
With the rapid development of the world economy, environmental companies have incorporated environmental management into their
issues are gradually becoming prominent. Climate change caused by corporate strategies. The increasing pressure from governments, non-
greenhouse gases (GHG) is one of the main challenges in the 21st cen profit organizations, and stakeholders has gradually made these com
tury (UNEP, 2010). 79% of the greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (US panies realize that the solution to environmental problems requires the
EPA, 2023). Among all industries, the construction industry consumes joint efforts of partners in the supply chain (Hsu et al., 2013; Zhu and
nearly one-third of the world’s resources and generates 39% of green Sarkis, 2004). The core companies in the supply chain need to be
house gases (Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2013). In 2021, construction activ responsible for the environmental problems of the entire supply chain
ities in major economies returned to the level before the COVID-19 (Vanalle et al., 2017). In this context, green supply chain management is
epidemic in 2019, and carbon dioxide emissions from buildings reached extremely important. According to Bowen et al. (2001), this is an
a record high (UNEP, 2022a). As the largest carbon emitter, China ac increasingly recognized concept, defined as a company’s plans and ac
counts for approximately 30% of carbon dioxide emissions (UNEP, tions to take environmental concerns into account in supply chain
2022b). As a pillar industry in China, the construction industry is also a management, aimed at improving its performance. Previous studies
major source of carbon dioxide emissions (Li et al., 2021). Therefore, have shown that the adoption of green supply chain management in the
reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the construction supply chain is manufacturing industry has indeed contributed to energy saving, waste
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Fu), [email protected] (Y.-Q. Liu), [email protected] (M. Shan).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139497
Received 5 May 2023; Received in revised form 15 September 2023; Accepted 23 October 2023
Available online 26 October 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Fu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 428 (2023) 139497
reduction and environmental protection, and to a certain extent Organizations gain institutional legitimacy by meeting different
improved the performance of the company in terms of economy, envi types of institutional pressures (Ruef and Richard Scott, 1998). Dimag
ronment and operation (Sarkis et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2005). Moreover, gio and Powell (1983) classify institutional pressures into three cate
reducing carbon dioxide emissions has always been one of the focuses of gories: (1) Coercive pressures. This kind of pressure comes from
green practices, but the low-carbon practices in GSCM have not been organizations with coercive authority, such as government departments
discussed until recently (Chelly et al., 2019; Dai and Ye, 2022; Zhao and law enforcement agencies and is obviously an irresistible pressure.
et al., 2022). Therefore, the research on the low-carbon practices of In response to increasing pressures from environmental regulations,
green supply chain management is meaningful. companies are beginning to adopt proactive environmental strategies to
So far, although many researchers have delved into the drivers and reduce legal risk on the environment (Brix, 2020; Dreher and Gassebner,
practices of GSCM, their main focus on manufacturing industry, such as 2013). (2) Normative pressure. This kind of pressure mainly comes from
the automotive industry (Liu et al., 2021; Vanalle et al., 2017), the socially accepted norms. If a company violates socially accepted norms,
electronics industry (Kaur et al., 2018; Somsuk and Laosirihongthong, such as carrying out behaviors that are not conducive to the environ
2017), and the textile industry (Majumdar and Sinha, 2019), rather than ment, the company will be condemned, and its reputation will be
the construction industry. These studies cover the following types of damaged. (3) Imitative pressure. In an uncertain environment, com
drivers (Fayezi et al., 2019; Handayani et al., 2021; Kuei et al., 2015; panies imitate what others in their field are doing, which reduces the
Mathiyazhagan et al., 2014; Meixell and Patrice, 2015; Micheli et al., risk of investment and decision making. Many studies have shown that
2020; Susanty et al., 2019; Walker et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2018; Zhu as institutional pressures increase, firms become more similar in their
et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2011, 2013): (1) Government regulations; (2) quest for legitimacy (Delmas, 2002).
Stakeholder pressure; (3) Pressure from competitor; (4) Internal
awareness within the organization; (5) Environmental uncertainty. 2.2. Relational view
The characteristics of the construction industry are large workload,
long duration, and multiple stakeholders, and the application of GSCM is The relational view emphasizes that competitive advantage not only
relatively scattered. Achieving low-carbon emissions in the supply chain derives from the company itself but also from the resources generated by
requires the efforts of each stakeholder (Balasubramanian and Shukla, the cooperation between companies, including strategic cooperation
2017a). Due to the slight differences between GSCM models in con such as resource complementarity and knowledge sharing among part
struction and manufacturing, current research on GSCM of construction ners, which is also important for development (Dyer and Singh, 1998).
projects mainly involves theoretical analysis (Balasubramanian and The relational view is considered as an extension of the resource-based
Shukla, 2017b; Pan and Pan, 2021) and ranking of factors (Amade, view. In this regard, the supply chain relationship is also a resource
2021; Iqbal et al., 2023; Wibowo et al., 2018), with few studies using owned by the enterprise (Somsuk and Laosirihongthong, 2017).
empirical methods to verify drivers and management practices. Given
the environmental performance of other industries under GSCM (Geng 2.3. Self-determination theory
et al., 2017; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Zhu et al., 2013), it is crucial to study
how the drivers promote low-carbon practices in GSCM of construction Self-determination theory aims to clarify the conditions under which
projects. individuals will be motivated to act effectively and positively (Deci and
The contributions of the study are as follows. First of all, this is the Ryan, 2008). Agarwal et al. (2018) applied this theory to organizational
first study to analyze the relationship between low-carbon practices and management, arguing that self-determination can generate the most
drivers of green supply chain management in China’s construction in voluntary and effective motivation for managers, and lead to high per
dustry, which is an important supplement to relevant research on green formance and sustained participation. In green supply chain manage
supply chain management in the construction industry and low-carbon ment, allowing managers to voluntarily choose low-carbon practices
field. In addition, this study provides a scale that can help measure may result in higher performance than forcing them to do so. Such
the low-carbon practice level of green supply chain management in the corporate strategies and organizational policies also reflect the beliefs
construction industry, which is useful to the practice. and values of managers.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 pre
sents the elements of practices and drivers based on a literature review 3. Research framework and hypotheses development
and develops the hypotheses; Section 3 presents the research methods;
Section 4 presents the test results; Section 5 outlines some implication of 3.1. Low-carbon practices in the construction industry
the study and Section 6 draws some conclusions, limitations and future
perspectives. In the past few decades, some scholars have elaborated on the con
cepts related to green supply chain management. Researchers are
2. Theoretical foundations increasingly interested in GSCM (Fahimnia et al., 2015), and the number
of related literatures is growing year by year. Early research considered
2.1. Institutional theory GSCM as an extension of traditional supply chain management that
combined supplier management with corporate environmental strategy
Institutional theory studies the influence of external pressure on to minimize negative environmental impacts throughout the product life
organizational behavior and is considered to be an important theory to cycle. The strategic decision-making framework for green supply chain
explain the competitive advantage of firms. Institutional theory holds includes the processes of product design, use, reuse, disassembly and
that organizations are constantly influenced by external environment, final disposal, while emphasizing the integration of collaboration be
and adapting to the institutional environment is the key to the success tween organizations and partners (Laosirihongthong et al., 2013; Sarkis,
and survival for companies (Joel A. C. Baum and Oliver., 1991). The 2003; Walton et al., 1998).Zhu and Sarkis (2004) first proposed a clas
external institutional environment affects the strategy of a company sification of green supply chain management practices, including four
(Ang et al., 2015). If the company’s behavior cannot be accepted and aspects of internal environmental management, external practices, in
recognized by the institutional environment, it will be opposed by other vestment recovery, and eco-design. They used an empirical approach in
organizations and the public, making it difficult for the company to subsequent research to confirm the measurement of GSCM practices.
survive. This also explains why companies engage in social welfare, External practices are further divided into green purchasing and
environmental protection and other activities that cannot bring direct customer collaboration (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai, 2007a, 2007b, 2008).
economic benefits to the company. Most of the existing literatures is based on studies conducted in the
2
manufacturing industry. However, construction projects can also ach 3.1.4. On-site management
ieve the goal of low-carbon emissions along the supply chain by green On-site management aims to minimize CO2 emissions and other
supply chain management (Wibowo et al., 2018). Compared with negative environmental impacts during construction. These practices
traditional green management of construction projects, the green are mostly related to contractors. Firstly, an environmental impact
concept is extended from the construction phase to upstream and assessment (OM1) should be conducted before project implementation
downstream in GSCM, covering internal and external environmental to predict the environmental consequences of project construction
management (Balasubramanian and Shukla, 2017b; Wibowo et al., (Balasubramanian and Shukla, 2017a). Secondly, improving energy ef
2018). Meanwhile, given that climate issues are increasingly becoming a ficiency (OM2) and using high-performance fuels (OM3) can signifi
major environmental issue, low-carbon practices in green supply chain cantly reduce CO2 emissions (Choi and Hwang, 2015; Pérez-Lombard
have become a focus of attention, and many companies remake supply et al., 2008; Radhi, 2008; Saidur, 2009). Finally, improper disposal of
chain decisions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (Chelly et al., 2019). construction waste can also have a significant impact on the environ
This study focuses on low-carbon practices on the basis of green supply ment. So it is important to optimize the construction plan to reduce
chain management, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions waste (OM4) and to dispose of the inevitable waste properly (OM5)
while maintaining economic performance throughout the supply chain (Jaillon et al., 2009; Sobotka and Czaja, 2015; Udawatta et al., 2015).
of projects. Therefore, the measurement scales were adapted from the
existing literatures on green supply chain management to conform to 3.1.5. End-of-life management
low-carbon practices. The measurement scales are classified into five End-of-life management is implemented at the end of a project. It can
constructs: internal environment management (IM), eco-design (ED), be measured by the following three items (Balasubramanian and Shukla,
green purchasing (GP), on-site management (OM), and end-of-life 2017a; Vanalle et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2008): sale of remaining materials
management (EM). and prefabricated components that were not used during the construc
tion of the project (EM1), maximizing the recyclability of materials,
3.1.1. Internal environmental management prefabricated components and equipment through component classifi
Internal environmental management is measured by six items. The cation, equipment overhaul, process optimization, etc., during the
measurement models confirmed by Zhu et al. (2005, 2008) include total construction of the project (EM2), and sale of recyclable materials,
quality environmental management (IM1), ISO14000 certification prefabricated components, and equipment after the completion of the
(IM2), environmental management system (IM3), and cross-functional project (EM3). The operation phase is not within the scope of this study
cooperation for reducing CO2 emissions (IM4). These items show the because this phase can often be covered by eco-design, while
efforts made by companies in environmental protection. In addition, energy-efficient design largely eliminates environmental impacts during
under the background of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals, the operation period (Balasubramanian and Shukla, 2017a).
investing sufficient human resources and funding in low-carbon tech
nology research (IM5) and taking CO2 emissions as an important eval 3.2. Drivers for low-carbon practices
uation criterion for projects (IM6) can reflect the importance they attach
to low-carbon emissions (Zou and Paul, 2012). In past studies, many researchers have analyzed the drivers of GSCM
by institutional theory, resource-based view, relationship view, resource
3.1.2. Eco-design dependency theory, ecological modernization theory and other theories
The measurement items of eco-design developed by Zhu et al. (Hsu et al., 2013; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2017; Mojumder and Singh,
(2008a,b) include reducing material and energy consumption. In the 2021; Somsuk and Laosirihongthong, 2017; Walker et al., 2008; Zhu
construction projects, the following items are considered in the design: et al., 2005). The above studies confirm the applicability of these the
the selection of materials and prefabricated components with ories to green supply chain management and identify the drivers in the
lower-carbon emissions during the manufacturing process (ED1), the manufacturing industry. This study will take the institutional theory,
selection of recyclable materials and prefabricated components (ED2), relational view and self-determination theory as the grounded theory
and the selection of technology and equipment with lower-carbon and identify the drivers for low-carbon practices of green supply chain
emissions (ED3). The building design is crucial as the decisions made management of construction projects to explain the complex phenom
at this stage will have a significant impact on the environmental per enon through analysis.
formance of the building’s entire life cycle. Therefore, minimizing waste
during construction (ED4) and carbon emissions during usage (ED5) 3.2.1. Environmental regulation
should be considered in advance (Ng et al., 2012; Osmani et al., 2008; Early research related to institutional theory identified three types of
Wibowo et al., 2018). institutional pressures, including coercive, normative, and imitative
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Among them, coercive pressure and
3.1.3. Green purchasing normative pressure can be reflected in environmental regulation. Firstly,
Green purchasing is an important component of GSCM. When com coercive pressures arise from formal pressures exerted by other orga
panies take environmental factors into purchasing plans and behaviors, nizations, which often stem from political influence and legitimacy is
they often make clearly their low-carbon demands to suppliers (GP1) sues (Zsidisin et al., 2005). For example, while government enacts
and sign environmental strategic cooperation with partners (GP2) (Zhu relevant environmental legislation such as carbon emission limits (ER1)
et al., 2008). In addition, suppliers can also be selected by internal and strictly regulates carbon emissions from projects (ER2), projects
environmental audits (GP3) and ISO14000 certification (GP4), and then engage in low-carbon practices to avoid the threat of laws and regula
choose low-carbon materials and prefabricated components (GP5) in the tions (Fayezi et al., 2019). Secondly, normative pressures make orga
final decision (Balasubramanian and Shukla, 2017a; Zhu et al., 2008). At nizations conform to social and stakeholder expectations (Zhu and
the same time, purchasing is often accompanied by a large number of Sarkis, 2007). This is not coercive pressure, but an outcome of profes
transportation activities. During the construction project, 6%–8% of sionalization. Normative isomorphism leads to the harmonization of
carbon emissions are caused by material transportation. Therefore, working practices across all participants. The carbon tax levy on
transportation strategies should minimize CO2 emissions (GP6), high-carbon emission projects (ER5), economic incentives such as tax
including transportation and route selection (Ng et al., 2012; Wibowo relief and subsidies for low-carbon projects (ER3), supervision of public
et al., 2018). opinion by the mass media, and professional institutions (ER4), and
low-carbon requirements by parent companies (ER6) constitute
normative pressures on GSCM practices (Agarwal et al., 2018; Chelly
3
et al., 2019; Hsu et al., 2013). H1a. Environmental regulation has a positive and direct effect on low-
carbon practices in GSCM of construction projects.
3.2.2. Supply chain relationship
The needs of collaborators are powerful drivers. The foundation of
The upstream of the construction project supply chain are the ma
project success is investors and users’ satisfaction. The stakeholders in
terial and equipment suppliers, while downstream are the owners or
the supply chain directly affect the design and green purchase of pro
investors, as well as the end users of the project. The requirements from
jects. Investors also expect the project to reduce carbon dioxide emis
supply chain partners influence organizational behavior (Wu et al.,
sions to reduce environmental risks. Therefore, the following hypothesis
2012), which can also be explained by the strategic relational resources
is proposed:
emphasized by the relationship view (Dyer and Singh, 1998). In the case
of construction projects, the owner’s low-carbon requirements for H2a. Supply chain relationship has a positive and direct effect on low-
project design and construction (SR1) affect the supply chain relation carbon practices in GSCM of construction projects.
ship (Wang et al., 2018). At the same time, responsible consumers are
The adoption of green supply chain management requires a lot of
exerting another kind of pressure on firms to take responsible action by
coordination and resource integration, so the management support and
purchasing the products with the lowest-carbon emissions (SR2), so
resources within an organization also affect low-carbon practices in
companies will be more inclined to invest and build low-carbon projects
green supply chain management (Zhu et al., 2012). Therefore, the
(Chelly et al., 2019). In addition, the imitative pressure of the institu
following hypothesis is proposed:
tional theory can also be reflected in the supply chain relationship
(Zsidisin et al., 2005). When competitors succeed in green practices, H3a. Organizational culture has a positive and direct effect on low-
organizations could gain a competitive advantage by imitating the green carbon practices in GSCM of construction projects.
supply chain management style of their competitors (SR3) (Hsu et al.,
Different external pressures can also affect the internal decision-
2013; Wu et al., 2012). Agarwal et al. (2018) suggested that projects are
making of the organization and organizational culture, and companies
more willing to implement GSCM when there are enough suppliers of
need to allocate resources to deal with these external pressures. (Agar
fering lower-carbon materials, prefabricated components, and equip
wal et al., 2018). The stimulation of external pressure can affect man
ment (SR5). In general, when there is general agreement with
agers’ decision-making and the strategy of the organization, which may
low-carbon behaviors (SR4), the construction industry will move to
increase the motivation of the organization to adopt green supply chain
wards green and low-carbon (Hsu et al., 2013).
management. Generally speaking, managers tend to react passively and
have to develop corresponding measures to ensure project compliance
3.2.3. Organization culture
under coercive pressures. At the same time, normative pressure will
The self-determination theory holds that managers have more op
influence the organization’s decision making imperceptibly. Regulators
tions because of their voluntary motivation and organizational culture
such as the government and industry associations exert coercive and
reflects the beliefs and values of managers (Carpenter et al., 2004).
normative pressure on the project and carry out continuous publicity
Organizational culture of green and low-carbon and the ethical desire to
and education on the project, and managers will realize the legitimacy
do the right thing also encourage companies to take initiative (Hsu et al.,
and rationality of low-carbon practices in GSCM. Therefore, the
2013). An environmentally responsible organization values its
low-carbon environmental image and reputation among its partners
(OC1) (Zhu et al., 2013), reflects its environmental awareness in its H1b. Environmental regulation has a positive effect on low-carbon
annual or semi-annual reports (OC6) (Fayezi et al., 2019), and regularly practices in GSCM through organizational culture.
conducts self-audits (OC2) to determine whether its business practices
There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the adoption of low-
comply with institutional norms (Jabbour and Santos, 2008). Besides,
carbon practices in GSCM, especially those that require collaboration
GSCM practices require the participation of all staff of the company.
with customers and suppliers. Companies that see themselves as lagging
Management support is a key factor for the success of GSCM. When top
behind in adopting low-carbon practices that other companies are
management adopts a positive environmental strategy (OC3), the or
mastering can provide a powerful incentive for them to emulate, espe
ganization will be committed to achieving low-carbon goals (Zhu et al.,
cially if those companies succeed. Their success will convince managers
2008). Similarly, when middle management and employees have a sense
of the value of low-carbon practices in GSCM and help overcome in
of responsibility for reducing carbon emissions (OC4), the imple
ternal barriers. Managers fully internalize the pressure from supply
mentation of environmental activities can be supported (Fayezi et al.,
chain relationship, change their attitude toward low-carbon practices in
2019; Hsu et al., 2013). Last but not least, organizational education and
GSCM, and have the discretion to adopt environmental strategies which
training (OC5) can improve employees’ awareness and skills in
are more appropriate for the development of the organization. There
low-carbon practices, which can reduce the risk of GSCM practices, and
fore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
then increase the willingness of organizations to adopt GSCM practices
(Jabbour and Santos, 2008; Wu et al., 2012). H2b. Supply chain relationship has a positive effect on low-carbon
practices in GSCM through organizational culture.
However, environmental regulation doesn’t only affect the internal
3.3. Hypotheses development
drivers and GSCM practices of the core firms. Likewise, other members
of the supply chain also receive restrictions and corresponding regula
Through the literature review, the drivers for low-carbon practices in
tions from laws. For example, laws and regulations enacted by the
green supply chain management of construction projects were summa
government are not only binding on contractors, but also on owners and
rized as environmental regulation, supply chain relationship, and
suppliers. Pressure from environmental regulations on other members of
organizational culture. Hypotheses were developed to investigate the
the supply chain will translate into pressure from supply chain re
relationships between the drivers and practices in green supply chain
lationships and continue to promote low-carbon practices. Therefore,
management.
the following hypothesis is proposed:
Due to the strict supervision and incentive of the government and
other institutions on carbon dioxide emissions, projects are now forced H1c. Environmental regulation has a positive effect on low-carbon
to comply with regulations to reduce penalty rates while striving to meet practices in GSCM through supply chain relationship.
social expectations for higher profits (Chelly et al., 2019). Therefore, the
Similarly, the pressure of supply chain relationship transformed from
4
environmental regulation pressure will also affect organizational cul important). Referring to the practice of Li et al. (2023), 2.5 was used as
ture, and then indirectly promote the low-carbon practices in green the threshold value. Items with the average score of expert scores above
supply chain management. 2.5 were retained, otherwise deleted. The evaluation results of struc
tured interviews are shown in Table 1. The evaluation of ER6 is 2.45, the
H1d. Environmental regulation has a positive effect on low-carbon
evaluation SR5 is 2.27, and the evaluation of OC6 is 2.09. Therefore,
practices in GSCM through supply chain relationship and organiza
ER6, SR5 and OC6 were deleted due to an average score of less than 2.5.
tional culture.
In addition, seven experts agreed that the meaning of ER5 and ER3 is
In light of the existing literature, an initial theoretical model was similar. Thus, ER5 was deleted while ER3 was retained. The final mea
hypothesized to examine the causal relationships between drivers and surement scales have been modified according to the structured inter
practices, to identify the key determinants in green supply chain man view, and a total of 13 items for drivers and 25 items for low-carbon
agement of construction projects. In the proposed model, the hypothesis practices in GSCM were retained for the next step.
of a correlation between them needs to be tested. The theoretical model
is shown in Fig. 1, which consists of one structural model and eight
measurement models. Environmental regulation (ER), supply chain 4.2. Questionnaire development and data collection
relationship (SR), and organizational culture (OC) are first-order struc
tures, while the model of low-carbon practices in green supply chain A questionnaire was developed based on the results of the structured
management is a three-dimensional second-order structure composed of interviews. It consisted of three parts. The first section recorded basic
internal environmental management (IM), eco-design (ED), green pur information about the respondents, including information on years of
chasing (GP), on-site management (OM) and end-of-life management working, project location, and project size. The second section consisted
(EM). of 13 questions to measure three drivers: environmental regulation (4
items), supply chain relationship (4 items), and organizational culture (5
4. Research methods and data presentation items). In the third section, 25 items were used to investigate project
internal environmental management (6 items), eco-design (5 items),
4.1. Structured interviews green purchasing (6 items), on-site management (5 items), and end-of-
life management (3 items). Respondents were asked to assess whether
Based on a literature review, three drivers and five low-carbon the descriptions were conformed to the reality of their projects by five-
practices in GSCM of construction projects were identified. In order to point Likert scales (i.e., 1 = very non-conforming, 2 = non-conforming,
ensure that the measurement models are appropriate for the actual low- 3 = neutral, 4 = conforming, and 5 = very conforming) in both sections
carbon development in China, structured interviews were conducted II and III.
during March 2023. Eleven experts from the government, the con Actions were taken to reduce the impact of methodological bias.
struction industry, and scientific institutions were invited to comment Before the questionnaire, a confidentiality statement was made to pro
on the initial theoretical model and evaluate the applicability of the tect the anonymity of respondents for preventing socially desirable re
measurement items by five-point Likert scales (i.e., 1 = very unimpor sponses. Purposive sampling was used to ensure that respondents are
tant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = neutral, 4 = important, and 5 = very aware of the project’s low-carbon practices in green supply chain
management and are able to evaluate the same (Ali et al., 2023; Shukla
Fig. 1. Theoretical model of the study.
5
Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Measurement items of drivers and GSCM practices. Dimension Code Measurement item Evaluation
Dimension Code Measurement item Evaluation
GP2 Cooperation with suppliers to 3.90
Environmental ER1 Coercive constraints of 4.64 achieve low-carbon goals
regulation ER environmental laws and legislation GP3 Environmental audits within 4.09
in carbon emission limits suppliers
ER2 Strict audit and supervision of 4.55 GP4 Selection of suppliers with 4.36
carbon emissions ISO14000 certification
ER3 Economic incentives such as tax 4 GP5 purchasing low-carbon materials 4.54
relief and subsidies for low-carbon and prefabricated components
technologies and practices GP6 Selection of low-carbon and 3.63
ER4 Effective supervision of carbon 4.18 energy-saving modes of
emissions by social public opinion transportation when transporting
such as the masses, media, materials
professional institutions Project on-site OM1 environmental impact assessment 4.36
ER5 The carbon tax levy on high-carbon 4 management OM before project implementation
emission projects OM2 Maximizing energy efficiency on 4.27
ER6 Low-carbon requirements by 2.45 construction sites
parent companies OM3 Usage of premium fuels that release 4.45
Supply chain SR1 The owner’s low-carbon 4.36 less CO2
relationship SR requirements for the project design OM4 Optimizing construction plan to 4.18
and construction generate less waste
SR2 Final consumers willing to 4.36 OM5 Disposal of the inevitable waste 3.90
purchase or use projects with fewer properly
carbon emissions End-of-life EM1 Sale of surplus materials and 4
SR3 Successful implementation of 4.18 management EM prefabricated components
GSCM in similar projects EM2 Maximizing the recyclability of 3.36
SR4 General agreement with low- 3.82 material, prefabricated
carbon behaviors in the components, and equipment
construction industry EM3 Sale of recyclable materials, 3.81
SR5 enough suppliers offering lower- 2.27 prefabricated components, and
carbon materials, prefabricated equipment
components, and equipment
Organizational OC1 A high value on low-carbon image 3.91
culture OC and reputation and Sharma, 2018). In this study, using a snowball sampling approach, a
OC2 Frequent self-audit of carbon 3.91 representative sample was collected from China to assess the relation
emission
ship between drivers and low-carbon practices, beginning with partic
OC3 Support for an active low-carbon 4.45
strategy from top management ular respondents.
OC4 Leaders’ and colleagues’ awareness 3.45 The questionnaire was distributed to government officials, owners,
of responsibility for reducing contractors, designers, consultants, and supervisors who were involved
carbon emissions in construction projects. The questionnaire was distributed online via
OC5 Organizational education and 4.09
training on low-carbon awareness
email and WeChat in March and April 2023.A total of 149 question
and practices naires were collected, and 138 valid questionnaires were retained by
OC6 environmental awareness in its 2.09 deleting the unqualified questionnaires with short response time and
annual or semi-annual reports consecutive identical scores. T-test was performed on the data filled in
Internal IM1 Total Quality Environmental 3.90
by the early 30% of respondents and the late 30% of respondents. The
environmental Management
management IM IM2 Contractor’s ISO14000 3.81 results showed that there is no significant difference (Malviya and Kant,
Certification 2017). Therefore, non-response bias can be excluded. Additionally, ac
IM3 Environmental management 4.36 cording to Hair et al. (2011), sample size should meet the following two
system conditions: (1) ten times the largest number of factors used to measure
IM4 Cross-functional cooperation for 4.45
low-carbon
one construct or (2) ten times the largest number of structural paths
IM5 Human resources and financial 4.36 directed at a particular latent construct in the structural model. The
investment in low-carbon number of valid questionnaires meets the minimum sample size and can
technologies be analyzed in the next step.
IM6 CO2 emissions as an important 4
The questionnaire collected the information of the projects in which
assessment criterion
Eco-design ED ED1 Selection of materials and 4.54 respondents were participating. Through the analysis and summary of
prefabricated components with the results, the valid information of 38 projects were obtained. These
fewer carbon emissions projects are located in eastern, central and western China. Project types
ED2 Selection of recyclable materials 4.36 include large public buildings, airports, railways, industrial plants,
and prefabricated components
ED3 Selection of construction 4.36
municipal engineering, river management, ordinary residential build
techniques and equipment with ings, etc. Among them, there are 23 projects with a total investment of
fewer carbon emissions more than CNY 50 million (approximately USD 6.89 million), eight
ED4 Considering the minimization of 4.27 projects with a total investment of CNY 10 million (approximately USD
waste during construction in
1.38 million) to CNY 50 million, and seven projects with a total in
advance
ED5 Considering the minimization of 4.54 vestment of less than CNY 10 million. 138 respondents are from these 38
CO2 emissions during the operation projects, with two to five questionnaires returned per project. Table 2
period in advance lists the background information of respondents.
Green purchasing GP GP1 Clear low-carbon requirements for 4
suppliers
4.3. Partial least squares structural equation modeling
The returned valid questionnaires were tabulated and the data were
6
Table 2
Background information of respondents.
Description Categories Number of respondents Percentage Cumulative percentage
Employer organization Government 16 11.59% 11.59%

Owner 21 15.22% 26.81%
Designer 18 13.04% 39.86%
Contractor 53 38.41% 78.26%
Consultant 22 15.94% 94.20%
Supervisor 5 3.62% 97.83%
Other 3 2.17% 100.00%
Position Middle managerial 21 15.22% 15.22%
Professional 43 31.16% 46.38%
worker 74 53.62% 100.00%
Years Less than 1 year 14 10.14% 10.14%
1–5 years 37 26.81% 36.96%
6–10 years 50 36.23% 73.19%
11–20 years 25 18.12% 91.30%
More than 20 year 12 8.70% 100.00%
Location Eastern China 56 40.58% 40.58%
Central China 38 27.54% 68.12%
Western China 44 31.88% 100.00%
Project Investment CNY 50 million and above 87 63.04% 63.04%
CNY 10 million - CNY 50 million 26 18.84% 81.88%
Less than CNY 10 million 25 18.12% 100.00%
analyzed to test the hypotheses by SmartPLS 3.2.9. PLS-SEM combines

principal component analysis and least squares regression analysis and Table 3
Indicator loadings, composite reliability, and AVE value.
aims to explain the causal relationships between variables (Hair et al.,
2011). This method can achieve high levels of statistical even with small construct code indicator T value（|O/ Composite AVE
loading STDEV|） reliability CR
sample sizes, as the non-normal distribution of the data has less impact
on the results in general (Hair et al., 2019). In addition, PLS-SEM can ER ER1 0.867 28.222 0.898 0.689
maximize the explanatory power of the model and provide a high degree ER2 0.838 26.657
ER3 0.831 21.568
of flexibility between theory and data, contributing to the theoretical ER4 0.782 17.005
development of low-carbon practices in green supply chain management SR SR1 0.800 24.823 0.911 0.720
of construction projects (Hair et al., 2011; Susanty et al., 2019). SR2 0.811 22.683
Therefore, PLS-SEM was used to test the hypothetical model in this SR3 0.892 47.055
SR4 0.888 38.832
study. The parameters setting are as follows: the maximum number of
OC OC1 0.829 27.187 0.943 0.769
iterations was 5000, the ending criterion was 10− 7, the omitted distance OC2 0.917 73.007
was 7, and 5000 subsamples were selected (Hair et al., 2011, 2019). OC3 0.853 32.364
OC4 0.889 39.303
5. Results OC5 0.892 48.661
IM IM1 0.809 20.918 0.933 0.698
IM2 0.796 20.163
5.1. Measurement model evaluation IM3 0.839 27.642
IM4 0.881 35.517
The first step in PLS-SEM is to evaluate the measurement models. IM5 0.847 35.578
IM6 0.839 32.849
Table 3 shows three criteria for measurement models. Firstly, evaluate
ED ED1 0.898 42.003 0.951 0.795
the reliability of the items. The indicator loadings of all items are above ED2 0.878 32.914
0.708, which meets the reliability requirement (Hair et al., 2019). Next, ED3 0.935 72.146
evaluate the internal consistency reliability. Composite reliability is a ED4 0.852 30.259
common measure. It is considered reliable that each construct is greater ED5 0.897 50.774
GP GP1 0.845 26.421 0.949 0.755
than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2019). Thirdly, calculate the average variance GP2 0.855 29.820
extracted (AVE) to evaluate convergent validity. None of the AVE for the GP3 0.906 60.975
construct less than 0.5 is considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2019). GP4 0.840 22.362
Finally, discriminant validity is evaluated to explain the variability GP5 0.895 40.296
GP6 0.872 37.054
of other constructs. Traditionally, it can be evaluated by indicator
OM OM1 0.842 27.709 0.940 0.757
loadings and AVE values of the items (Hair et al., 2011). As shown in OM2 0.837 20.029
Table 4 and Table 5, each indicator loadings are greater than all of its OM3 0.903 48.800
crossing-loadings, and according to the Fornell-Larcker criterion, the OM4 0.904 48.443
AVE of each construct is greater than the square of the correlation with OM5 0.863 28.004
EM EM1 0.832 14.744 0.901 0.752
the other models. However, some recent studies have suggested that
EM2 0.931 75.899
these criteria don’t apply to discriminant validity assessment (Hair et al., EM3 0.835 20.368
2019; Sarstedt et al., 2022). Henseler et al. (2015) evaluated discrimi LP in IM 0.887 47.533 0.933 0.739
nant validity by a new criterion called HTMT and set the maximum GSCM ED 0.917 67.258
GP 0.892 30.759
threshold to 0.90. Table 6 shows the new criterion for differential
OM 0.909 39.102
validity. EM 0.676 9.279
The results in the table show that the values of indicator loadings,
composite reliability, and AVE meet the criteria, indicating that the
reliability and validity of the measurement models are qualified. In
7
Table 4
Cross-loadings.
ER SR OC I’M ED GP OM EM
ER1 0.867 0.510 0.490 0.381 0.292 0.313 0.415 0.356

ER2 0.838 0.516 0.488 0.378 0.224 0.200 0.259 0.292
ER3 0.831 0.499 0.479 0.416 0.336 0.427 0.335 0.337
ER4 0.782 0.530 0.529 0.528 0.462 0.399 0.495 0.276
SR1 0.581 0.800 0.627 0.642 0.548 0.468 0.481 0.253
SR2 0.410 0.811 0.572 0.575 0.580 0.582 0.544 0.251
SR3 0.564 0.892 0.686 0.690 0.719 0.621 0.660 0.486
SR4 0.542 0.888 0.744 0.689 0.674 0.679 0.640 0.319
OC1 0.571 0.645 0.829 0.501 0.549 0.483 0.519 0.365
OC2 0.566 0.790 0.917 0.724 0.716 0.685 0.675 0.307
OC3 0.514 0.617 0.853 0.537 0.534 0.533 0.564 0.231
OC4 0.460 0.621 0.889 0.671 0.748 0.629 0.657 0.432
OC5 0.526 0.724 0.892 0.697 0.726 0.660 0.639 0.371
IM1 0.436 0.582 0.664 0.809 0.604 0.560 0.633 0.462
IM2 0.412 0.641 0.556 0.796 0.616 0.545 0.649 0.507
IM3 0.430 0.628 0.577 0.839 0.622 0.575 0.577 0.400
IM4 0.455 0.660 0.636 0.881 0.725 0.606 0.583 0.402
IM5 0.410 0.675 0.614 0.847 0.737 0.759 0.561 0.322
IM6 0.456 0.655 0.563 0.839 0.696 0.702 0.590 0.462
ED1 0.317 0.644 0.647 0.732 0.898 0.681 0.676 0.420
ED2 0.316 0.588 0.610 0.654 0.878 0.660 0.658 0.435
ED3 0.380 0.667 0.734 0.704 0.935 0.737 0.770 0.480
ED4 0.400 0.724 0.636 0.720 0.852 0.727 0.704 0.417
ED5 0.379 0.704 0.721 0.757 0.897 0.754 0.709 0.479
GP1 0.422 0.593 0.593 0.631 0.683 0.845 0.683 0.315
GP2 0.364 0.700 0.619 0.686 0.678 0.855 0.682 0.315
GP3 0.386 0.627 0.643 0.679 0.689 0.906 0.697 0.373
GP4 0.312 0.554 0.553 0.568 0.632 0.840 0.636 0.396
GP5 0.325 0.582 0.572 0.685 0.730 0.895 0.722 0.435
GP6 0.325 0.564 0.603 0.657 0.748 0.872 0.663 0.446
OM1 0.452 0.554 0.541 0.606 0.627 0.632 0.842 0.583
OM2 0.337 0.589 0.604 0.608 0.678 0.587 0.837 0.663
OM3 0.447 0.659 0.644 0.656 0.693 0.749 0.903 0.505
OM4 0.409 0.611 0.651 0.647 0.708 0.749 0.904 0.471
OM5 0.355 0.580 0.601 0.597 0.726 0.685 0.863 0.406
EM1 0.311 0.203 0.224 0.351 0.372 0.266 0.378 0.832
EM2 0.357 0.385 0.349 0.527 0.496 0.451 0.616 0.931
EM3 0.316 0.409 0.426 0.424 0.421 0.397 0.543 0.835
Table 5
Fornell-Larcker criterion.
ER SR OC IM ED GP OM EM
ER 0.830
SR 0.621 0.849
OC 0.601 0.778 0.877
IM 0.519 0.767 0.720 0.835
ED 0.402 0.747 0.752 0.800 0.892
GP 0.409 0.694 0.687 0.750 0.799 0.869
OM 0.460 0.689 0.700 0.716 0.789 0.783 0.870
EM 0.380 0.393 0.390 0.509 0.501 0.438 0.603 0.867
Based on Harman single factor test, the variance of the maximum factor
Table 6
interpretation is 36.23% and less than 40%, which indicated that the
Heterotrait-monotrait ratio（HTMT）.
common method bias in this study is not significant (Jiang et al., 2021).
ER SR OC IM ED GP OM EM
ER 5.2. Structural model evaluation

SR 0.717
OC 0.677 0.860
IM 0.583 0.857 0.778 When the results of the measurement model meet the requirements,
ED 0.443 0.823 0.801 0.863 the structural model needs to be evaluated. Table 8 shows the R2 value
GP 0.454 0.768 0.734 0.808 0.852 and Q2 value of endogenous constructs. First of all, R2 is a criterion of the
OM 0.513 0.765 0.755 0.783 0.850 0.843
explanatory power of the model. A larger value of R2 means better
EM 0.450 0.441 0.436 0.575 0.560 0.484 0.676
explanatory power (Hair et al., 2011). Also to avoid overfitting, it is
reasonable to have the value of R2 less than 0.9 (Hair et al., 2019). This
addition, all three criteria for evaluating the distinction validity meet model can explain 38.1% of supply chain relationship pressure, 62.5% of
the requirements. organizational culture pressure, and 66.6% of green supply chain
Principal component analysis was carried out for the questionnaire management practices. Next, Q2 is used to check the accuracy of the
items. The results of total variance explained are shown in Table 7. structural model. Each one is greater than 0, which meets the require
ment (Hair et al., 2011). The above results indicate that the model has
8
Table 7
Total variance explained.
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total Percentage Cumulative percentage Total Percentage Cumulative percentage
1 13.767 36.23% 36.23% 13.767 36.23% 36.23%

2 4.818 12.678% 48.907% 4.818 12.678% 48.907%
3 3.484 9.169% 58.076% 3.484 9.169% 58.076%
4 3.035 7.986% 66.062% 3.035 7.986% 66.062%
5 2.427 6.386% 72.449% 2.427 6.386% 72.449%
6 2.286 6.017% 78.466% 2.286 6.017% 78.466%
7 1.811 4.765% 83.231% 1.811 4.765% 83.231%
8 1.667 4.388% 87.618% 1.667 4.388% 87.618%
6. Discussions
Table 8
Testing results of structural model.
This study explored the drivers for low-carbon practices in green
Construct R2 Adjusted R2 Q2 (=1-SSE/ supply chain management of construction projects under the back
SSO)
ground of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals. Based on a
OC 0.630 0.625 0.477 literature review, seven hypotheses were formulated and tested with
SR 0.385 0.381 0.273
bootstrapping methods. The results show the relationship between
LP 0.673 0.666 0.490
Effects Path T value（|O/ P value
different variables.
coefficients STDEV|）
ER - > LP (H1a) − 0.045 0.495 0.621 6.1. Supply chain relationship
OC - > LP (H2a) 0.428 5.206 0.000***
SR - > LP (H3a) 0.471 6.272 0.000***
First of all, the most significant direct driver is supply chain rela
ER - > OC - > LP (H1b) 0.081 2.685 0.007***
SR - > OC - > LP (H2b) 0.284 4.951 0.000*** tionship with a path coefficient of 0.471. This means that supply chain
ER - > SR - > LP (H1c) 0.292 5.544 0.000*** relationship pressure promotes the level of low-carbon practices in
ER - > SR - > OC - > LP ( 0.176 5.261 0.000*** GSCM of the construction project. Supply chain relationship pressure is
H1d)
reflected in the low-carbon requirements from owners, low-carbon
ER - > LP (total effect) 0.505 5.327 0.000***
SR - > LP (total effect) 0.755 10.062 0.000***
purchasing preferences of consumers, competitor pressure, and low-
OC - > LP (total effect) 0.428 5.206 0.000*** carbon awareness within the industry. The results of previous studies
in different industries can also support this conclusion. Liu et al. (2021)
investigated the automotive industry and concluded that green product
strong explanatory and predictive power. demand and customer pressure are the most important external drivers.
Finally, bootstrapping was adopted to evaluate the significance of An empirical study by Bamgbade et al. (2023) also yielded that cus
the path coefficients and the mediating effects. T value greater than 2.58 tomers can positively affect the low-carbon practices of contractors in
indicates that the path is significant at the 0.01 level (Hair et al., 2011). green supply chain management in East Malaysia. Handayani et al.
Table 8 also shows the direct effects, specific indirect effects, and total (2021) investigated the Indonesian construction industry and the results
effects. Fig. 2 shows the complete model and the path coefficients of the also indicate that supply chain stakeholder (both partners and compet
direct effects. The results show that all paths are significant at the 0.01 itors) pressure has a significant effect on green supply chain manage
level except for the direct effect of ER on GSCM. ment low-carbon practices. If supply chain members decide to adopt or
promote low-carbon practices in green supply chain management, this
5.3. Mediation analysis can have a ripple effect on upstream and downstream supply chain.
When partners and competitors put pressure on projects to low-carbon,
The results of the path analysis indicate that: (1) SR and OC mediate project will stop using materials and processes with higher carbon di
the effect of ER on low-carbon practices in GSCM, and (2) OC mediates oxide emissions.
the effect of SR on low-carbon practices in GSCM. It is worthwhile to test
these two potential mediating effects. 6.2. Organizational culture
Firstly, in the absence of SR and OC, the direct effect of ER on GSCM
practices is insignificant. However, all three specific indirect effects (the Next, the second significant driver is organizational culture. This
effect of ER on LP by OC, the effect of ER on LP by SR, and the effect of path coefficient is 0.428. As a result, the effect of organizational culture
ER on LP by SR and OC) are positive and significant. It can be inferred on low-carbon practices in GSCM is slightly lower than that of supply
that SR and OC play a fully mediating role in the effect of ER on LP in chain relationship. The effect of organizational culture is mainly re
green supply chain management (Nitzl et al., 2016). flected in the sense of responsibility of members and training, education,
In addition, there is a significant effect of SR on LP, a significant and self-audit of the project. Top management often determines the
effect of SR on OC, and a significant effect of OC on LP. Therefore, the strategic direction of the organization, while middle management and
ratio of indirect effect to total effect was used to determine the strength employees can support the implementation of decisions. Environmen
of the potential mediating effect. The following formula was used to tally responsible projects always create socially acceptable and envi
calculate the Variance Accounted For (Sarstedt et al., 2014)： ronmental friendly images through low-carbon strategies (Fayezi et al.,
Total indirect effect 2019). Also, environmental commitment is considered a voluntary
VAF =
Total effect obligation in line with social values, which can enhance brand image
and reputation, and attract more potential customers (Handayani et al.,
The formula calculation shows that 38% of the total effect is 2021; Shi et al., 2013). This intrinsic drive from organizational culture
explained through organizational culture as a mediator, so OC partially will increase confidence in low-carbon practices in green supply chain
mediates the effect of SR on LP in green supply chain management. management. This driver helps managers perceive the importance of
low-carbon practices, guide companies to implement low-carbon
9
Fig. 2. Testing results of the theoretical model

Notes: ***p ≤ 0.01; **p ≤ 0.05; *p ≤ 0.10; dashed line represents non-significant direct effect.
strategies, and improve the level of low-carbon practices in green supply The path is calculated to be − 0.045 and rejects the original hypothesis at
chain management of construction projects. a significance level of 0.1. This result is contrary to expectations and
In addition, the mediation of organizational culture was verified, and previous studies on manufacturing in China (Zhu and Sarkis, 2007; Zhu
the path coefficient of this indirect effect was 0.284. The result suggests et al., 2007a). But some studies have reached similar conclusion
that supply chain relationship can affect low-carbon practices in GSCM (Agarwal et al., 2018; Shohan et al., 2019). The following two reasons
through the partial mediation of organizational culture. This also in may explain this result. On the one hand, "carbon peaking" and "carbon
dicates that the awareness of environmental responsibility within the neutrality" are new concepts in recent years, and the direct effect of
organization can be influenced by partners, competitors, and green relevant laws, regulations, and policies may not be obvious. On the other
climate in the industry. In the face of supply chain relationship pressure, hand, environmental regulation does not have a direct effect on GSCM
managers internalize and integrate it into project strategy policies practices, while supply chain relationship and organizational culture
(Agarwal et al., 2018). Therefore, external pressures promote manage fully mediate the effect of environmental regulation on low-carbon
ment’s awareness of environmental issues which mediate the effect of practices in GSCM. H1b, H1c, and H1d are all acceptable at a 0.01 sig
supply chain relationship on low-carbon practices. nificance level, and all three specific indirect effects are significant.
Environmental supervision and advocacy strengthen the perception and
awareness of green supply chain management low-carbon practices
6.3. Environmental regulation among different organizations in the construction industry, including
the perception of core companies and other partners in the supply chain.
However, this study was unable to find empirical evidence sup Environmental regulation motivates projects to focus on their green
porting the direct effect of environmental regulation on GSCM practices.
10
image and reputation, and managers tend to develop a green strategy enhance low-carbon awareness, which plays an important role in the
that meets legal and moral constraints. At the same time, organizations GSCM. Meanwhile, the measurement scales adapted in this study can
in the supply chain are subject to different regulations, which will be also be used as an audit tool for regulators to evaluate the low-carbon
transformed into the supply chain relationship pressure of the core en practices level of projects.
terprise, and then affect the organizational culture and low-carbon
practices. 8. Conclusion
Overall, the total effects of the three drivers on low-carbon practices
in GSCM are significant and positive. The largest total effect is on supply The construction industry has received little attention in GSCM,
chain relationship with a path coefficient of 0.755, followed by envi while the carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals have been the
ronmental regulation with a path coefficient of 0.505, and finally focus of environmental issues in recent years. This study investigated the
organizational culture with a path coefficient of 0.428. Although the key drivers of low-carbon practices in green supply chain management
total effect of organizational culture is the lowest, it is an important of construction projects by testing a hypothesis established between low-
mediating variable and still plays an indispensable role in this model. carbon practices and drivers. The main tasks of this study are: (1) to
adapt the existing measurement scale for green supply chain manage
7. Implications ment to low-carbon practices of construction projects; (2) to identify the
drivers with institutional theory, relational view, and self-determination
7.1. Theoretical implications theory; (3) and to test the hypotheses by partial least squares structural
equation modeling. The results indicate that supply chain relationship
Existing literatures have adopted a variety of different theories to and organizational culture have significant, positive, and direct effects
study green supply chain management, but few studies have combined on low-carbon practices in green supply chain management, and orga
institutional theory, relationship view and self-determination theory to nizational culture partially mediates the effect supply chain relationship
develop a research framework. With the support of the above three on low-carbon practices. However, environmental regulation does not
theories, this study identifies the drivers of low-carbon practices of green have a significant direct effect on green supply chain management low-
supply chain management in the construction industry, which helps to carbon practices, but can positively affect low-carbon practices through
expand the application of institutional theory, relationship view and the full mediation of supply chain relationship and organizational cul
self-determination theory in green supply chain management. In addi ture. A hybrid method combining qualitative and quantitative methods
tion, the drivers identified in the existing literature are based on was used in this study. The results from different methods can be
empirical studies of the manufacturing industry, while few studies on triangulated and complement each other. Therefore, the study will have
construction projects. And these studies do not focus on low-carbon stronger inferential power.
practices in GSCM. In this paper, the measurement scales of low- Although the model in this study has been well-fitted, there are still
carbon practices were adapted to apply to project-based supply chain limitations. On the one hand, the sample size of this study is relatively
management and reflect the efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. small. It has met the minimum sample requirement of PLS-SEM, but a
This work complements previous research, focuses on the low-carbon larger number of samples will make the results more reliable and ac
field of green supply chain management, and lays the foundation for curate. Coupled with the fact that the respondents in this study were all
future research. from China, there may be applicability issues in other countries for
interpretation. Future research could be conducted to gather larger
7.2. Managerial implications samples and investigate key drivers in a particular area and group, or
conduct in-depth longitudinal case studies to understand the long-term
The findings of this study have a strong practical significance for effects of drivers on low-carbon practices in GSCM in the construction
construction projects, which is helpful to the development of low-carbon industry. On the other hand, the measurement scales of low-carbon
strategies for construction projects. Firstly, the findings highlight that practices in this study were adapted from the widely used second-
China’s construction supply chain partners and competitors are effective order model of GSCM. It is also urgent to develop a standard project-
enablers of green supply chain management. Therefore, all stakeholders based measurement model for low-carbon practices in the future.
should form a consensus and actively promote low-carbon practices in Despite these limitations, the study is meaningful. It is a new
green supply chain management. This requires the correct guidance of research work investigating the key drivers for low-carbon practices in
the government and the joint efforts of investors, contractors, suppliers, green supply chain management of construction projects, a topic that
industry associations and others. Secondly, managers hold the initiative has been rarely examined by extant literature. This study broadens the
of the project strategy. Managers should quickly analyze the external application of institutional theory, relational view and self-
environment faced by companies, take the initiative to turn external determination theory in green supply chain management, and there
pressure from environmental regulation and supply chain relationship fore contributes to the current body of knowledge. In addition, the
into internal motivation for low-carbon practices in green supply chain findings of this study could deepen industry practitioners’ understand
management, and actively implement green supply chain management, ing of low-carbon practices of green supply chain management in the
including low-carbon technology development, selection of low-carbon construction industry and help them to propose more feasible and
suppliers, etc., to gain a competitive advantage. Last but not least, practical measures. Overall, this study contributes to the current body of
environmental regulation from government and regulatory agencies is knowledge, guides supply chain members and other stakeholders in
also important. Although the current research does not show that making decisions and can serve as a basis for subsequent research.
environmental regulation directly drives the low-carbon practices of
green supply chain management, it explains part of the driving force of CRediT authorship contribution statement
GSCM under the mediating role of organizational culture. Therefore，
carbon legislation, regulation and economic incentives should continue Fu Chun: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &
to be promoted. By stimulating these drivers, such as improving relevant editing, Supervision. Liu Ya-Qi: Investigation, Data curation, Writing –
laws and regulations, strengthening carbon emission supervision and original draft. Ming Shan: Conceptualization, Writing – review &
publicity, and enhancing low-carbon consensus, project managers can editing.
effectively implement low-carbon practices in supply chain. This study
will provide a reference for decision makers to develop more reasonable
and feasible measures to help optimize resources utilization and
11
Declaration of competing interest quest.com/scholarly-journals/relational-view-cooperative-strategy-sources/doc

view/210960813/se-2.
Fahimnia, Behnam, Sarkis, Joseph, Davarzani, Hoda, 2015. Green supply chain
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re management: a review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 162, 101–114.
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003.
Shan Ming reports financial support was provided by National Natural Fayezi, Sajad, Stekelorum, Rebecca, Jamal El Baz, Laguir, Issam, 2019. Paradoxes in
supplier’s uptake of GSCM practices: institutional drivers and buyer dependency.
Science Foundation of China. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 31 (3), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-
2019-0171.
Data availability Geng, Ruoqi, Afshin Mansouri, S., Aktas, Emel, 2017. The relationship between green
supply chain management and performance: a meta-analysis of empirical evidences
in asian emerging economies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 183, 245–258. https://doi.org/
Data will be made available on request. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.10.008.
Hair, Joe F., Ringle, Christian M., Sarstedt, Marko, 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet.
J. Market. Theor. Pract. 19 (2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-
Acknowledgement 6679190202.
Hair, Joseph F., Risher, Jeffrey J., Sarstedt, Marko, Ringle, Christian M., 2019. When to
This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 31 (1), 2–24. https://
doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
China (Grant No. 71901224). Handayani, Utami, Naniek, Rinawati, Dyah Ika, Gabriella, Theolisa, 2021. Drivers and
barriers in the adoption of green supply chain management in construction projects:
References a case of Indonesia. International Journal of Construction Supply Chain Management
11 (2), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.14424/ijcscm110221-89-106.
Henseler, Jörg, Ringle, Christian M., Sarstedt, Marko, 2015. A new criterion for assessing
Agarwal, Atul, François, C., Giraud-Carrier, Yuan, Li, 2018. A mediation model of green
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad.
supply chain management adoption: the role of internal impetus. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
Market. Sci. 43 (1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
205, 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.09.011.
Hsu, Chin-Chun, Choon Tan, Keah, Mohamad Zailani, Suhaiza Hanim,
Ali, Shahid, Yan, Qingyou, Razzaq, Asif, Khan, Irfan, Irfan, Muhammad, 2023. Modeling
Jayaraman, Vaidyanathan, 2013. Supply chain drivers that foster the development
factors of biogas technology adoption: a roadmap towards environmental
of green initiatives in an emerging economy. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 33 (6),
sustainability and green revolution. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 30 (5),
656–688. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2011-0401.
11838–11860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22894-0.
Ibn-Mohammed, T., Greenough, R., Taylor, S., Ozawa-Meida, L., Acquaye, A., 2013.
Amade, Benedict, 2021. An interpretive structural modeling approach to enablers of
Operational vs. Embodied emissions in buildings—a review of current trends. Energy
green supply chain management on construction projects. Journal of Project
Build. 66, 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.026. Journal
Management 73–82. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2021.1.003.
Article).
Ang, Siah Hwee, Benischke, Mirko H., Doh, Jonathan P., 2015. The interactions of
Iqbal, Muzaffar, Ma, Junhai, Ahmad, Naveed, Ullah, Zia, Hassan, Aisha, 2023. Energy-
institutions on foreign market entry mode. Strat. Manag. J. 36 (10), 1536–1553.
efficient supply chains in construction industry: an analysis of critical success factors
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2295.
using ISM-MICMAC approach. Int. J. Green Energy 20 (3), 265–283. https://doi.org/
Balasubramanian, Sreejith, Shukla, Vinaya, 2017a. Green supply chain management: an
10.1080/15435075.2022.2038609.
empirical investigation on the construction sector. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 22
Jabbour, Charbel José Chiappetta, Santos, Fernando César Almada, 2008. Relationships
(1), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-2016-0227.
between human resource dimensions and environmental management in companies:
Balasubramanian, Sreejith, Shukla, Vinaya, 2017b. Green supply chain management: the
proposal of a model. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
case of the construction sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Prod. Plann.
jclepro.2006.07.025.
Control 28 (14), 1116–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1341651.
Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S., Chiang, Y.H., 2009. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of
Bamgbade, J.A., Mehdi Hosany, Mohammad, Ajibike, W.A., Chai, C.S., 2023. Green
using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 29 (1),
supply chain nuances in EastEast Malaysian construction industry. International
309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.015.
Journal of Construction Management 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Jiang, Lijiao, Yang, Dandan, Li, Yitong, Yuan, Jiajin, 2021. The influence of pubertal
15623599.2023.2179470, 0(0).
development on adolescent depression: the mediating effects of negative physical
Baum, Joel A.C., Oliver, Christine, 1991. Institutional linkages and organizational
self and interpersonal stress. Front. Psychiatr. 12, 786386 https://doi.org/10.3389/
mortality. Adm. Sci. Q. 36 (2), 187–218. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393353.
fpsyt.2021.786386.
Bowen, Frances E., Cousins, Paul D., Lamming, Richard C., Faruk, Adam C., 2001. Horses
Kaur, Jasneet, Sidhu, Ramneet, Awasthi, Anjali, Chauhan, Satyaveer, Goyal, Suresh,
for courses: explaining the gap between the theory and practice of green supply.
2018. A DEMATEL based approach for investigating barriers in green supply chain
Greener Manag. Int. 35, 41–60. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2001.
management in Canadian manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (1–2), 312–332.
au.00006.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1395522.
Brix, Jacob, 2020. Building capacity for sustainable innovation: a field study of the
Kuei, Chu-hua, Madu, Christian N., Chow, Wing S., Chen, Yang, 2015. Determinants and
transition from exploitation to exploration and back again. J. Clean. Prod. 268,
associated performance improvement of green supply chain management in China.
122381 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122381.
J. Clean. Prod. 95, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.030.
Carpenter, Mason A., Geletkanycz, Marta A., Gerard Sanders, Wm, 2004. Upper echelons
Laosirihongthong, Tritos, Adebanjo, Dotun, Choon Tan, Keah, 2013. Green supply chain
research revisited: antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management
management practices and performance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 113 (8), 1088–1109.
team composition. J. Manag. 30 (6), 749–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2013-0164.
jm.2004.06.001.
Li, Dezhi, Huang, Guanying, Zhu, Shiyao, Chen, Long, Wang, Jiangbo, 2021. How to
Chelly, Amina, Nouira, Imen, Frein, Yannick, Atidel, B., Hadj-Alouane, 2019. On the
peak carbon emissions of provincial construction industry? Scenario analysis of
consideration of carbon emissions in modelling-based supply chain literature: the
jiangsu province. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 144, 110953 https://doi.org/
state of the art, relevant features and research gaps. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (15–16),
10.1016/j.rser.2021.110953.
4977–5004. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1497310.
Li, Si-Yi, Shan, Ming, Zhao, Zhai, 2023. Understanding key determinants of health
Choi, Donghyun, Hwang, Taewon, 2015. The impact of green supply chain management
climate in building construction projects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. https://
practices on firm performance: the role of collaborative capability. Operations
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25950-5.
Management Research 8 (3–4), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-015-0100-
Liu, Junjun, Feng, Yunting, Zhu, Qinghua, 2021. Involving second-tier suppliers in green
x.
supply chain management: drivers and heterogenous understandings by firms along
Dai, Zhenhua, Ye, Chunming, 2022. Analysis and evaluation of key elements of optimal
supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
regulation of green supply chain from the perspective of low carbon. Wireless
00207543.2021.2002966, 0(0).
Commun. Mobile Comput. 2022, e8196756 https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/
Majumdar, Abhijit, Sinha, Sanjib Kumar, 2019. Analyzing the barriers of green textile
8196756.
supply chain management in southeast asia using interpretive structural modeling.
Deci, Edward L., Ryan, Richard M., 2008. Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of
Sustain. Prod. Consum. 17, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.10.005.
human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol./Psychol. Canad. 49 (3),
Malviya, Rakesh Kumar, Kant, Ravi, 2017. Modeling the enablers of green supply chain
182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801.
management: an integrated ISM – fuzzy MICMAC approach. Benchmark Int. J. 24
Delmas, Magali A., 2002. The diffusion of environmental management standards in
(2), 536–568. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2015-0082.
europe and in the United States: an institutional perspective. Pol. Sci. 35 (1), 91–119.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, Kannan, Noorul Haq, A., 2014. Pressure analysis for green
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016108804453.
supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic
DiMaggio, Paul J., Powell, Walter W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional
hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Res. 52 (1), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Socio. Rev. 48
00207543.2013.831190.
(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Datta, Udbhav, bhadauria, Rishabh, Aditya, Singla,
Dreher, Axel, Gassebner, Martin, 2013. Greasing the wheels? The impact of regulations
Krishnamoorthi, S., 2017. Identification and prioritization of motivational factors for
and corruption on firm entry. Publ. Choice 155 (3), 413–432. https://doi.org/
the green supply chain management adoption: case from Indian construction
10.1007/s11127-011-9871-2.
industries. Opsearch 55 (1), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-017-0316-7.
Dyer, Jeffrey H., Singh, Harbir, 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and
Meixell, Mary J., Patrice, Luoma, 2015. “Stakeholder pressure in sustainable supply
sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management. The
chain management: a systematic review” edited by P. Maria jesus saenz and D.
Academy of Management Review 23 (4), 660–679. Retrieved from. https://www.pro
12
Xenophon koufteros. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 45 (1/2), 69–89. https:// UNEP, 2022a. 2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: towards a Zero-
doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0155. Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. United Nations
Micheli, Guido J.L., Cagno, Enrico, Mustillo, Gianluca, Trianni, Andrea, 2020. Green Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/41133.
supply chain management drivers, practices and performance: a comprehensive UNEP, 2022b. Executive Summary — Emissions Gap Report 2022: the Closing Window
study on the moderators. J. Clean. Prod. 259, 121024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. — Climate Crisis Calls for Rapid Transformation of Societies. United Nations
jclepro.2020.121024. Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/40932.
Mojumder, Abhishek, Singh, Amol, 2021. An exploratory study of the adaptation of US EPA, 2023. Greenhouse gas inventory data explorer. Retrieved. https://cfpub.epa.
green supply chain management in construction industry: the case of Indian gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/. (Accessed 16 March 2023).
construction companies. J. Clean. Prod. 295, 126400 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Vanalle, Rosangela Maria, Ganga, Gilberto Miller Devós, Godinho Filho, Moacir,
jclepro.2021.126400. Lucato, Wagner Cezar, 2017. Green supply chain management: an investigation of
Ng, S. Thomas, Wong, James M.W., Skitmore, Steven, Veronika, Alin, 2012. Carbon pressures, practices, and performance within the Brazilian automotive supply chain.
dioxide reduction in the building life cycle: a critical review. Proceedings of the J. Clean. Prod. 151, 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.066.
Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability 165 (4), 281–292. https:// Walker, Helen, Di Sisto, Lucio, McBain, Darian, 2008. Drivers and barriers to
doi.org/10.1680/ensu.11.00005. environmental supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and
Nitzl, Christian, Roldan, Jose L., Gabriel, Cepeda, 2016. Mediation analysis in partial private sectors. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 14 (1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
least squares path modeling: helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. pursup.2008.01.007.
Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116 (9), 1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07- Walton, Steve V., Handfield, Robert B., Melnyk, Steven A., 1998. The green supply chain:
2015-0302. integrating suppliers into environmental management processes. Int. J. Purch.
Osmani, M., Glass, J., Price, A.D.F., 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste Mater. Manag. 34 (2), 2–11. Retrieved from. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
reduction by design. Waste Manag. 28 (7), 1147–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. journals/green-supply-chain-integrating-suppliers-into/docview/235216594/se-2.
wasman.2007.05.011. Wang, Zhiqiang, Wang, Qiang, Zhang, Shanshan, Zhao, Xiande, 2018. Effects of customer
Pan, Wei, Pan, Mi, 2021. Drivers, barriers and strategies for zero carbon buildings in and cost drivers on green supply chain management practices and environmental
high-rise high-density cities. Energy Build. 242, 110970 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. performance. J. Clean. Prod. 189, 673–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2021.110970. jclepro.2018.04.071.
Pérez-Lombard, Luis, Ortiz, José, Pout, Christine, 2008. A review on buildings energy Wibowo, Mochamad Agung, Naniek, Utami Handayani, Mustikasari, Anita, 2018.
consumption information. Energy Build. 40 (3), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Factors for implementing green supply chain management in the construction
j.enbuild.2007.03.007. industry. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 11 (4), 651. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2637.
Radhi, Hassan, 2008. A systematic methodology for optimising the energy performance Wu, Guo-Ciang, Ding, Jyh-Hong, Chen, Ping-Shun, 2012. The effects of GSCM drivers
of buildings in Bahrain. Energy Build. 40 (7), 1297–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/ and institutional pressures on GSCM practices in taiwan’s textile and apparel
j.enbuild.2007.11.007. industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135 (2), 618–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Ruef, Martin, Richard Scott, W., 1998. A multidimensional model of organizational ijpe.2011.05.023.
legitimacy: hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Adm. Sci. Q. 43 Zhao, Changping, Sun, Juanjuan, Zhang, Yun, 2022. A study of the drivers of
(4), 877–904. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393619. decarbonization in the plastics supply chain in the post-COVID-19 era. Sustainability
Saidur, R., 2009. Energy consumption, energy savings, and emission analysis in 14 (23), 15858. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315858.
Malaysian office buildings. Energy Pol. 37 (10), 4104–4113. https://doi.org/ Zhu, Qinghua, Sarkis, Joseph, 2004. Relationships between operational practices and
10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.052. performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in
Sarkis, Joseph, 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manag. 22 (3), 265–289. https://doi.
management. J. Clean. Prod. 11 (4), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526 org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.01.005.
(02)00062-8. Zhu, Qinghua, Sarkis, Joseph, 2007. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on
Sarkis, Joseph, Zhu, Qinghua, Lai, Kee-hung, 2011. An organizational theoretic review of emergent green supply chain practices and performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45
green supply chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 130 (1), 1–15. https:// (18–19), 4333–4355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701440345.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.11.010. Zhu, Qinghua, Sarkis, Joseph, Geng, Yong, 2005. Green supply chain management in
Sarstedt, Marko, Ringle, Christian M., Smith, Donna, Russell, Reams, Hair, Joseph F., China: pressures, practices and performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25 (5),
2014. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570510593148.
family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy 5 (1), 105–115. Zhu, Qinghua, Sarkis, Joseph, Lai, Kee-hung, 2007a. Green supply chain management:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002. pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry.
Sarstedt, Marko, Hair, Joseph F., Ringle, Christian M., 2022. ‘PLS-SEM: indeed a silver J. Clean. Prod. 15 (11), 1041–1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.021.
bullet’ – retrospective observations and recent advances. J. Market. Theor. Pract. Zhu, Qinghua, Sarkis, Joseph, Lai, Kee-hung, 2007b. Initiatives and outcomes of green
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2022.2056488, 0(0). supply chain management implementation by Chinese manufacturers. J. Environ.
Shi, Qian, Zuo, Jian, Huang, Rui, Huang, Jing, Stephen, Pullen, 2013. Identifying the Manag. 85 (1), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.09.003.
critical factors for green construction – an empirical study in China. Habitat Int. 40, Zhu, Qinghua, Sarkis, Joseph, Cordeiro, James J., Lai, Kee-Hung, 2008a. Firm-level
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.01.003. correlates of emergent green supply chain management practices in the Chinese
Shohan, S., Ali, S.M., Kabir, G., Ahmed, S.K.K., Suhi, S.A., Haque, T., 2019. Green supply context. Omega 36 (4), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2006.11.009.
chain management in the chemical industry: structural framework of drivers. Int. J. Zhu, Qinghua, Sarkis, Joseph, Lai, Kee-hung, 2008b. Confirmation of a measurement
Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 26 (8), 752–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/ model for green supply chain management practices implementation. Int. J. Prod.
13504509.2019.1674406. Econ. 111 (2), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.029.
Shukla, Anuja, Sharma, Shiv Kumar, 2018. Evaluating consumers’ adoption of mobile Zhu, Qinghua, Sarkis, Joseph, Lai, Kee-hung, 2011. An institutional theoretic
technology for grocery shopping: an application of technology acceptance model. investigation on the links between internationalization of Chinese manufacturers
Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective 22 (2), 185–198. https://doi.org/ and their environmental supply chain management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (6),
10.1177/0972262918766136. 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.003.
Sobotka, Anna, Czaja, Joanna, 2015. Analysis of the factors stimulating and conditioning Zhu, Qinghua, Sarkis, Joseph, Lai, Kee-hung, 2012. Examining the effects of green supply
application of reverse logistics in construction. Procedia Eng. 122, 11–18. https:// chain management practices and their mediations on performance improvements.
doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.002. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (5), 1377–1394. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Somsuk, Nisakorn, Laosirihongthong, Tritos, 2017. Prioritization of applicable drivers 00207543.2011.571937.
for green supply chain management implementation toward sustainability in Zhu, Qinghua, Sarkis, Joseph, Lai, Kee-hung, 2013. Institutional-based antecedents and
Thailand. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 24 (2), 175–191. https://doi.org/ performance outcomes of internal and external green supply chain management
10.1080/13504509.2016.1187210. practices. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 19 (2), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Susanty, Aries, Sari, Diana Puspita, Rinawati, Dyah Ika, Setiawan, Lutfi, 2019. The role of pursup.2012.12.001.
internal and external drivers for successful implementation of GSCM practices. Zhu, Qinghua, Qu, Ying, Geng, Yong, Fujita, Tsuyoshi, 2017. A comparison of regulatory
J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 30 (2), 391–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-07- awareness and green supply chain management practices among Chinese and
2018-0217. Japanese manufacturers. Bus. Strat. Environ. 26 (1), 18–30. https://doi.org/
Udawatta, Nilupa, Zuo, Jian, Chiveralls, Keri, George, Zillante, 2015. Improving waste 10.1002/bse.1888.
management in construction projects: an Australian study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Zou, Patrick X.W., Paul, Couani, 2012. Managing risks in green building supply chain.
101, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.003. Architect. Eng. Des. Manag. 8 (2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/
UNEP, 2010. Assessing The Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority 17452007.2012.659507.
Products and Materials. United Nations Environment Programme. A Report of the Zsidisin, G.A., Melnyk, S.A., Ragatz, G.L., 2005. An institutional theory perspective of
Working Group on the Environmental Impacts of Products and Materials to the business continuity planning for purchasing and supply management. Int. J. Prod.
International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management. Res. 43 (16), 3401–3420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540500095613.
13

1 s2.0 S0959652623036557 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0959652623036557 Main

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

1 s2.0 S0959652623036557 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production 428 (2023) 139497

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Drivers of low-carbon practices in green supply chain management in

1. Introduction crucial to achieving the goals of carbon neutrality.

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of the study.

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Employer organization Government 16 11.59% 11.59%

analyzed to test the hypotheses by SmartPLS 3.2.9. PLS-SEM combines

ER1 0.867 0.510 0.490 0.381 0.292 0.313 0.415 0.356

ER 5.2. Structural model evaluation

Total Percentage Cumulative percentage Total Percentage Cumulative percentage

1 13.767 36.23% 36.23% 13.767 36.23% 36.23%

Fig. 2. Testing results of the theoretical model

Declaration of competing interest quest.com/scholarly-journals/relational-view-cooperative-strategy-sources/doc

You might also like