Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Exploring the influence of institutional pressures and production

capability on the environmental practices - Environmental
performance relationship in advanced and developing economies
Teresa K. Betts*, Janice Francis Super, Jeremy North
Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business, Murray State University, Murray, KY, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates the influence of advanced and developing economies on the adoption of envi-
Available online 26 March 2018 ronmental practices and the influence of those environmental practices on environmental performance.
Furthermore, production capability is investigated as a conditional effect on the relationship between
Keywords: environmental practices and environmental performance. Specifically, using a sample of approximately
Sustainability 450 globally located manufacturing plants, the Resource Based View (RBV), Practice Based View (PBV)
Resource-based view (RBV)
and Institutional theory were utilized to develop and test a set of hypotheses surrounding how economy
Practice-based view (PBV)
influences the neoteric engagement of environmental practices. Data envelopment analysis was utilized
Institutional theory
Data envelopment analysis (DEA)
to assign production capability scores to these manufacturing plants and then conditional process
Environmental performance modeling was used to assess the relationships among type of economy, level of production capability,
adoption of environmental practices and environmental performance. The study finds that there is a
stronger positive relationship between developing economies and the neoteric adoption of environ-
mental practices as compared to advanced economies. Results also show higher degrees of production
capability had a mixed effect on the relationship between environmental practices and environmental
performance. The results draw attention to how PBV and RBV may work together to inform how practices
affect performance and how production capability reacts uniquely with environmental practices with
different strategic foci. This study is one of the first to address the interplay between type of economy
and engagement in environmental practices.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in
environmental regulation and organized reporting processes
through such organizations as the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI), United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, and other organiza-
tions which cross country and regional boundaries in an effort to
see improved environmental performance globally (Diaz-Carrion
et al., 2017; Sethi et al., 2017). In spite of these increases in
environmental regulation and reporting pressures, improvement
in environmental performance is still needed; e.g. indications are
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tbetts1@murraystate.edu (T.K. Betts).
that between the years 2012e2040 energy use worldwide is ex-
pected to increase by 48% (International Energy Outlook 2016
With Projections to 2040, 2016). In order to achieve improve-
ments in global environmental measures, policy makers have
expectations of organizations operating in an advanced economy
to support and aid those organizations operating in a developing
economy (United Nations, 2015). Previous literature has exam-
ined how environmental practices affect environmental perfor-
mance at the country and/or the regional level (e.g., Durach and
Wiengarten, 2017; Sarkis et al., 2010; Schoenherr and Talluri,
2013; Szolnoki, 2013; Wiengarten et al., 2013); however, few
empirical studies look specifically at the environmental practices
and environmental performance relationship within the context
of type of economy (Zhu et al., 2008). Since policy makers have
been using type of economy as a criteria for placing expectations
on organizations in advanced economies to support organizations
in developing economies, it would seem important to understand

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.186
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T.K. Betts et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093
how manufacturing plants in different economies are responding
to these pressures. Because of the variety of organizations
attempting to exert influence, operations managers find them-
selves subjected to pressures to implement environmental prac-
tices to meet reporting requirements. Rogers et al. (2007) suggest
institutional theory provides explanatory power when examining
situations where operations managers find themselves subject to
pressures to operate efficiently and conflicting pressures to
demonstrate symbolically that various institutional demands are
satisfied. However, choosing to engage with environmental
practices is not a guarantee that performance will follow. As such,
it is important to understand whether environmental practices
with different strategic foci effectively influence environmental
performance.
In order to explain how practices affect performance, previous
literature in operations has utilized the resource based view
(RBV) (Fung, 2008; Schoenherr and Swink, 2012) or the practice
based view (PBV) (Bloom et al., 2007; Bloom et al., 2013). The RBV
is founded on the premise that organizations derive a sustained
competitive advantage through the use of valuable, rare, inimi-
table and non-substitutable (VRIN) resources (Barney, 1991).
While the RBV addresses resources that meet the VRIN criteria,
the PBV of strategy addresses how the use of publicly known,
common practices may have a significant impact on performance.
The PBV differs from the RBV in that the “practices are imitable
and amenable to transfer across firms, as opposed to VRIN re-
sources in the RBV” (Carter et al., 2017). While understanding
how manufacturing plants engagement with environmental
practices affects their environmental performance is important, it
is probable that these relations may be influenced by other
factors.
This research is focused on addressing the following questions:
(1) How do institutional pressures experienced by manufacturing
plants in different types of economies affect the adoption of envi-
ronmental practices? (2) Does the adoption of environmental
practices fully mediate the effect institutional pressures experi-
enced through type of economy have on environmental perfor-
mance? (3) Do existing resources which generate production
capability in other operational areas efficaciously influence envi-
ronmental practices on environmental performance? The present
study empirically investigates the research questions above by
utilizing survey data from a range of countries in Asia, Australia,
Europe, and North America.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
This section presents each hypothesis while reviewing the
relevant literature beginning with the effect of institutional pres-
sures on the adoption of environmental practices followed by an
overview of how environmental practices influence environmental
performance.
2.1. Environmental practices in advanced and developing
economies
Institutional theory states that managers will implement
practices when doing so enhances the organization's legitimacy
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). According to Ketokivi and
Schroeder (2004), there are two main variants of institutional
theory, the economic variant and the sociological variant. In the
economic variant, mimickers of practices are primarily motivated
because they are seeking efficiency, while in the sociological
argument, mimickers are primarily seeking legitimacy (Kauppi,
1083
2013). However, these two perspectives are not strictly sepa-
rable, as all economic mimicry in the economic variant often
takes place through inter-organizational and interpersonal social
networks (Galaskiewicz and Wasserman, 1989; Westphal et al.,
1997). Both perspectives, economic and sociological views of
mimicry, make the assumption that mimickers seek benefits;
however, the means through which these benefits are sought are
categorically different (Ketokivi and Schroeder, 2004). From an
economic view of institutional theory, manufacturing plants will
adopt environmental practices that other manufacturing plants
have implemented, attempting to become more efficient. From a
sociological view of institutional theory, manufacturing plants
will adopt environmental practices in order to affect environ-
mental performance in their efforts to demonstrate their
legitimacy.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identified three types of
isomorphic change for institutions striving for legitimacy:
normative, mimetic, and coercive. Normative isomorphism refers
to organizations modeling themselves after other organizations
because of the growth and elaboration of professional networks.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) indicate universities and profes-
sional training institutes as well as professional organizations are
examples of sources of normative isomorphism. Mimetic
isomorphism refers to organizations modeling themselves after
other organizations because of prevailing uncertainty about
technologies, goals, or the environment. In an uncertain business
climate, managers tend to view practices as legitimate if they are
considered “best practices” in their field (Matten and Moon,
2008). Coercive isomorphism is due to both formal and
informal pressures exerted on an organization by societal ex-
pectations and by other organizations on which they are depen-
dent. As an example, the Taiwan Stock Exchange has instituted a
policy whereby companies which meet specific criteria are now
required to prepare a corporate sustainability report (CSR) for the
preceding year. These companies are required to use the Global
Reporting Initiative's (GRI) most recent published guidelines
(Singer, 2016). Research by KPMG (2016) shows sustainability
reporting instruments in this region have increased by 75 percent
since 2013. Governments within this region now account for a
smaller share of reporting instruments than stock exchanges,
financial regulations, or industry regulations (KPMG, 2016). As
other organizations (e.g. Taiwan Stock Exchange) continue to in-
crease reporting requirements, globalization continues to cross
country borders. This growth promotes institutionalism as
manufacturing plants adopt similar environmental practices and
reporting methods to prove their legitimacy. As an example, the
Paris Climate Accord (United Nations, 2015) references advanced
and developing economic countries and explicitly identifies the
need for advanced economic countries to support and aid
developing economic countries as related to creating and imple-
menting their nationally determined contributions to the Paris
Climate Accord. This separation of countries into advanced and
developing economies implies that there are expected funda-
mental differences in resources and levels of practice, as related
to the type of economy, environmental practices and environ-
mental performance. According to Nielsen (2013) when discus-
sing the International Monetary Fund classification of countries
by type of economy, “countries classified as advanced have rela-
tively high income levels … well-developed financial markets and
high degrees of financial intermediation, and diversified eco-
nomic structures with rapidly growing service sectors.”
Manufacturing plants in advanced and developing economies are
experiencing coercive institutional pressures from a multitude of
sources as noted in the introduction. In response to these global
pressures, manufacturing plants in developing economies are
1084 T.K. Betts et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093
more likely to be taking neoteric actions and adopting environ-
mental practices in an effort to improve their environmental
performance to obtain higher levels of legitimacy. Therefore, we
propose the following hypothesis.
H1. Manufacturing plants in developing economies will have
higher levels of neoteric engagement of environmental practices (a.
internal monitoring, b. supplier monitoring, and c. environmental
management systems) than manufacturing plants in advanced
economies.
2.2. Mediating role of environmental practices in operationalizing
environmental legitimacy
Institutional theory will address why manufacturing plants
adopt environmental practices; however, it does not specifically
address how those practices will affect environmental perfor-
mance. Operations research has many studies which analyze the
effect of practices, such as total quality management practices (e.g.,
Sila, 2007; Yeung, Cheng, & Kee-hung, 2006), just-in-time princi-
ples, Kanban, lot size reduction, employee involvement, statistical
process control (Bromiley and Rau, 2016) and environmental
practices (e.g., Pereira-Moliner et al., 2012; Sarkis et al., 2010;
Wiengarten et al., 2012) on performance. In previous research,
practices influence on performance have been studied through
both the resource-based view (RBV) and the practice-based view
(PBV).
Bromiley and Rau (2016) indicate that the dependent variable in
the PBV can be firm level performance, plant level performance, or
some degree of operational performance. The dependent variable
in RBV was originally identified as sustained competitive advan-
tage, however, researchers have raised concerns with how well
sustained competitive advantage has been defined and measured
(Bromiley and Rau, 2016). Hitt et al. (2016) have suggested that the
original RBV focused on a more macro level outcome. However, as
the theory has developed researchers have suggested its dependent
variable become more focused on micro level (Foss, 2011) or mid-
level outcomes (Sirmon et al., 2011) such as innovation and
short-term firm performance. In the context of this research, PBV
would predict that plants engaging in higher levels of easily
imitable environmental practices will experience higher rates of
improvement in plant environmental performance. RBV would
predict that plants engaging in higher levels of VRIN environmental
practices will experience higher rates of improvement in plant
environmental performance. Given the institutional pressures
outlined earlier, we argue that environmental practices are the
causal mechanism through which environmental performance
gains are realized and achieved. Therefore, we propose the
following hypothesis.
H2. Neoteric engagement in environmental practices (a. internal
monitoring, b. supplier monitoring, and c. environmental management
systems) mediate the relationship between type of economy (i.
advanced and ii. developing) and neoteric improvement in envi-
ronmental performance.
2.3. Production capability and its moderating role on the
relationship between environmental practices and environmental
performance
The RBV indicates that firms differentiate themselves by
deploying their resources in unique ways which cannot be easily
replicated (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). Holding these re-
sources is a necessary, but not sufficient, means for firms to
achieve a competitive advantage, and firms must manage those
resources effectively (Sirmon and Hitt, 2003; Sirmon et al., 2007).
The generation and management of these resources is often built
upon relation-specific organizational routines (Holweg and Pil,
2008), and tacit-knowledge intensive processes (Rosenzweig
et al., 2003).
According to Hitt et al. (2016), RBV focuses on “the effective and
efficient use of resources internally and cooperatively to help a firm
outperform its rivals.” Much of the previous research on
manufacturing plants has focused on attempting to identify
competitive capabilities, which when bundled together create a
competitive advantage (Grobler and Grubner, 2006; Rosenzweig
and Roth, 2007; Singh et al., 2015). The focus of this research is
on identifying those plants which demonstrate a higher degree of
production capability, an ability to bundle resources efficiently and
effectively to transform inputs into outputs, rather than the specific
capabilities which have been bundled together. In this study, a
manufacturing plant with a high degree of production capability
implies that these plants have causally ambiguous skills which they
deploy in unique ways for a competitive advantage and these skills
should transfer to the ability to implement and execute environ-
mental practices.
Previous research has classified environmental practices into
groupings which range from primarily operational to a combina-
tion of tactical and strategic focus (Betts, 2012; Sroufe et al., 2002).
These three level of foci can be distinguished as follows: opera-
tional e primarily shop-floor involvement and generally with daily
involvement; tactical e primarily middle management involve-
ment and generally with medium-term deployment of resources;
and strategic e top-management involvement and generally with
long-term deployment of resources and impact on the firm. This
research examines three sets of environmental practices which
range from operational to strategic in nature. Internal monitoring
incorporates environmental practices that manufacturing plants
engage in within their own facility at the shop-floor level and based
on the framework identified by Sroufe et al. (2002) would be
considered primarily operational. Supplier monitoring incorporates
environmental practices that manufacturing plants engage in
where middle management and top management provide envi-
ronmental requirements to suppliers and monitor suppliers’ envi-
ronmental performance. Based on the framework above, these
practices would be considered a mixture of tactical and strategic
focus. Underlying the operational, tactical, or strategic level focus
for the environmental practices, we can infer that there are difficult
to measure sets of resources and capabilities that support the
implementation of these environmental practices. Plants with a
preexisting foundation of resources and capabilities utilized to
achieve higher levels of production capability should find it easier
to execute these environmental practices utilizing their existing
resources and capabilities. Therefore, we propose the following
hypothesis.
H3. Production capability will moderate the relationship between
neoteric engagement in environmental practices (a. internal
monitoring, b. supplier monitoring, and c. environmental management
systems) and neoteric improvement in environmental performance
such that the effect of the environmental practices will be more
efficacious on environmental performance for plants with higher
levels of production capability.
The hypothesized model is depicted in Fig. 1.
 T.K. Betts et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093
Internal Monitoring
(Ma)
Supplier
Monitoring
(Mb)
Env. Mgt.
Systems
(Mc)
Fig. 1. Proposed hypothesized model (developing and advanced economies).
3. Research methods
3.1. Data collection and sample
Data were collected with a survey designed by the Global
Manufacturing Research Group (GMRG). GMRG has collected five
rounds of survey data from manufacturing plants beginning in the
early 1980s with the fifth and most recent round distributed in
2014. The GMRG is an association of multinational researchers in
operations management whose goal is to study international
manufacturing practices (Wacker and Sheu, 2006). The GMRG
utilized standardized survey instruments to develop the survey.
The survey was translated and back-translated for all countries to
ensure equivalency, validity, and reliability of the survey questions.
The effort was centrally coordinated, but the collection was orga-
nized by GMRG country representatives. Subsequently, the
consolidated database consisting of all country level data was
distributed throughout the GMRG community. Missing data were
less than one percent of the total and were replaced using summed
averages. The global coverage of this data offers an opportunity to
access a number of manufacturing plants in a variety of industries
within the context of advanced and developing economies. The
manufacturing plant was the level of analysis. In most cases, the
plant manager was the survey respondent which was appropriate
as the plant manager is likely to be the most knowledgeable person
regarding the survey questions under review. The plant manager is
likely to be the most knowledgeable person to provide the type of
requested information. Data were collected electronically, through
email, through online survey and in some cases, respondents were
also contacted via telephone or mail. Additionally, some face-to-
face interviews were conducted to complete the questionnaire.
1085
Production Capability
Score - DEA
(V)
Improved Plant
Environmental
Performance
(Y)
The International Monetary Fund's (IMF) classification of
“advanced” and “emerging and developing” economies was uti-
lized to determine the initial economic classification. The IMF
economic classification of each of the countries in the sample was
then compared to the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI)
classification. The IMF classification of countries in “emerging” and
“frontier” markets was consistent with the MSCI classification for
“emerging and developing” economies and the IMF classification of
“advanced” was consistent with the MSCI classification for
“developed” markets. Based on this consistency across two sources,
the countries were classified into advanced and developing econ-
omies as shown in Table 1 below.
3.2. Measures
Three multi-item environmental practice measures and one
multi-item measure for environmental performance were selected
as the topic for investigation. Specifically, internal monitoring,
supplier monitoring, environmental management systems practices
and environmental performance were considered. The scales were
adapted from items developed in Vachon and Klassen (2006) each
measured by participant responses on a seven-point Likert scale,
where 1 meant ‘not at all’ and 7 meant ‘to a great extent’. See Table 2
for a reproduction of the relevant questionnaire sections.
It is common in the fields of operations research/management
to utilize the nonparametric technique of DEA to estimate pro-
duction frontiers for the purpose of identifying an efficient subset
of decision making units (DMUs) (Charnes et al., 1978; Xie et al.,
2016; Zhu, 2014). Our methodology must be units invariant and
non-oriented, so an appropriate DEA model to use in this study is
the Slacks-Based Measure (SBM) model (Tone, 2001, 2011). The
1086 T.K. Betts et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093

Table 1
Sample overview.

Economy by country

Advanced n Developing n

Australia 36 China 63
Ireland 17 Croatia 67
Korea 42 Hungary 20
Unites States 78 India 50
Vietnam 33
Poland 42

Total 173 275

Industry product descriptions USSIC ISIC Developing Advanced Total

Food and kindred products 20 15 24 40 64

Tobacco products 21 16 0 0 0
Textile mill products 22 17 14 1 15
Apparel and other finished products 23 18 17 4 21
Leather and leather products 31 19 4 0 4
Lumber and wood products 24 20 8 5 13
Paper and allied products 26 21 11 2 13
Printing, publishing, and allied industries 27 22 5 1 6
Petroleum refining and related industries 29 23 0 0 0
Chemicals and allied products 28 24 12 13 25
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics 30 25 18 11 29
Primary metal industries 33 26 7 7 14
Fabricated metal products 34 27 25 20 45
Industrial and commercial machinery 35 28 17 11 28
Electronic and other electrical components 36 29 37 14 51
Measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments 38 30 7 4 11
Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers, and semis 37 31 13 6 19
Manufacture of other transport equipment None 32 13 2 15
Furniture and fixtures 25 33 10 1 11
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products 32 None 12 1 13
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 39 None 16 20 36
Unreported None None 5 10 15
Totals 275 173 448

formulation for the SBM model is given by (1) below. new manufacturing equipment over the last two years, e) the level
of technical expertise, and f) the degree of structural investment.
1 Xm 
Si These inputs and outputs were utilized within DEA to calculate an
ro ¼ minimize t  efficiency score which ranges from 0 to 1 with 0 representing those
m i¼1 xio
plants which are least effective in utilizing their resources and 1
representing plants which utilize their resources most efficiently in
s.t.
comparison to other plants within the study.
All descriptive statistics and correlations were analyzed using
1X s
Sþ
r
1¼tþ SAS 9.2. To impute the missing data (0.14%), we used proc mi from
s r¼1 yro
SAS 9.2, specifying data-based expectation-maximization (EM) and
X
n the Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms. Descriptive
txio ¼ lj xij þ S
i ci ¼ 1; …; m statistics, average variance extracted, and correlations are shown in
j¼1 Table 3.
X
n
tyro ¼ lj yrj  Sþ
r cr ¼ 1; …; s 3.3. Construct validation
j¼1

X
n Through the process of an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
lj ¼ 1 utilizing Maximum Likelihood estimation, Varimax Rotation with
j¼1 Kaizer Normalization the item with the lowest communality and
the worst cross-loadings from the Rotated Component Matrix was
lj  0 cj; S ci; Sþ eliminated and then the orthogonal factor analysis was respecified
i 0 r 0 cr (1)
until there were no communalities <0.49, no primary path loadings
In (1), S þ
i and Sr are the input slack and output surplus variables <0.40, and no cross-loadings > 0.4 (Hair et al., 2006) with one
respectively, and lj are weight variables. All DEA models are coded exception. This cycle occurred 1 time resulting in one item S01d
in the Julia language (Lubin and Dunning, 2015) and solved using being removed due to low path loadings (0.385). Item S01c (We
Gurobi 6.5.2. actively monitor waste re-usage at our facilities) cross loaded
Using extant production theory as a foundation (Schoenherr and (0.418) onto the environmental performance factor. It was deter-
Talluri, 2013), the following variables were used as inputs: a) total mined to maintain this item in the measure for internal monitoring
plant employees, b) number of production workers, c) number of as it made conceptual sense and did not cross-load significantly on
engineers, d) the percent of annual sales that had been invested in either of the other independent variables (Table 4). The model
 T.K. Betts et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093 1087

Table 2
Questionnaire items.

Items for summed measures: unless otherwise noted, all items are on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all” (value ¼ 1) to “to a great extent” (value ¼ 7).
Internal Monitoring e S01 ** (#4 - dropped due to low factor loading) During the past two years, to what extent did you engage in the following activities?
a We actively monitored energy usage in our facilities
b We actively monitored water usage in our facilities
c We actively monitored waste re-usage at our facilities
d We actively monitored carbon usage at our facilities **
Supplier Monitoring e S03** (#4 - dropped due to high error covariance correlation)
During the past two years, to what extent did you engage in the following activities?
a We provided major suppliers with written environmental requirements
b We sent environmental questionnaires to major suppliers in order to monitor their compliance.
c We monitored major suppliers' commitment to environmental improvement goals.
d We conducted environmental audits of major suppliers' operations.**
Environmental Management Systems e S05
Compared to the leaders in your industry in environmental management, to what extent did you engage in the following activities within your facility? Items are on a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from “far less” (value ¼ 1) to “to far more” (value ¼ 7).
a We systematically control the environmental impact of our products and processes.
b We implement a systematic approach to setting environmental targets.
c We implement a systematic approach to achieving environmental targets.
d We implement a systematic approach to demonstrating that environmental targets have been met.
Environmental Performance e S07
During the past two years, please indicate the extent to which your plant has performed from an environmental perspective?
a We have reduced energy use in our facilities.
b We have reduced water use in our facilities.
c We have reduced waste at our facilities.
d We have reduced emissions at our facilities.

explains over 80.33 percent of total variance through the extracted

Table 4
factors. Discriminant validity was further assessed on a variable Rotated Factor Matrix EFA and Cronbach's alpha.
level by using the Fornell-Larcker criterion (1981) as shown in
Factor
Table 3. Furthermore, variance inflation factors did not indicate
multicollinearity problems with the independent variables and 1 2 3 4
Cronbach's alpha were at acceptable levels ranging from 0.87 to Internal Monitoring a ¼ 0.87
0.96 (Hair et al., 2006) as shown in Table 4. S01a 0.111 0.276 0.347 0.726
Several ex-ante and ex-post tests were followed to reduce and S01b 0.145 0.243 0.297 0.879
S01c 0.253 0.242 0.418 0.496
assess the likelihood of common method variance (CMV). Con-
S01d - dropped due to low factor loading
structs within the survey were mixed with unrelated constructs Supplier Monitoring a ¼ 0.94
and no information regarding the hypothesized relationships or S03a 0.814 0.280 0.202 0.168
objective of the survey were given to respondents. As an analytic S03b 0.853 0.222 0.204 0.126
check for CMV, we ran a CFA that loaded all survey variables onto a S03c 0.853 0.255 0.186 0.107
S03d 0.814 0.217 0.211 0.099
single factor (Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995; Mossholder et al., Environmental Mgmt Sys a ¼ 0.96
1998). The fit of this model is poor (c2 [77, n ¼ 448] ¼ 2420, S05a 0.291 0.752 0.293 0.204
p < 0.001; RMSEA ¼ 0.261, CFI ¼ 0.637, SRMR ¼ 0.133, TLI ¼ 0.572), S05b 0.295 0.839 0.238 0.233
suggesting that common method bias is not a substantial threat to S05c 0.278 0.854 0.260 0.228
S05d 0.295 0.821 0.286 0.224
this analysis.
Environmental Performance a ¼ 0.93
S07a 0.182 0.233 0.791 0.278
S07b 0.247 0.243 0.738 0.345
3.4. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis S07c 0.173 0.271 0.794 0.227
S07d 0.308 0.253 0.728 0.188
To ensure multi-group equivalency across the advanced and Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood.
developing economy respondents, a set of hierarchical, nested Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) models were built and tested a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Means, standard deviations and average variance extracted (AVE)a.

Means Std. Dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Economyb .39 .48 -

2. Production Capability .43 .33 .15** -
3. Internal Monitoring 4.99 1.42 -0.38** -0.30** (.72)
4. Supplier Monitoring 3.74 1.73 -0.34** -0.34** .44** (.81)
5. Environmental Management 4.71 1.44 -0.31** -0.31** .60** .59** (.87)
6. Improved Environmental Perf 4.68 1.40 -0.37** -0.31** .68** .52** -62** (.76)

n ¼ 448.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed);
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Note: The tabled values are raw means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations generated using SAS 9.2.
a
Where applicable, the average variance extracted (AVE) is listed on the diagonal.
b
Coded variable: 0 ¼ Developing Economy, 1 ¼ Advanced Economy.
1088 T.K. Betts et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093

Table 5
Fit indices for the nested sequence multi-group confirmatory factor analyses.

Models c2 df CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI)

Advanced Economies 167.102 71 0.962 0.951 0.088 (0.071 0.106)

Developing Economies 172.798 71 0.971 0.962 0.072 (0.059 0.086)
Configural invariance (Equal Form) 339.9 142 0.967 0.958 0.079 (0.068 0.090)
Metric Invariance (Equal Factor Loadings) 375.406 156 0.963 0.957 0.079 (0.069 0.090)
Scalar Invariance (Equal Indicator Intercepts)a 477.717 170 0.949 0.945 0.090 (0.080 0.099)
Equal Factor Variance 447.914 166 0.953 0.948 0.087 (0.077 0.097)
Equal Latent Meansb 370.011 162 0.965 0.961 0.076 (0.066 0.086)
Equal Latent Covariances 389.323 162 0.962 0.957 0.079 (0.069 0.089)
Equality of Latent Correlations 377.131 158 0.963 0.958 0.079 (0.069 0.089)

Nested models were evaluated using the RMSEA Model Test and the Practical Significance Test (DCFI > 0.01).
a
RMSEA does not fall within 90% confidence interval of prior model; DCFI ¼ 0.014.
b
RMSEA does not fall within 90% confidence interval of prior model; DCFI ¼ 0.012.

(Byrne, 2013; Little, 2013). All analyses were conducted using
Mplus Version 8 (Muthe n & Muthe n, 1998e2017). First, to establish
baseline models and to ensure optimal model fit, a CFA was con-
ducted for each group. Inspection of the modification indices (MI)
indicated that the error covariances for items three and four (S03c)
and (S03d) from the Supplier monitoring were highly correlated.
Although allowing these error covariances to freely estimate would
have resulted in improved model fit, it might also have resulted in
model over-fit (Landis et al., 2009). Therefore, it was decided to
drop item four (S03d) from the measurement model.
As shown in Table 5, after establishing each baseline model,
RMSEA and CFI model fit guidelines indicated that the measure-
ment models were invariant between the two economies for the
configural and equal factor loadings models (Byrne, 2013; Cheung
and Rensvold, 2002; Little, 1997). However, inspection of the
RMSEA and CFI fit indices indicated a difference in indicator in-
tercepts between the two economies. Since our hypothesized
model looks at differences in the level of adoption of management
practices and rates of improvement in environmental performance
by type of economy, variance in indicator intercepts is to be
expected.
The final step in the testing strategy was to evaluate latent
structure invariance (Little, 1997, 2013). Together, the CFI/TLI and
RMSEA indicate a “close” to “mediocre” fit as shown in Table 4 (Hu
and Bentler, 1999). Because the primary goal of this multi-group
confirmatory factor analysis was to examine measurement invari-
ance between developing and advanced economies, these results
are satisfactory and provide rationale for proceeding to the next
phase; collapsing the data and conducting an ordinary least squares
multi-regression analysis.
4. Analysis and results
Because our hypothesized model is based on moderated,
mediated pathways, we used a regression-based path analysis
known as conditional process modeling to assess the relationships
between the variables (Hayes, 2013). Using economy as our focal
predictor and controlling for industry, the first three steps in our
model estimate mean differences between levels of adoption of the
mediating variables: internal monitoring, supplier monitoring, and
environmental practices. In the fourth step, again using economy
(0 ¼ Developing; 1 ¼ Advanced) as the focal predictor and con-
trolling for industry, we estimate mean differences in levels of
improvement in environmental performance. In step five, we enter
in all three of the mediating variables to assess their direct effect on
improvements in environmental performance. To account for is-
sues surrounding multicollinearity and help with ease of inter-
pretation, we mean centered all three mediating variables, as well
as the moderating variable (West et al., 1996). In step six, we
introduce the interaction terms. After each step, we assess model fit
using F-values and R2. Results from steps 1 through 6 are shown in
Table 6.
As shown in step 1, overall model fit results were acceptable at
(F (20,427) ¼ 5.35, p < 0.01) with 20% of the variance in internal
monitoring explained. Economy was a significant predictor, with
(B ¼ 1.10, p < 0.01). In step 2, model fit results were also accept-
able at (F (20,427) ¼ 2.86, p < 0.01) with 12% of the variance in
supplier monitoring explained. Economy was a significant predic-
tor, with (B ¼ 0.77, p < 0.01). Industry 10 (Chemicals and allied
products) was a significant predictor with (B ¼ 1.28, p < 0.05). In
addition, Industry 15 (Electronic and other electrical components)
was significant, with (B ¼ 1.28, p < 0.02). Model fit results for step 3
also remained at acceptable levels with (F (20,427) ¼ 3.26, p < 0.01)
with 13% of the variance in environmental management explained.
Economy was a significant predictor, with (B ¼ 0.92, p < 0.01).
Because economy is a categorical variable, with developing econ-
omies coded with 0 and advanced economies coded with 1, and
because economy was a significant predictor with a negative co-
efficient in all three steps, hypothesis one is fully supported.
In steps 4 through 6, improved environmental performance is
regressed on the focal predictor, economy; the mediators: internal
monitoring, supplier monitoring, and environmental management
practices; as well the interaction terms. Model fit results from step
4 are acceptable, with (F (20,427) ¼ 4.39, p < 0.01) with 17% of the
variance explained. Economy is a significant predictor with
(B ¼ 1.05, p < 0.01). In step 5, the mediating variables are entered
as a single block. Model fit results remain acceptable with (F
(24,423) ¼ 24.04, p < 0.01) with 58% of the variance in improved
environmental performance explained. Model change statistics
indicate a significant improvement in fit between steps 4 and 5,
with DR2 ¼ 0.41, and (DF (4,423) ¼ 101.59, p < 0.01). Economy is a
significant predictor with (B ¼ 0.26, p < 0.05). Internal Monitoring
is a significant predictor with (B ¼ 0.43, p < 0.01). Supplier Moni-
toring is a significant predictor with (B ¼ 0.14, p < 0.01). Environ-
mental Management is also a significant predictor with (B ¼ 0.21,
p < 0.01)Fig. 1.
In step 6, the interaction terms were entered as a block. Model
fit results remain acceptable with (F (27,419) ¼ 21.97, p < 0.01) with
59% of the variance in improved environmental performance
explained. Model change statistics indicate a significant improve-
ment in fit between steps 5 and 6, with DR2 ¼ 0.01, and (DF
(3,420) ¼ 2.89, p < 0.05). The interaction term between supplier
monitoring and production capability was not significant predictor
of improved environmental performance with (B ¼ 0.15, p ¼ 0.17).
However, the interaction term between internal monitoring and
production capability was a significant predictor of improved
environmental performance with (B ¼ 0.29, p < 0.05). The interac-
tion term between environmental management practices and
Table 6
Multiple regression results with continuous predictors mean centered.

Environmental Performance Drivers Dependent Variable

Steps 1-3 Improved Environmental Performance
Environmental
Internal Monitoring Supplier Monitoring Management Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Variables (SE) (SE) (SE) (SE) (SE) (SE)
Intercept 0.32 0 -0.33 0 .41 0 5.27** 0** 5.10** 0** 5.15** 0**
Control Variables
Industry 1 .06(.37) .01 .41(.48) .08 -0.15(.39) -0.04 -0.35(.37) -0.09 -0.40(.27) -0.10 -.41(.27) -.10
Industry 3 .59(.48) .07 1.07(.61) .11 .23(.51) .03 -0.03(.48) .00 -0.50(.35) -0.06 -.46(.35) -0.06
Industry 4 .00(.44) .00 .53(.57) .07 -0.20(.47) -0.03 -0.53(.45) -.08 -0.58(.32) -0.09 -.59(.32) -0.09
Industry 5 -0.23(.74) -0.02 -0.91(.94) -0.05 -0.74(.78) -0.05 .11(.74) 0.01 .47(.53) .03 .42(.53) 0.03
Industry 6 -0.25(.49) -0.03 .10(.63) .01 -0.49(.52) -0.06 -0.40(.49) -0.05 -0.22(.36) -0.03 -.23(.36) -0.03
Industry 7 -0.40(.50) -0.05 .41(.63) .04 -0.20(.53) -0.02 -0.12(.50) -0.01 0.02(.36) .00 0.00(.36) 0.00
Industry 8 -0.07(.63) -0.01 .72(.81) .05 .33(.67) .03 .08(.63) .00 -0.08(.45) -0.01 -0.06(.45) 0.00
Industry 10 .74(.42) .12 1.28*(.54) .17* .54(.45) .09 .33(.43) .05 -0.32(.31) -0.05 -.31(.31) -0.05
Industry 11 .01(.41) .00 .42(.53) .06 .01(.44) .00 -0.14(.41) -0.03 -0.23(.30) -0.04 -.25(.30) -0.04
Industry 12 .00(.48) .00 .39(.62) .04 -0.24(.51) -0.03 -0.13(.48) -0.02 -0.16(.35) -0.02 -.18(.35) -0.02
Industry 13 -0.18(.39) -0.04 .29(.50) .05 -0.27(.41) -0.06 -0.54(.39) -0.12 -0.44(.28) -0.09 -.49(.28) -0.11
Industry 14 .39(.42) .07 .53(.53) .07 .06(.44) .01 -0.01(.42) .00 -0.29(.30) -0.05 -.26(.30) -0.04
Industry 15 .43(.38) .09 1.28**(.49) .24** .29(.41) .06 -0.02(.39) .00 -0.47(.28) -0.11 -.46(.28) -.10
Industry 16 .39(.52) .04 .48(.66) .04 .27(.55) .03 .37(.52) .04 .04(.38) .00 .00(.37) 0.00
Industry 17 -0.26(.45) -0.03 .91(.58) .11 -0.24(.48) -0.03 -.29(.45) -0.04 -0.28(.33) -0.04 -.32(.33) -0.05
Industry 18 .37(.48) .05 -0.08(.61) .00 -0.04(.51) -0.01 -0.14(.48) -0.02 -0.30(.35) -0.04 -.36(.35) -0.05
Industry 19 -.72(.52) -.08 .57(.67) .05 -0.28(.55) -0.03 -0.76(.52) -0.08 -0.47(.38) -0.05 -.51(.38) -0.06
Industry 20 .54(.50) .06 1.30*(.64) .13* -0.24(.53) -0.03 .12(.50) .01 -0.23(.36) -0.03 -.37(.37) -0.04
Industry 21 -0.07(.40) -0.01 .95(.51) .15 -0.24(.42) -0.05 -0.15(.40) -0.03 -0.21(.29) -0.04 -.24(.29) -0.05
Predictor
Economy -1.10** -0.77** -0.92** -1.05** -0.26* -0.286**
-.38** -0.22** -0.31** -0.37 -0.09* -0.10**
(0=dev;1=adv) (.14) (.17) (.14) (.14) (.11) .11

F(20, 427) 5.35** 2.86** 3.26** 4.39**

R2 .20 .12 .13 .17

Dep. Variable
Improved Environmental Performance
Step 4 Step 5 Step6
(SE) (SE)
Mediating
variables
Internal .43** .41**
.44** .42**
Monitoring (.04) (.04)
Supplier .14** .14**
.18** .17**
Monitoring (.03) (.03)
Environmental .21** .23**
.22** .23**
Management (.04) (.04)
Production -0.10 -0.06
-0.02 -0.01
Capability (.16) (.16)

Moderation terms

Intmont X .29*
Production .10*
Capability (.13)
Supmont X .15
Production .06
Capability (.11)
EnvMgt X -0.30*
Production -0.10*
Capability (.14)

F(24, 423) 24.04**

R2 .58
.41
101.59**

F(27,419) 21.97**
R2 .59
.01
2.89*
B ¼ unstandardized beta; b ¼ standardized beta; SE¼Standard Error.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
1090 T.K. Betts et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093

5.5

Improved Env Perf 5

Low plant eff

4.5
High plant eff

3.5

3
Low Internal Monitoring High Internal Monitoring

Fig. 2. Moderating effect of plant efficiency on relationship between internal monitoring practices and improvements in environmental performance.

production capability was also significant predictor of improved
environmental performance with (B ¼ 0.30, p < 0.05). Using
standard plotting techniques (Dawson, 2014; West et al., 1996),
significant interactions are depicted in Figs. 2 and 3.
After running the basic regression models, process modeling
was employed and bootstrapping techniques were utilized to
assess the conditional indirect paths (Edwards and Lambert, 2007).
The mediated pathway from economy to environmental perfor-
mance via supplier monitoring was significant with [(B ¼ 0.09,
p < 0.01); (CI ¼ 0.18, -0.041)]. The mediated pathway from econ-
omy to environmental performance via internal monitoring was
significant with [(B ¼ 0.44, p < 0.01); (CI ¼ 0.60, -0.30)]. The
mediated pathway from economy to environmental performance
via environmental management practices was significant with
[(B ¼ 0.18, p < 0.01); (CI ¼ 0.31, -0.09)]. Therefore, hypothesis
two is fully supported.
The final step of the analysis is to model the indirect effects
across levels of the moderator. Using one standard deviation above
and below the mean, we evaluate the conditional indirect effect of
production capability on all three mediating pathways. Consistent
with our findings from step 6, results indicate that the indirect
effect of economy on environmental performance via supplier
monitoring is not contingent on production capability, as the con-
fidence intervals at the lower levels of production capability cross
zero, [(B ¼ 0.11), (CI ¼ 0.3285, 0.0534)]. However, the indirect
effect of economy on environmental performance via internal
monitoring is contingent on production capability, as the confi-
dence intervals at all levels of plant efficiency do no cross zero,
[(B ¼ 0.32), (CI ¼ 0.6901, -0.0012)]. Also, the indirect effect of
economy on environmental performance via environment man-
agement systems practices is contingent on production capability,
as the confidence intervals at all levels of production capability do
not cross zero, [(B ¼ 0.28), (CI ¼ 0.0199, 0.6411)]. Consequently,
hypothesis three is only partially supported.

5.5
Improved Env Perf

Low plant eff

4.5
High plant eff

3.5

3
Low Environment Mgt High Environment Mgt

Fig. 3. Moderating effect of Plant efficiency on Relationship between Environmental Management Practices and Improvements in Environmental Performance.
 T.K. Betts et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093
5. Discussion
The purposes of this study are three fold. First, to assess how
type of economy (advanced and developing) influences the
neoteric engagement of environmental practices (internal moni-
toring, supplier monitoring, and environmental management sys-
tems). Second to assess the degree neoteric engagement in
environmental practices mediates the relationship between type of
economy and environmental performance improvement. The third
purpose of the study is to assess how production capability mod-
erates the relationship between internal monitoring, supplier
monitoring, and environmental management systems and envi-
ronmental performance. These questions are addressed at the plant
level using institutional theory, the resourced based view, and the
practice based view. Three research hypotheses were developed
with full support found for two of the hypotheses and partial
support found for the third hypothesis.
5.1. Theoretical implications
The findings of this research support the perspective that
manufacturing plants which reside in developing economies
experience institutional pressures which generate higher rates of
neoteric engagement in environmental practices (internal moni-
toring, supplier monitoring, and environmental management sys-
tems) as compared to manufacturing plants which reside in
advanced economies. These findings support the perspective that
manufacturing plants are not experiencing these pressures at only a
country level or geographic regional level, but may be effectively
grouped based upon the type of economy in which they reside. Zhu,
Crotty, and Sarkis (2008) indicate in their study of automotive
manufacturing companies, that those companies in the developing
economy were adopting more of the environmental practices on six
of eight practices under review. A significant difference with these
results when comparing to the results in this study is that Zhu et al.
(2008) only studied one country in each type of economy (China,
and UK). However, similar to Zhu et al. (2008), the significant dif-
ference of engagement in environmental practices in developing
economies as compared to advanced economies are not limited to
only one strategic level of focus but span operational, tactical and
strategic environmental practices.
Schoenherr and Talluri (2013, p. 356) propose that “plants more
involved in environmental sustainability initiatives benefit from
greater levels of efficiency.” This study proposes that plants with
higher levels of production capability, comparable to efficiency
from Schoenherr and Talluri's (2013) study, utilize their existing
production capability to implement environmental practices more
effectively. Both studies found that there was a higher correlation
among internal production environmental practices and plant
efficiency.
This study supports the theoretical perspective of PBV, which
indicates that environmental practices that are easy to imitate (e.g.
internal monitoring) will have a positive influence on environ-
mental performance. Furthermore, this study supports the theo-
retical perspective of RBV, which indicates that engagement in
environmental practices that are difficult to imitate (e.g. supplier
monitoring and environmental management systems) will have a
positive influence on environmental performance. The RBV theo-
retical perspective was used to hypothesize that a manufacturing
plant with a high degree of production capability (as compared to a
manufacturing plant with a low degree of production capability)
should be able to apply these skills to the implementation and
execution of environmental practices such that the effect of said
environmental practices will have a more efficacious impact on
environmental performance. However, this study finds that
1091
production capability as a conditional indirect effect has a mixed
influence on the relationship between environmental practices and
environmental performance. The effect of internal monitoring is
enhanced by above average levels of production capability. How-
ever, the effect of supplier monitoring on environmental perfor-
mance is not contingent on production capability. Furthermore, the
effect environmental management systems practices on environ-
mental performance is dampened or depressed by above average
levels of production capability. Based on our results, we would
propose, because environmental management systems practices
are more strategic in focus, plants with higher production capa-
bility are more focused on immediate operational results. There-
fore, the results from the strategic environmental practices either
do not materialize or would take longer to materialize than the
more operationally focused environmental practices such as in-
ternal monitoring. This research finds that operational, easily
imitable types of environmental practices (PBV) have the most
immediate effect on environmental performance. When combining
RBV and PBV environmental practices, it would be useful for future
research to incorporate operational and strategic measures of
performance simultaneously to further clarify the impact and role
these practices have on short term and long term measures of
success.
In conclusion, this paper makes three major contributions to
theory. Firstly, this paper confirms the tenets of institutional theory
when analyzing the adoption of environmental practices in
developing and advanced economies. Secondly, this paper high-
lights how the theoretical perspectives of RBV and PBV can work
together to inform how practices affect performance. Thirdly, these
results reinforce the need for time series research on the influence
production capability has on the long-term relationships among
different strategic levels of environmental practices on environ-
mental performance.
5.2. Managerial and policy implications
This research has various implications for managers and policy
makers. Managers need to be aware that, due to increasing pres-
sures, manufacturing plants in developing economies are engaging
in more environmental practices to obtain legitimacy. Thus, when
competing or deciding to compete in developing economies,
manufacturing managers need to have a clear environmental
strategy in order to respond to the pressures they are likely to
experience as related to engaging in environmental practices and
improving environmental performance. Results indicate that in this
sample, internal monitoring environmental practices have the
largest effect on improving environmental performance with
environmental management systems having the next largest effect
and supplier monitoring practices having the smallest effect of the
three types of environmental practices reviewed. Consistent with
our prediction, in regards to environmental performance, a
manufacturing plant with high levels of production capability is
more effective when implementing operational level practices such
as internal monitoring. However, a manufacturing plant with high
levels of production capability is actually less effective at imple-
menting strategic level environmental practices, such as environ-
mental management systems practices, than a manufacturing plant
with low levels of production capability.
The results of this research indicate that manufacturing com-
panies in developing economies are currently adopting more
environmental practices and indicating higher levels of improve-
ment in environmental performance. Montabon, Pagell, and
Zhaohui (2016) indicate that organizations continue to be led by
the framework of what they can do to reduce their harm while
maintaining or increasing their profits, rather than how they can
1092 T.K. Betts et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093
create a truly sustainable operation. The results of this research
suggest that managers of manufacturing plants in advanced econ-
omies may have reached a place where their engagement with
environmental practices has slowed. They have adopted those
practices most likely to net them the economic improvements and
have reached an “acceptable” level of environmental performance.
From a policy perspective, this supports Montabon et al. (2016)
perspective that, unless there is an economic market driven need
for sustainability-related strategies, in order for environmental
performance to continue to improve, it may need to be driven by
changing regulation and enforcement.
6. Conclusion
This research explores the following research questions: How
do institutional pressures experienced by manufacturing plants in
different types of economies affect the neoteric adoption of envi-
ronmental practices? Does the adoption of environmental practices
fully mediate the effect of institutional pressures experienced
through type of economy has on environmental performance? And,
do existing resources which generate production capability in other
operational areas efficaciously effect the influence of environmental
practices on environmental performance? Through the exploration
of these research questions, this research contributes to the sus-
tainability operations management literature by providing insight
on how manufacturing plants in different types of economies
engage in environmental practices. It examines the influence
these environmental practices have on environmental
performance.
Manufacturing plants in advanced and developing economies
were examined to determine where existing differences in neoteric
engagement of environmental practices exist. Manufacturing
plants in developing economies reported higher mean averages for
the neoteric adoption of internal monitoring, supplier monitoring
and environmental management systems practices. Manufacturing
plants in developing economies had higher levels of neoteric
improvement in environmental performance. Then, the effect of
engagement of environmental practices on improvement in envi-
ronmental performance was examined. Neoteric engagement in
internal monitoring, environmental management systems, and
supplier monitoring practices were all found to be significant pre-
dictors of neoteric improvement in environmental performance.
Furthermore, this research found that, while production capability
has an influence on the relationship between neoteric engagement
in environmental practices and neoteric improvement of environ-
mental performance, the actual influence of production capability
on each type of environmental practice is unique. Higher produc-
tion capability leads to neoteric engagement in internal monitoring
practices having an enhanced effect on neoteric improvement in
environmental performance. Higher production capability has no
significant effect on the relationship between neoteric engagement
of supplier monitoring practices and its effect on neoteric
improvement in environmental performance. However, higher
production capability leads to neoteric engagement in environ-
mental management systems having a depressing effect on
neoteric improvement in environmental performance. In other
words, higher production capability has a unique influence on the
relationship between practices and performance depending on the
set of environmental practices under review. Future research
should incorporate measures of operational performance and
strategic performance to more holistically evaluate the effect the
different types of environmental practices (operational, tactical,
and strategical) have on operational and strategic measures of
performance. It would also be interesting to include the influence of
culture at the country level and the plant level on the
environmental practices e environmental performance relation-
ship in the context of economy.
As with any research, this work has various limitations that
should be acknowledged. First, the sample dataset is unlikely to be
a truly random sample of the manufacturing plants from the
selected countries. Second, the data is cross-sectional in nature so
establishing genuine causality is difficult. Because causality cannot
be established with cross-sectional data, conducting a longitudinal
analysis of the relationships among production capability, envi-
ronmental practices, and environmental performance is also an
area for future research. Third, this study relied on survey data, so
not every aspect of environmental practices that companies
implement were captured. However, the selected practices can be
viewed as representative of a range of environmental practices
from operational to strategic in nature. Finally, the majority of
survey respondents were primarily plant managers and operations
managers. These respondents would be considered knowledgeable
respondents for this type of survey.
Despite these limitations, this study makes a significant
contribution by examining how type of economy affects
manufacturing plants engagement in environmental practices and
this study examines the conditional effect production capability has
on the neoteric engagement of environmental practices and its
influence on the improvement of environmental performance.
References
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17,
99e120.
Betts, T., 2012. The Role of Competitive Capabilities and Stakeholder Pressure in the
Adoption of Environmental Practices and Business Performance (Doctor of
Philosophy). Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Bloom, N., Dorgan, S., Dowdy, J., Reenan, J.V., 2007. Management practice and
productivity: why they matter. Manag. Mater,, Novemb. 1e10.
Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Janhajan, A., McKenzie, D., Roberts, J., 2013. Does management
matter? Evidence from India. Q. J. Econ. 128 (1), 1e51.
Bromiley, P., Rau, D., 2016. Operations management and the resource based view:
another view. J. Oper. Manag. 41, 95e106. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jom.2015.11.003.
Byrne, B., 2013. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Appli-
cations, and Programming. Routledge.
Carter, C.R., Kosmol, T., Kaufmann, L., 2017. Toward a supply chain practice view.
J. Supply Chain Manag. 53 (1), 114e122.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision
making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2, 429e444.
Cheung, G.W., Rensvold, R.B., 2002. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 9 (2), 233e255.
Dawson, J.F., 2014. Moderation in management research: what, why, when, and
how. J. Bus. Psychol. 29 (1), 1e19.
Diaz-Carrion, R., Lopez-Ferna ndez, M., Romero-Fernandez, P.M., 2017. Social human
resource management transparency in Europe: a cross-country analysis. La
Transparencia Soc. Gest. los Recur. Humanos Eur. U. N. Ana lisis Entre Países 54,
70e87.
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomor-
phism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 (2),
147e160.
Durach, C.F., Wiengarten, F., 2017. Environmental management: the impact of na-
tional and organisational long-term orientation on plants' environmental
practices and performance efficacy. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 749e758. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.183.
Edwards, J.R., Lambert, L.S., 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and media-
tion: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol.
methods 12 (1), 1.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39e50.
Foss, N.J., 2011. Invited Editorial: why micro-foundations for resource-based theory
are needed and what they may look like, Editorial. J. Manag. 1413e1428.
Fung, M.K., 2008. To what extent are labor-saving technologies improving efficiency
in the use of human resources? Evidence from the banking industry. Prod. Oper.
Manag. 17 (1), 75e92.
Galaskiewicz, J., Wasserman, S., 1989. Mimetic and normative processes within an
interorganizational field: an empirical test. Adm. Sci. Q. 34 (3), 454e479.
Grobler, A., Grubner, A., 2006. An empircal model of the relationships between
manufacturing capabilities. Int. J. Prod. Manag. 26 (5), 458e485.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., 2006. Multivariate Data
Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
 T.K. Betts et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 187 (2018) 1082e1093
Hayes, A.F., 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis: a Regression-based Approach. Guilford Press.
Hitt, M.A., Xu, K., Carnes, C.M., 2016. Resource based theory in operations man-
agement research. J. Oper. Manag. 41, 77e94.
Holweg, M., Pil, F.K., 2008. Theoretical perspectives on the coordination of supply
chains. J. Oper. Manag. 26 (3), 389e406. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jom.2007.08.003.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. a
Multidiscip. J. 6 (1), 1e55.
International Energy Outlook 2016 With Projections to 2040. (2016). Washington,
DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Kauppi, K., 2013. Extending the use of institutional theory in operations and supply
chain management research: review and research suggestions. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag. 33 (10), 1318e1345. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2011-0364.
Ketokivi, M., Schroeder, R., 2004. Manufacturing practices, strategic fit and perfor-
mance A routine-based view. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 24 (2), 171e191.
Korsgaard, M.A., Roberson, L., 1995. Procedural justice in performance evaluation:
the role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal
discussions. J. Manag. 21 (4), 657e669.
KPMG, 2016. Carrots & Sticks: Global Trends in Sustainability Reporting and Policy.
Retrieved from November 5, 2017. https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/
insights/2016/05/carrots-and-sticks-global-trends-in-sustainability-reporting-
regulation-and-policy.html.
Landis, R.S., Edwards, B.D., Cortina, J.M., 2009. On the practice of allowing correlated
residuals among indicators in structural equation models. In: Lance, C.E.,
Vandenberg, R.J. (Eds.), Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban
Legends.
Little, T.D., 1997. Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural
data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivar. Behav. Res. 32 (1), 53e76.
Little, T.D., 2013. Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press.
Lubin, M., Dunning, I., 2015. Computing in operations research using Julia. Inf. J.
Comput. 27, 238e248.
Matten, D., Moon, J., 2008. “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for
a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 33 (2), 404e424. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.31193458.
Montabon, F., Pagell, M., Zhaohui, W.U., 2016. Making sustainability sustainable.
J. Supply Chain Manag. 52 (2), 11e27.
Mossholder, K.W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E.R., Wesolowski, M.A., 1998. Relationships
between bases of power and work reactions: the mediational role of procedural
justice. J. Manag. 24 (4), 533e552.
Muthe n, L., Muthen, B., 1998-2017. Mplus User's Guide, eighth ed. Muthe n &
Muthe n, Los Angeles, CA.
Nielsen, L., 2013. How to classify countries based on their level of development. Soc.
Indic. Res. 114 (3), 1087e1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0191-9.
Pereira-Moliner, J., Claver-Corte s, E., Molina-Azorín, J.F., Jose
 Tarí, J., 2012. Quality
management, environmental management and firm performance: direct and
mediating effects in the hotel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 37, 82e92. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.010.
Rogers, K.W., Purdy, L., Safayeni, F., Duimering, P.R., 2007. A supplier development
program: rational process or institutional image construction? J. Operations
Manag. 25 (2), 556e572.
Rosenzweig, E.D., Roth, A.V., 2007. B2B seller competence: construct development
and measurement using a supply chain strategy lens. J. Operations Manag. 25
(6), 1311e1331.
Rosenzweig, E.D., Roth, A.V., Dean Jr., J.W., 2003. The influence of an integration
strategy on competitive capabilities and business performance: an exploratory
study of consumer products manufacturers. J. Operations Manag. 21 (4), 437.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., Adenso-Diaz, B., 2010. Stakeholder pressure and the
adoption of environmental practices: the mediating effect of training. J. Oper.
Manag. 28 (2), 163e176.
Schoenherr, T., Swink, M., 2012. Revisiting the arcs of integration: cross-validations
and extensions. J. Oper. Manag. 30 (1/2), 99e115.
Schoenherr, T., Talluri, S., 2013. Environmental sustainability initiatives: a
comparative analysis of plant efficiencies in Europe and the U.S. IEEE Trans. Eng.
1093
Manag. 60 (2), 353e365.
Sethi, S., Martell, T., Demir, M., 2017. Enhancing the role and effectiveness of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) Reports: the missing element of content
verification and integrity assurance. J. Bus. Ethics 144 (1), 59e82. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2862-3.
Sila, I., 2007. Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance
through the lens of organizational theories: an empirical study. J. Oper. Manag.
25 (1), 83e109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.02.003.
Singer, T., 2016. Sustainability Practices. Retrieved from. https://www.
globalreporting.org/information/news-and-press-center/Pages/EXCHANGES-
RAISING-THE-BAR-ON-TRANSPARENCY.aspx.
Singh, P., Wiengarten, F., Singh-Nand, A., Betts, T., 2015. Beyond the trade-off and
cumulative capabilities models: alternative models of operations strategy. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 53 (13), 4001e4020.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., 2003. Managing resources: linking unique resources,
management and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneursh. Theory
Pract. 27, 339e358.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic
environments to create value: looking inside the black box. Acad. Manag. Rev.
32, 273e292.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Gilbert, B.A., 2011. Resource orchestration to
create competitive advantage: breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. J. Manag. 37
(5), 1390e1412.
Sroufe, R., Narasimhan, R., Montabon, F., Xinyan, W., 2002. Environmental man-
agement practices. Greener Manag. Int. 40, 23e44.
Szolnoki, G., 2013. A cross-national comparison of sustainability in the wine in-
dustry. J. Clean. Prod. 53, 243e251. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.03.045.
Tone, K., 2001. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130, 498e509.
Tone, K., 2011. Slacks-based measure of efficiency. In: Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M.,
Zhu, J. (Eds.), Handbook on Data Enveolopment Analysis. Springer, pp. 195e209.
United Nations, 2015. Framework convention on climate change. In: Adoption of the
Paris Agreement, 21st Conference of the Parties. United Nations, Paris.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R., 2006. Extending green practices across the supply chain. Int.
J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25 (7), 795e821.
Wacker, J.G., Sheu, C., 2006. Effectiveness of manufacturing planning and control
systems on manufacturing competitiveness: evidence from global
manufacturing data. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44 (5), 1015e1036.
Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strate. Manag. J. 5, 171e180.
West, S.G., Aiken, L.S., Krull, J.L., 1996. Experimental personality designs: analyzing
categorical by continuous variable interactions. J. personal. 64 (1), 1e48.
Westphal, J.D., Gulati, R., Shortell, S.M., 1997. Customization or conformity? An
institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM
adoption. Adm. Sci. Q. 42 (2), 366e394.
Wiengarten, F., Pagell, M., Fynes, B., 2012. Supply chain environmental investments
in dynamic industries: comparing investment and performance differences
with static industries. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135 (2), 541e551. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.03.011.
Wiengarten, F., Pagell, M., Fynes, B., 2013. ISO 14000 certification and investments
in environmental supply chain management practices: identifying differences
in motivation and adoption levels between Western European and North
American companies. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 18e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2012.01.021.
Xie, X.M., Zang, Z.P., Qi, G.Y., 2016. Assessing the environmental management effi-
ciency of manufacturing sectors: evidence from emerging economies. J. Clean.
Prod. 112, 1422e1431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.006.
Yeung, A.C.L., Cheng, T.C.E., Kee-hung, L., 2006. An oOper. and institutional
perspective on total quality management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 15 (1), 156e170.
Zhu, J., 2014. Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking:
Data Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets, third ed. Springer.
Zhu, Q., Crotty, J., Sarkis, J., 2008. A cross-country empirical comparison of envi-
ronmental supply chain management practices in the automotive industry.
Asian Bus. Manag. 7 (4), 467e488.