Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Impact of JIT, TQM and green supply chain practices on environmental

sustainability
Kenneth W. Green, R. Anthony Inman, Victor E. Sower, Pamela J. Zelbst,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kenneth W. Green, R. Anthony Inman, Victor E. Sower, Pamela J. Zelbst, (2018) "Impact of JIT,
TQM and green supply chain practices on environmental sustainability", Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2018-0015
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2018-0015
Downloaded on: 23 September 2018, At: 06:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 66 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:380143 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

JIT, TQM and

Impact of JIT, TQM and green green supply
supply chain practices on chain practices

environmental sustainability
Kenneth W. Green
Department of Management, Marketing, and Management Information Systems,
Received 19 January 2018
Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, Arkansas, USA Revised 10 July 2018
R. Anthony Inman Accepted 17 August 2018

Department of Management, Louisiana Tech University,

Ruston, Louisiana, USA, and
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

Victor E. Sower and Pamela J. Zelbst

Department of Management and Marketing, Sam Houston State University,
Huntsville, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to empirically assess the complementary impact of JIT, TQM and
green supply chain practices on environmental performance.
Design/methodology/approach – Data from a sample of 225 US manufacturing managers are analyzed
using a PLS-SEM methodology.
Findings – JIT and TQM are directly and positively associated with green supply chain management
practices. JIT, TQM and green supply chain practices are complementary in that combined they provide a
greater impact on environmental performance than if implemented individually.
Research limitations/implications – The sample is limited to US manufacturing managers, with a low
response rate.
Practical implications – Successful implementations of JIT and TQM improvement programs support the
implementation of green supply chain management practices leading to improved environmental performance.
Social implications – The combination of JIT, TQM and green manufacturing practices improves the
environment by eliminating all forms of waste and providing customers with eco-friendly products and services.
Originality/value – This study is one of the first to empirically assess the complementary impact of JIT,
TQM and green supply chain practices within the context of environmental sustainability.
Keywords Total quality management, Environmental management, Green manufacturing, Just-in-time
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Manufacturing organizations must respond to changes in the demands of both immediate
and ultimate customers. As these customers begin to demand eco-friendly products
and services that are produced by processes that do not damage the environment,
manufacturing organizations must modify operations to reflect these new customer
demands (Green et al., 2015; Clark et al., 2014).
It has been empirically established that green supply chain management practices lead to
improved environmental performance (Zhu et al., 2008) and also improved organizational
performance (Green et al., 2012). It is important to identify necessary antecedents to the
implementation of green supply chain management practices. Additional research that
identifies and assesses the impact of such antecedents is needed. In this study, we examine the
combined impact that Just-in-time ( JIT) and total quality management (TQM), two elements of
lean (Shah and Ward, 2003) that have been called the main lean manufacturing bundles
(Furlan et al., 2011), and green supply chain practices have on environmental performance. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
More generally speaking, can the established capability to eliminate all forms of waste ( JIT) © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
and to produce and deliver products that precisely match customer specifications (TQM) have DOI 10.1108/JMTM-01-2018-0015
 JMTM a significant impact on the ability of manufacturing organizations to successfully implement
environmental sustainability improvement programs resulting in improved environmental
performance? Specifically, are JIT, TQM and environmental supply chain practices
complementary in that the three combined impact environmental performance more than
the impact of the three in isolation?
Florida and Davison (2001) describe a “three zero manufacturing paradigm” that calls for
manufacturing managers to simultaneously strive to achieve zero inventory, zero defects
and zero environmental waste and emissions. Intuitively, this paradigm could be practically
affected through a combination of JIT, TQM and green supply chain management practices.
Both JIT and TQM have been heavily researched and established as programs that lead to
improved organizational performance via a focus on the elimination of all waste from all
processes, the requirements of a customer focus and the production of quality goods and
services that precisely meet customer requirements (Zelbst et al., 2010).
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

Since JIT and TQM focus on the elimination of wastes associated with inefficiency and
ineffectiveness, do they significantly support efforts to achieve environmental sustainability?
We develop and empirically assess a model that incorporates JIT, TQM, green supply chain
management practices and environmental performance constructs using data from a sample
of US manufacturing managers in an effort to answer this research question.
While most of the individual hypotheses in the model have been previously assessed, we
find no previous work that combines the management improvement programs of JIT, TQM
and green supply chain management practices as antecedents to environmental performance
in the context of a structural model. There are studies that assess the individual impacts of
JIT, TQM and green supply chain management practices on environmental performance and
those that assess the impact of lean on environmental practices/performance (Inman and
Green, 2018) but none that assess the combined impact of the three specific initiatives of JIT,
TQM and green supply chain practices on environmental performance. These individual sets
of practices are complementary and it is important to assess their combined impact on
environmental sustainability as measured by environmental performance. Our primary
contribution is therefore to assess the combined impact of JIT, TQM and green supply chain
practices on environmental performance. The model is constructed in such a way as to
formally establish JIT and TQM as necessary antecedents to green supply chain practices and
environmental performance. We believe that the results of this formal assessment within the
context of a structural model will make a significant new contribution to the environmental
sustainability literature informing manufacturing managers of the importance of
implementing these specific sets of practices in combination to significantly improve the
environmental performance of their manufacturing organizations.
A review of the literature which includes a description of the theorized model is followed
by a discussion of the methodology employed to answer the research question related to
whether JIT and TQM are required antecedents to the development of environmental
sustainability competencies or whether, when combined with environmental practices, an
even greater result is achieved. The results of the statistical analysis and conclusions based
on the results are then presented.

2. Literature review and hypotheses

This section is organized such that the complementary theory is first described and
discussed as the basis for this study. Following a discussion of this general theory, the
theoretical model that pictures the relationships among the study constructs is presented.
This model illustrates how the endogenous constructs of JIT, TQM and green supply chain
practices may combine to positively impact the exogenous construct environmental
performance. Finally, hypotheses representing each of the links in the theorized model are
developed and supported.
 2.1 Complementarity as theoretical basis for study JIT, TQM and
The theoretical basis for this study is the complementarity theory (Narasimhan et al., 2010; green supply
Bergmiller and McCright, 2009; Milgrom and Roberts, 1990). Organizations can chain practices
gain competitive advantage by developing combinations of operational competencies.
Specifically, the combination of JIT, TQM and green supply chain management
practices are organizational competencies that may yield competitive advantage when
combined by manufacturing organizations. JIT, TQM and green supply chain
management practices are complementary in that the sets of practices are mutually
supportive. The combination of related practices leads to a higher level of environmental
sustainability than can be achieved when the sets of practices are individually
implemented.
Fliedner and Majeske (2010) describe sustainability as the next stage in the evolution
of lean as it goes beyond the waste elimination of Ohno’s seven lean principles.
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

Under-utilization of creative employees is considered the eighth waste with environmental

waste deemed the ninth (Vinodh et al., 2011). This ninth waste implies unnecessary or
excessive use of resources as well as harmful substances released into the environment
(Vinodh et al., 2011). Since the primary goal of JIT is to reduce and eliminate waste
(Wu et al., 2012) and TQM is about making things right the first time, zero defects,
customer satisfaction and continuous improvement (Sower, 2011), it is logical to assert
that environmental sustainability initiatives are more likely to thrive in an organizational
environment that already incorporates JIT and TQM within its production processes. This
is possibly due to wastes, targeted by lean, that have environmental impacts embedded
within them (Larson and Greenwood, 2004).
JIT and TQM have been shown to work together synergistically to improve
performance, meaning the two together create greater cost efficiencies than if either were
pursued alone (Wu et al., 2012). Previous research has shown lean manufacturing and
environmental sustainability to be not only compatible but complementary thereby
creating a synergy that results in improved environmental and business performance
(Azevedo et al., 2012; Bergmiller and McCright, 2009; Larson and Greenwood, 2004;
Vinodh et al., 2011). Young (2009) proposed that successful JIT and TQM programs have
prepared manufacturers to embrace environmental sustainability programs and practices;
therefore, it is logical, based on complementarity theory, to propose that the combined
impact of JIT and TQM practices on environmental practices could result in more
improvement than each implemented in isolation. To test for synergy, one or more
programs must be shown to provide a positive impact on the results of another program
(Bergmiller and McCright, 2009). We argue that JIT, TQM and environmental practices
have complementary capabilities that combine to magnify an organization’s ability to
achieve environmental sustainability.

2.2 Theoretical model

Figure 1 incorporates seven hypotheses. Generally, the model is structured to facilitate
assessment of the impact of JIT and TQM practices on environmental sustainability
represented as the implementation of green supply chain management practices and
improved environmental performance. JIT practices are hypothesized as positively
associated with TQM practices, green supply chain management practices and
environmental performance. TQM practices are hypothesized as positively associated
with green supply chain management practices and environmental performance. As a result
of complementarity, JIT, TQM and green supply chain practices combined are hypothesized
as having a greater impact on environmental performance than the impact of the individual
initiatives. Finally, green supply chain management practices are hypothesized as positively
associated with environmental performance.
 JMTM JIT

H3: (+)
H2: (+)

H1: (+) GSCMP H6: (+) EVP

H4: (+)
H5: (+)

TQM

Figure 1. Notes: JIT: unique JIT practices; TQM: unique TQM practices;
Structural model
with hypotheses GSCMP: green supply chain management practices; EVP: environmental
performance
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

2.3 Hypotheses
The relationship between JIT and TQM practices is well documented. Vokurka et al. (2007,
p. 14) assert that “Just-in-time is closely correlated with TQM, with the ultimate goal of
meeting or exceeding customer requirements.” Other researchers have concluded that JIT
practices and TQM practices combine and interact to generate synergies that result in
improved performance (Dean and Snell, 1996; Flynn et al., 1995). Dreyfus et al. (2004) found
that effective implementation of TQM is enhanced by JIT implementation. Additionally,
Eker and Pala (2008) found a moderately strong, positive correlation between JIT and TQM
practices while Zelbst et al. (2010) reported a moderately strong, positive association
between JIT and TQM practices based on an analysis of US manufacturers. More recently,
Chen (2015) found a very strong positive relationship between JIT and TQM based on
analysis of a sample of Chinese manufacturers. Within the structural model theorized by
Zelbst et al. (2010), JIT is assessed as an antecedent to TQM with the results supporting this
relationship. Hence, we propose that:
H1. JIT practices are directly and positively associated with TQM practices.
Carvalho et al. (2011, p. 171) list the main green supply chain practices as: “reduction of
redundant and unnecessary materials, introduction of reusable and remanufactured parts in
the material inventory, reduction of replenishment frequency, integration of the reverse
material and information flow in the supply chain, environmental risk-sharing, waste
minimization, reduction of transportation lead time and the efficiency of resource
consumption.” JIT is an improvement program designed to eliminate forms of waste from
supply, production and delivery processes, and promote the optimal use of resources
throughout these processes (Inman et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2012), practices that intuitively
should enhance and support the use of green supply chain management practices. Certain
elements of JIT, JIT-purchasing and JIT-selling require integration and coordination with
suppliers and customers (Freeland, 1991; Germain and Dröge, 1997; Green and Inman, 2005).
Existing cooperative associations, such as those found in certain elements of JIT
( JIT-purchasing and JIT-selling), should support expanding the focus on environmental
sustainability through green supply chain management practices such as green purchasing
and cooperation with customers. Young (2009) reports that a group of Australian
organizations leveraged existing JIT capabilities to support environmental sustainability
efforts with good results. Within our study, JIT is assessed as antecedent to green supply
chain management practices, suggesting that:
H2. JIT practices are directly and positively associated with green supply chain
management practices.
 Zhu and Sarkis (2004) noted that the lean manufacturing aspect of JIT could contribute to JIT, TQM and
improved environmental performance, but found the relationship between green practices green supply
and environmental performance to be weaker in firms having more JIT practice adoption. chain practices
However, Klassen (2000) found investment in JIT systems to be positively and significantly
associated with environmental performance. Therefore, we propose that:
H3. JIT practices are directly and positively associated with environmental performance.
Young (2009) reports on the results of a group of Australian organizations that leveraged
existing TQM capabilities to support environmental sustainability efforts. Because TQM
focuses on producing goods and services that precisely meet customer specifications, these
organizations were able to optimize resource allocation and use (Young, 2009). Additionally,
as customers begin to demand products and services that are environmentally friendly, the
TQM customer focus will facilitate the incorporation of environmental sustainability as
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

customer requirements resulting in the production of products and services that do not
damage the environment (Green et al., 2012; Zelbst et al., 2010). Zhu and Sarkis (2004, p. 283)
argue that quality management is an “important antecedent” to the successful
implementation of many green supply chain management practices. Garza-Reyes et al.
(2018) assess the utilization of total quality environmental management (TQEM) which
focuses TQM capabilities on eliminating environmental wastes. Their discussion related to
TQEM suggests that TQM practices and environmental sustainability practices are
compatible and positively linked. Here, we assess TQM as an antecedent to green supply
chain management practices as Zhu and Sarkis (2004) suggest:
H4. TQM practices are directly and positively associated with green supply chain
management practices.
Over the years, TQM has shifted from a purely statistical view of process control to a
strong internal and external customer orientation (Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993).
It has been described as an integrative approach for the pursuit of customer satisfaction
(Zee et al., 2011) which requires both a customer focus and control of processes to eliminate
the production of defective products and services (Flynn et al., 1995). Hong et al. (2012)
found that firms striving to respond to markets and customers also improved
environmental performance. Therefore, as customers begin to demand products and
services that are environmentally friendly, the customer focus component of TQM
should support the production of environmentally sustainable goods and services through
processes that do not damage the environment (Green et al., 2012). Additionally, if
resources are optimally employed via the elimination of waste, improved environmental
performance should be supported. TQM efforts, when directed toward environmental
issues, appear to result in positive outcomes (Golicic and Smith, 2013). We propose the
following hypothesis:
H5. TQM practices are directly and positively associated with environmental performance.
Green supply chain management practices are designed to improve environmental
performance (Green et al., 2012; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). These practices can reduce the
ecological impact (e.g. minimizing ecological damage) through practices focused on
improving environmental performance by reducing air emissions and the discharge of
effluent and solid wastes, and the reduction of use of hazardous and toxic materials in
production processes, without sacrificing quality, cost reliability or energy efficiency
(Carvalho et al., 2011). The link between green supply chain management practices and
environmental performance has been empirically established through prior research.
Zhu and Sarkis (2004) found strong support for their hypothesis that “enterprises having
higher levels of adoption of green supply chain management practices will have better
 JMTM environmental performance improvements.” Inman and Green (2018), Green et al. (2012) and
Li et al. (2016) also found that green supply chain management practices positively impact
environmental performance, leading to the following hypothesis:
H6. Green supply chain management practices directly and positively affect
environmental performance.
There are a number of papers which address the integration of lean manufacturing and green
manufacturing utilizing survey research (Klassen, 2000; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Green
et al., 2012; Hajmohammad et al., 2013; Prasad et al., 2016; Inman and Green 2018). However,
these papers look at the “overall” picture of lean as the “bundles” of JIT, TQM, total preventive
maintenance and Human Resource management as defined by Shah and Ward (2003), while
our work concentrates on the relationship between two of these elements, JIT and TQM, and
environmental practices. There is also published research available validating the
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

complementary relationship between JIT and TQM (Flynn et al., 1995; Furlan et al., 2011,
Chen, 2015). However, none specifically address the complementary relationship between
integrated JIT/TQM and environmental practices. Hallam and Contreras (2016) reviewed
60 articles pertaining to the integration of lean and green and found that most were conceptual
papers (only ten utilized survey data) with little evidence of combined lean manufacturing and
green manufacturing. Since they (Hallam and Contreras, 2016) did note a purported synergy
between lean and green in the postulate of some articles, we hypothesize that:
H7. JIT, TQM and green supply chain practices together have a greater impact on
environmental performance than individually.

3. Methodology
3.1 Sampling process
Data were collected from a sample of plant-level managers working for US manufacturing
organizations. The data were collected during the spring of 2012 via an online data service
(Zoomerang through MarketTools, Inc.). This data collection process was managed by
Zoomerang and was structured to ensure unique responses from validated members of the
manufacturing panel. Such an online data collection methodology has been found to be effective
in eliciting responses from manufacturing managers (Green et al., 2012; Inman et al., 2011).
The manufacturing panel includes individuals working for US manufacturing plants who
hold both managerial and operational positions. Filtering questions were used to ensure that
data from only individuals who hold manufacturing manager positions are used in the study.
Potential respondents were first asked “Are you a manager (supervising at least two
employees) currently working at a manufacturing plant in the United States?” Individuals
answering “no” to this question were screen from further data collection. A second question
“Which of the following categories best describes your current position?” was then asked to
specifically identify the type of manager responding (see Table I for categories). Individuals
answering “other” to this question were not included in the subsequent data analysis.
This double questioning approach was designed to ensure that data only from manufacturing
managers working for US manufacturing plants was captured. It should be noted that
Zoomerang was unable to provide a sample frame strictly made up of manufacturing
managers such as plant and operations managers. It was necessary to extend invitations to
4,660 members of a panel that included individuals working for manufacturing firms, whether
or not they held manufacturing manager positions.
Ultimately, data from 225 manufacturing managers likely to have the necessary
knowledge to fully complete the survey were included in the data set subsequently analyzed.
All of the respondents hold plant-level management positions in manufacturing organizations.
The sample is comprised of a relatively diverse group of US manufacturing managers.
 Title Number
JIT, TQM and
green supply
Operations manager 66 chain practices
Purchasing manager 41
Engineering manager 29
Quality manager 28
Plant manager 25
Information systems manager 16
Logistics manager 9
Environmental sustainability manager 6
Supply chain manager 5
Total 225
Industry category
Food manufacturing 18
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing 3

Textile mills 1
Textile product mills 8
Apparel manufacturing 1
Leather and allied product manufacturing 4
Wood product manufacturing 13
Paper manufacturing 7
Printing and related support activities 4
Petroleum and coal products manufacturing 1
Chemical manufacturing 18
Plastics and rubber products manufacturing 16
Non-metallic mineral product manufacturing 1
Primary metal manufacturing 12
Fabricated metal product manufacturing 17
Machinery manufacturing 17
Computer and electronic product manufacturing 9
Electrical equipment manufacturing 2
Transportation equipment manufacturing 6
Furniture and related product manufacturing 1
Miscellaneous manufacturing 66
Total 225 Table I.
Mean years in current position 9.91 Sample demographics
Mean number of plant employees 593.66 summary

Table I provides a demographic description of the sample. The sample is comprised of a

relatively diverse group of US manufacturing managers. It was our original intent to draw
data from a broad array of US manufacturing categories and manufacturing management
categories for the purpose of supporting generalization of the results fully across the US
manufacturing sector (Green et al., 2012; Inman and Green, 2018).
The effective response rate is 4.82 percent (225 divided by 4,660). It should be noted that,
because the sample frame included both managers and operational employees working for
US manufacturing plants, this response rate is much understated as to the percentage of
responding managers. De Beuckelaer and Wagner (2012), Harmon et al. (2002) and Larson
(2005) all note the difficulty in obtaining responses from manufacturing managers due to
the relatively high workloads of those individuals. Inman et al. (2011, p. 347) report that
“While manufacturing managers are the prime source for supply chain management related
data, they are often under severe time and resource constraints making it difficult to achieve
high response rates to surveys.”
Data were collected over a 13-day period, and responses from early responders
(responding during the first three days) and late responders (responding during the last
 JMTM three days) are compared to assess non-response bias as recommended by Armstrong and
Overton (1977). A comparison of the means of the descriptive variables and the scale items
for the two groups resulted in statistically non-significant differences at either the 0.05 or
0.01 levels. Because non-respondents have been found to descriptively resemble late
respondents (Armstrong and Overton 1977), this finding of general equality between early
and late respondents indicates that non-response bias has not negatively impacted the
assembled data set.
Lindell and Brandt (2000) recommend that the smallest correlation among the variables
be used as a proxy for common method variation. Following this approach, the smallest
correlation among the study variables is 0.574 between green supply chain management
practices and organizational performance. The smallest correlation among the relationships
specified in the structural model is 0.696 for JIT and environmental performance.
Substituting these correlations into the formulas provided by Malhotra et al. (2007), the
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

computed z-score is 4.47. This computed z-score corresponds to significance at the 0.01 level.
Adjusting for common method variance using the smallest correlation (0.574), the smallest
correlation among the hypothesized relationships (0.696) remains significantly different
from zero at the 0.01 level. Based on the results of the proxy test, problems associated with
common method bias are not considered significant (Lindell and Whitney, 2001).

3.2 Measurement of constructs

The scales incorporated in this study were previously developed and assessed. The JIT and
TQM scales are taken from Flynn et al. (1995). JIT and TQM are treated as second-order
constructs with multiple dimensions. JIT is comprised of kanban, lot size reduction, setup time
reduction and JIT scheduling dimensions. TQM incorporates customer focus, product design
and statistical process control dimensions. The green supply chain management practices and
environmental performance scales are taken from Zhu et al. (2008). The green supply chain
management practices construct is treated as a second-order construct with the following
dimensions: internal environmental management, green purchasing, cooperation with
customers, eco-design, and investment recovery. The scales are attached in the Appendix.

3.3 Statistical analysis

Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance-based
structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) offer alternative approaches to assessing the
impact of independent latent constructs on dependent latent constructs within the context of
structural models. PLS-SEM is best suited when the objective is prediction and maximization
of the explained variance in the dependent latent construct (Matthews et al., 2018; Hair
et al., 2011). PLS-SEM is also well suited for hypothesis testing and for assessing models that
incorporate second-order constructs (Hair et al., 2011). CB-SEM is more appropriate when the
objective is to confirm a theoretical covariance matrix (Matthews et al., 2018; Hair et al., 2011).
Hair et al. (2017) note that CB-SEM is not suited for prediction. Mathews et al. (2018, p. 2)
explain that CB-SEM is best when the objective is “theory testing and confirmation” and that
PLS-SEM is best when the objective is “prediction, theory development, and explanation.”
Akter et al. (2017) also note that PLS-SEM is suitable when the aim is to capture reality.
Another important distinction between CB-SEM and PLS-SEM relates to ability to assess
the overall validity of the theorized structural model. CB-SEM offers global fit indices that
suggest how well the theorized model fits the data (Hair et al., 2012). Hair et al. (2012) explain
that in PLS-SEM, the primary criteria for evaluation of the structural model are the
coefficient of determination (R2) for the endogenous variable and the standardized path
coefficients incorporated within the model. Tenenhaus et al. (2005) also offer a global fit
measure that is applicable when all of the measurement scales supporting the structural
analysis are reflective as is the case here.
 In this case, we desire to maximize the explained variance for environmental JIT, TQM and
performance resulting from combining JIT, TQM and GSCMP as antecedents. Our model green supply
includes a second-order construct and we are primarily interested in predicting the level of chain practices
environmental performance that results when JIT, TQM and GSCMP are combined as
antecedents to environmental performance. For these reasons, PLS-SEM is selected as the
most appropriate method for assessing the structural model.
Hair et al. (2012) recommend the following general steps to affect PLS-SEM: construct an
inner model that reflects the theorized relationships among the latent constructs under
study; develop an outer model by associating the observed indicators with the appropriate
latent constructs; execute the PLS-SEM algorithm to calculate standardized coefficients for
both the inner and outer models as well as generating information necessary to evaluate the
validity and reliability of the measurement scales; execute the bootstrapping algorithm to
compute the significance levels for each of the linkages for the inner and outer models; and
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

evaluate the quality of the structural model in terms of the variance in the endogenous
variable explained by the structural model and the size and significance of the standardized
coefficients for the structural links.
The general process recommended by Wetzels et al. (2009) for PLS models with second-
order constructs is followed. Specifically, SmartPLS 2.0 software developed by Ringle et al.
(http://SmartPLS.de) is used to conduct the PLS analysis.

4. Results
4.1 Measurement scale assessment
Because the measurement scales were previously developed and assessed (Flynn et al., 1995;
Zhu et al., 2008), the scales are assumed to exhibit sufficient content validity. Convergent
validity is assessed by reviewing the standardized loadings for each of the first-order constructs
with loadings greater than 0.70 indicating sufficient convergent validity (Chiang et al., 2012).
The standardized factor loadings are displayed in Table II. All loadings exceed the 0.70 limit
with the lowest reported loading of 0.74 for the sixth item in the JIT product design scale.
To assess for discriminant validity, the square root of the average variance extracted value for
each construct is compared to the correlations with other constructs with square root values
greater than the correlations signifying sufficient discriminant validity (Wetzels et al., 2009).
Square root of average variance extracted values and construct correlations are displayed
in Table III. With the exception of the square root of average variance extracted for internal
environmental management and the correlation with green purchasing being equal at 0.89, the
square root values for each of the constructs exceeds correlations with other constructs.
Scale reliability is assessed based on Cronbach’s α, composite reliability and average
variance extracted values (see Table II). All α, composite reliability and average variance
extracted values exceed the respective recommended minimums of 0.70, 0.70, and
0.50 recommended by Garver and Mentzer (1999) as demonstrating sufficient scale
reliability. The measurement scales exhibit sufficient validity and reliability to support
assessment of the hypotheses.

4.2 Structural model assessment

Structural model results are presented in Figure 2. Bootstrapping is used to assess the
significance levels of the standardized coefficients. As Hair et al. (2011) recommend, the
number of samples for the bootstrapping procedure is 5,000 with the number of observations
set to 225. The global fit measure (Tenenhaus et al., 2005) for the model is 0.71 which
exceeds the cut-off value for large effect sizes of 0.36, as recommended by Wetzels et al. (2009).
The R2 value for environmental performance is 0.63. R2 values between 0.50 and 0.75 indicate
that the model has a moderately strong explanatory capability (Hair et al., 2011).
 JMTM Construct/measures Loading CA CR AVE

Kanban 0.95 0.96 0.87

KB1 0.92
KB2 0.95
KB3 0.93
KB4 0.93
Lot size reduction practices 0.88 0.93 0.81
LSRP1 0.90
LSRP2 0.94
LSRP3 0.86
Setup time reduction practices 0.86 0.92 0.86
STRP1 0.86
STRP2 0.88
STRP3 0.92
JIT scheduling 0.83 0.90 74
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

JITS1 0.79
JITS2 0.90
JITS3 0.89
Customer focus 0.82 0.89 0.73
CF1 0.86
CF2 0.86
CF3 0.85
Product design 0.92 0.93 0.67
PD1 0.83
PD2 0.82
PD3 0.83
PD4 0.83
PD5 0.83
PD6 0.74
PD7 0.86
Statistical process control 0.86 0.91 0.78
SPC1 0.89
SPC2 0.92
SPC3 0.83
Internal environmental management 0.96 0.96 0.79
IEM1 0.91
IEM2 0.90
IEM3 0.92
IEM4 0.91
IEM5 0.84
IEM6 0.87
IEM7 0.90
Green purchasing 0.97 0.97 0.85
GP1 0.91
GP2 0.94
GP3 0.92
GP4 0.90
GP5 0.94
GP6 0.93
Cooperation with customers 0.96 0.97 0.90
CWC1 0.95
CWC2 0.96
CWC3 0.94
CWC4 0.95
Eco-design 0.92 0.94 0.86
ED1 0.93
ED2 0.93
Table II. ED3 0.92
Psychometric
properties of first-
order constructs (continued )
 Construct/measures Loading CA CR AVE
JIT, TQM and
green supply
Investment recovery 0.88 0.93 0.81 chain practices
IR1 0.92
IR2 0.88
IR3 0.89
Environmental performance 0.95 0.96 0.81
ENP1 0.92
ENP2 0.93
ENP3 0.89
ENP4 0.88
ENP5 0.87
ENP6 0.92 Table II.
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

KB LSRP STRP JITS CF PD SPC IEM GP CWC ED IR EVP

KB 0.93
LSRP 0.74 0.90
STRP 0.63 0.71 0.89
JITS 0.65 0.64 0.71 0.86
CF 0.45 0.46 0.62 0.54 0.85
PD 0.64 0.59 0.74 0.75 0.73 0.88
SPC 0.66 0.54 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.82 0.88
IEM 0.64 0.57 0.62 0.66 0.56 0.74 0.70 0.89
GP 0.73 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.52 0.70 0.68 0.89 0.92
CWC 0.62 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.61 0.81 0.85 0.95
ED 0.52 0.48 0.57 0.62 0.56 0.68 0.64 0.81 0.80 0.86 0.93
IR 0.44 0.47 0.54 0.59 0.59 0.64 0.59 0.67 0.63 0.67 0.78 0.90
Table III.
EVP 0.60 0.48 0.60 0.69 0.65 0.72 0.65 0.71 0.69 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.90
Square root of AVE
Notes: KB: JIT kanban; IEM: internal environmental management; LSRP: JIT lot size reduction practices; GP: (diagonal) and
green purchasing; STRP: JIT Setup reduction practices; CWC: cooperation with customers; JITS: JIT correlations among
scheduling; ED: eco-design; CF: TQM customer focus; IR: investment recovery; PD: TQM product design; first-order latent
EVP: environmental performance; SPC: TQM statistical process control constructs

JIT
0.10ns
0.40**

0.79** R2 = 0.65 R2 = 0.63

GSCMP 0.37** EVP

0.46**
0.38**
R = 0.62
2
TQM

Notes: ns, non-significance. JIT: unique JIT practices; TQM: unique

TQM practices; GSCMP: green supply chain management practices; Figure 2.
Results of structural
EVP: environmental performance. **Indicates significance at the assessment
0.01 level
 JMTM The PLS-SEM results support H1, H2, H4, H5 and H6. H3 ( JIT→EVP) was not supported.
JIT practices are positively associated with TQM practices (H1) with a standardized coefficient
of 0.79 significant at the 0.01 level. JIT practices are also positively associated with green
supply chain management practices (H2) with a standardized coefficient of 0.40 significant at
the 0.01 level. The standardized coefficient for JIT practices to environmental performance
(H3) of 0.10 is non-significant, indicating that JIT does not directly impact environmental
performance within the context of the study model. TQM practices are positively associated
with green supply chain management practices (H4) with a standardized coefficient of
0.46 significant at the 0.01 level. TQM practices are also positively associated with
environmental performance (H5) with a standardized coefficient of 0.38 significant at the 0.01
level. Green supply chain management practices are positively associated with environmental
performance (H6) with a standardized coefficient of 0.38 significant at the 0.01 level.
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

4.3 Assessment of combined impact

Generally, the results presented in Figure 2 support our assertion that JIT, TQM and green
supply chain management combine to positively impact environmental performance.
The model incorporating JIT, TQM and green supply chain management explains
63 percent of the variation in environmental performance. Within the context of the model,
TQM and green supply chain management directly impact environmental performance
while JIT indirectly impacts environmental performance through TQM and GSCMP.
It remained unclear at this point, however, whether the combination of practices has a
stronger impact than the individual practices.
To verify that the combined impact is stronger than the singular impacts of the practices,
the practices were regressed against environmental performance in a stepwise fashion
( JIT first, TQM second and GSCMP third) and the incremental improvement in the R2 value
for environmental performance noted. There is theoretical and empirical rationale for this
ordering of the practices. Vuppalapati et al. (1995) state that:
Though the Western researchers and practitioners recognized and analyzed JIT as a
manufacturing strategy first (in the late 1970s and early 1980s), and then deciphered the
broader philosophy of TQM used by successful Japanese companies (mid- and late 1980s), in Japan,
JIT, the actual development followed a different evolution […] They developed and implemented
the JIT manufacturing techniques as an integral part of the broader TQM philosophy […].
However, since the Western organizations and researchers deciphered the JIT practices first, JIT
implementation has preceded TQM adoption in the West.
Since our data are from US manufacturers, we make the assumption that JIT was
implemented prior to the implementation of TQM and as such is antecedent to TQM.
Additionally, from an analysis of data from a sample of US manufacturing mangers, Zelbst
et al. (2010) determined JIT to be antecedent to and positively associated with TQM.
The R2 with only JIT as an antecedent to environmental performance is 0.48. When TQM
is added as a second antecedent to environmental performance, the R2 value increases by
0.10 to 0.58. Finally, when GSCMP is added as a third antecedent, the R2 value increases by
another 0.05 to 0.63. These increments are significant at the 0.01 level, supporting the idea of
complementarity among JIT, TQM and environmental practices resulting in elevated
environmental performance (H7).
While not theoretically justified or empirically supported, an alternate ordering provides
some insight into the role that JIT plays in the model. If TQM is first entered into the model
without JIT or GSCMP, the R2 is 0.56. Adding GSCMP next, yields an R2 of 0.63, the same R2
that was achieved when JIT was included. Therefore, the subsequent adding of JIT does not
increase the R2 for environmental performance, which is a very surprising result. Possible
reasons for this finding are discussed in the next section.
 5. Discussion of findings JIT, TQM and
If we assume that JIT is the foundation for TQM, i.e. antecedent to TQM, our findings green supply
indicate that the impact of JIT on environmental performance is indirect through TQM, as chain practices
H3 was not supported. Although JIT does not directly impact environmental performance,
results indicate that TQM may not be optimized unless JIT has already been fully
implemented. Thus theoretical and empirical support is found to support the ordering put
forth in our assessment of combined impact ( JIT first, TQM second and GSCMP third).
This is consistent with previous research. Dreyfus et al. (2004) found that JIT firms
implement TQM more rigorously than traditional firms. Also, Chen (2015) proposes a
viewpoint where TQM is one part of JIT. Additionally, Nakamura et al. (1998) found that JIT
alone will not result in optimal plant performance, so it is intuitively logical that the same
could hold true for optimal environmental performance. Finally, Vuppalapati et al. (1995)
note that “all the major elements of JIT are embedded in a more comprehensive TQM
campaign” and that “JIT [can] be viewed as a natural component of the overall TQM
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

philosophy” so it is possible that for many, if not most, TQM initiatives, JIT is already a
component and is subsumed by the TQM program. Further analysis of our data shows that
64 percent of the respondents scored high (greater than three on the Likert scale) on both JIT
and TQM adding further credibility to this proposition.
A more careful analysis provides insight into how the three sets of practices work
together to positively impact environmental performance. First, while JIT does not directly
impact environmental performance, it indirectly impacts environmental performance
through both TQM and GSCMP. The total effect of JIT on GSCMP is 0.448 which is a
combination of two indirect effects (0.148 for JIT→GSCMP→EVP plus 0.300 for
JIT→TQM→EVP). This combined effect is logical since JIT has been found to be a
foundational antecedent to TQM (Zelbst et al., 2014; Zelbst et al., 2010) and the general
efficiency capabilities develop through JIT practices applicable when applied to
environmental sustainability issues through GSCMP. Second, TQM both directly and
indirectly (through GSCMP) impacts environmental performance for a combined impact of
0.55 (0.17 for TQM→GSCMP→EVP plus 0.38 for TQM→EVP). Specifically, the more
effective a firm is in providing quality goods and services to customers the more likely the
firm will be to work with both customers and suppliers to develop environmentally
sustainable practices.
Based on this additional analysis, we conclude that JIT, TQM and GSCMP are
complementary practices that combine to improve environmental performance to a greater
degree that singular applications of each practice. JIT yields efficiency capabilities that
support the efficient management of inventory as it moves through the supply chain; TQM
combines effectiveness capabilities to provide customers with quality goods and services;
and GSCMP focuses existing JIT and TQM capabilities specifically on providing quality
eco-friendly products and services. Customers get quality products and services at a
relatively low cost while ensuring environmental sustainability.

6. Conclusions
While there are a number of studies dealing with lean and green, only one other study (Zhu
and Sarkis, 2004) was identified that specifically assesses the relationships among JIT, TQM
and green supply chain management. Zhu and Sarkis (2004) assess the moderating effect of
JIT and TQM practices on the relationship between green supply chain management and
environmental performance. While they did find positive correlations among JIT, TQM
green supply chain management practices and environmental performance for their Chinese
sample, no positive interaction effects were identified for either JIT or TQM. The positive
correlations indicate that there are important relationships of some form among JIT, TQM
and green supply chain management practices, even though the interaction effects are not
 JMTM positive and significant. As an extension of the research by Zhu and Sarkis (2004), we pose
an alternate model that incorporates JIT and TQM as antecedents to green supply chain
management practices rather than moderators.
Results reported here indicate that unique JIT and TQM practices combine to support the
implementation of green supply chain management practices which lead to improved
environmental performance. JIT practices indirectly impact environmental performance
through green supply chain management practices and unique practices. TQM practices
both directly and indirectly (through green supply chain management practices) impact
environmental performance. The results suggest that manufacturing firms with established
JIT and TQM improvement programs are more likely to successfully implement green
supply chain management practices. JIT programs are designed to eliminate all forms of
waste, and TQM programs are designed to focus on providing only quality products and
services to customers, thereby supporting environmental sustainability and environmental
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

performance while providing a synergistic effect.

Some additional discussion related to the finding of non-support for H3 ( JIT→EVP) is
warranted. It should first be noted that, while JIT does not directly impact EVP, JIT does
indirectly impact EVP through both GSCMP and TQM. The indirect support through TQM
supports similar findings by Zelbst et al. (2010, 2014), who found that TQM fully mediated the
impact of JIT on measures of organizational performance. JIT was developed prior to TQM
and serves as the foundation for the successful implementation of TQM. The implementation
of JIT develops efficiency capabilities throughout all process. This efficiency is required before
TQM effectiveness capabilities can be fully employed. It is not that JIT does not impact
performance but that the impact of JIT is felt through TQM. The finding that JIT indirectly
impacts EVP through GSCMP is logical though not previously studied. JIT is focused on the
elimination of all forms of waste leading to greater efficiency. GSCMP are focused on the
elimination of all forms of environmental wastes. The general capabilities of waste elimination
fully support the specific capabilities to eliminate environmental wastes.

6.1 Limitations of the study

While the objectives of the study are accomplished, there are limitations that should be
considered when interpreting the results. The sample is limited in that only US
manufacturing managers are included. In addition, as with all survey-based studies, there
are concerns related to both common method bias and non-response bias. Assessments
indicate that the biases do not cause significant problems, however. It has become more and
more difficult to attain high response rates in operations and supply chain management
survey-based research (De Beuckelaer and Wagner, 2012; Harmon et al., 2002; Larson, 2005).
An additional limitation of this study is the relatively low response rate. While the response
rate is low, the sample size is sufficiently large to support the PLS-SEM statistical
methodology. We believe that the sample is diverse and representative of US manufacturers
but understand that the study could be improved with a higher response rate. While our
focus was on establishing the relationships among JIT, TQM and green supply chain
practices and the combined impact of those practices on environmental performance, it
should be noted that it is important to note that other constructs such as culture, industrial
sector characteristics, market characteristics may also impact the degree to which the study
constructs impact performance.

6.2 Future research

This study extends the work of Zhu and Sarkis (2004) by posing and assessing an alternate
model of the relationships among JIT, TQM, green supply chain management practices
and environmental performance. Zhu and Sarkis (2004) generated correlations based on
analysis of Chinese firms. We verify the positive significant correlations with a US sample.
 The results of this study support the proposition that organizations with established JIT JIT, TQM and
and TQM programs should be better able to adopt green practices and improve green supply
environmental performance. Vokurka et al. (2007) identified three strategic imperatives: low chain practices
cost, high quality, and responsiveness. Zelbst et al. (2010) incorporated those imperatives
within a comprehensive model that also included customer focus finding that the
imperatives work together synergistically. The work of Zhu et al. (2008) and Green
et al. (2012) identified environmental sustainability as an additional strategic imperative that
may be incorporated within the comprehensive model as a means to achieve competitive
advantage. We recommend that additional research be undertaken to assess this unified
model that incorporates customer focus, low cost, high quality, responsiveness and
environmental sustainability. We also recommend that the impact of environmental and
organizational constructs such as culture, industrial sector characteristics, market
characteristics be incorporated into the study model in future research to assess the
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

impact of such contextual constructs on the ability of JIT, TQM and green supply chain
practices to improve environmental performance.

6.3 Implications
Concerning implications for research, this study establishes the complementarity of JIT,
TQM and green supply chain practices as they combine to improve environmental
sustainability. In addition, the sequencing of the practices is established with JIT emerging
as an antecedent to TQM. Researchers should further consider how these three sets of
practices combine to impact other forms of performance such as operational performance
and organizational performance.
Concerning implications for practice, this study provides practitioners with a
constructive case for the implementation of JIT, TQM and green supply chain
management practices in combination in support of an environmental sustainability
strategy. The positive results associated with JIT and TQM are well established. JIT
programs seek to eliminate all forms of waste, reducing the costs associated the production
and delivery of goods and services, thereby increasing profits. TQM programs support
a customer focus yielding goods and services that meet customer requirements leading
to increased sales and market share which also translates into increased profits.
Environmental sustainability has been established as a new strategic imperative. Customers
want goods and services that are environmentally friendly and are produced and delivered
through processes that do not damage the environment. The results of this study suggest
that manufacturing managers ensure that JIT and TQM programs are in place and
functioning well before attempting to adopt green supply chain management practices.
The full impact of green practices may not be realized unless paired with JIT and TQM.
As stated by Larson and Greenwood (2004) they are “potentially perfect complements that,
effectively linked, hold the potential to vault sustainability forward” and quicken “the pace
toward a more sustainable form of capitalism.” Finally, Ho (2010) says, “lean [JIT/TQM] is
the prime mover and driving force for conserving our environment.”
Concerning societal implications, this study offers a managerial approach to improving
the environment in pursuit of environmental sustainability. While this study was conducted
within the context of the US manufacturing sector which is relatively mature, the findings
may be used to provide some general direction to manufactures in other parts of the world.
We believe that the implementation of JIT will lead to a more efficient use of resources, the
implementation of TQM will lead to increased effectiveness in that customers receive
quality goods and services that they desire, and that the implementation of green supply
chain practices will extend such efficiency and effectiveness across supply chains from
suppliers’ suppliers to ultimate customers. Such extensions of efficiency and effectiveness
support the societal imperative of environmental sustainability.
 JMTM References
Akter, S., Wamba, S.F. and Dewan, S. (2017), “Why PLS-SEM is suitable for complex modeling:
an empirical illustration in big data analytics quality”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 28 Nos 11/12, pp. 1011-1021.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Azevedo, S.G., Helena, C., Duarte, S. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2012), “Influence of green and lean
upstream supply chain management practices on business sustainability”, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 753-765.
Bergmiller, G.G. and McCright, P.R. (2009), “Are lean and green programs synergistic?”, Proceedings of
the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Conference, pp. 1155-1160.
Carvalho, H., Duarte, S. and Machado, V.C. (2011), “Lean, agile, resilient and green: divergencies and
synergies”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 151-179.
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

Chen, Z. (2015), “The relationships among JIT, TQM and production operations performance”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1015-1039.
Chiang, C., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C. and Suresh, N. (2012), “An empirical investigation of the impact of
strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm’s supply chain agility”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 49-78.
Clark, J.W., Toms, L.C. and Green, K.W. (2014), “Market-oriented sustainability: moderating impact of
stakeholder involvement”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 21-36.
De Beuckelaer, A. and Wagner, S.M. (2012), “Small sample surveys: increasing rigor in supply chain
management research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 615-639.
Dean, J.W. and Snell, S.A. (1996), “The strategic use of integrated manufacturing: an empirical
examination”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 173 No. 6, pp. 459-480.
Dreyfus, L.P., Ahire, S.L. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2004), “The impact of just-in-time implementation and
ISO certification on total quality management”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 125-141.
Eker, M. and Pala, F. (2008), “The effect of competition, just-in-time production, and total quality
management on the use of multiple performance measures: an empirical study”, Journal of
Economic & Social Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 35-72.
Fliedner, G. and Majeske, K. (2010), “Sustainability: the new lean frontier”, Production and Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 6-13.
Florida, R. and Davison, D. (2001), “Gaining from green management: environmental management
systems inside and outside the factory”, California Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 64-84.
Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S. and Schroeder, R.G. (1995), “Relationship between JIT and TQM: practices
and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1325-1360.
Freeland, J.R. (1991), “A survey of just-in-time purchasing practices in the United States”, Production
and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 43-49.
Furlan, A., Vinelli, A. and Dal Pont, G. (2011), “Complementarity and lean manufacturing bundles: an
empirical analysis”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 31
No. 8, pp. 835-850.
Garver, M.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1999), “Logistics research methods: employing structural equation
modeling to test for construct validity”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 33-57.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Yu, M., Kumar, V. and Upadhyay, A. (2018), “Total quality environmental
management: adoption status in the Chinese manufacturing sector”, TQM Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 2-19.
Germain, R. and Dröge, C. (1997), “Effect of just-in-time purchasing relationships on organizational
design, purchasing department configuration, and firm performance”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 115-125.
 Golicic, S.L. and Smith, C.D. (2013), “A meta-analysis of environmentally sustainable supply chain JIT, TQM and
management practices and firm performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 49 green supply
No. 2, pp. 78-95.
chain practices
Green, K.W. Jr and Inman, R.A. (2005), “Using a just-in-time selling strategy to strengthen supply chain
linkages”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 16, pp. 3437-3453.
Green, K.W. Jr, Zelbst, P.J., Meacham, J. and Bhadauria, V. (2012), “Green supply chain management
practices: impact on performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 290-305.
Green, K.W., Toms, L.C. and Clark, J. (2015), “Impact of market orientation on environmental
sustainability strategy”, Management Research Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 217-238.
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C.L., Randolph, A.B. and Chong, A.Y.L. (2017), “An updated and expanded
assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 442-458.
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. and Mena, J. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-151.
Hajmohammad, S., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D. and Gavronski, I. (2013), “Lean management and supply
management: their role in green practices and performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 39, pp. 312-320.
Hallam, C. and Contreras, C. (2016), “Integrating lean and green management”, Management Decision,
Vol. 54 No. 9, pp. 2157-2187.
Harmon, H.A., Brown, G., Widing, R.E. II and Hammond, K.L. (2002), “Exploring the sales manager’s
feedback to a failed sales effort”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 43-55.
Ho, S.K.M. (2010), “Integrated lean TQM model for global sustainability and competitiveness”, TQM
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 143-158.
Hong, P., James, J.R. and Rawski, G. (2012), “Benchmarking sustainability practices: evidence from
manufacturing firms”, Benchmarking, Vol. 19 Nos 4-5, pp. 634-648.
Inman, R.A and Green, K.W. Jr (2018), “Impact of lean manufacturing and green supply chain
management practices on environmental performance”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 56 No. 14, pp. 4802-4818.
Inman, R.A., Sale, R.S., Green, K.W. Jr and Whitten, D. (2011), “Agile manufacturing: relation to
total-system JIT, supply chain performance, and organizational performance”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 343-355.
Klassen, R.D. (2000), “Just-in-time manufacturing and pollution prevention generate mutual benefits in
the furniture industry”, Interfaces, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 95-106.
Klassen, R.D. and McLaughlin, C.P. (1993), “TQM and environmental excellence in manufacturing”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 14-22.
Larson, P.D. (2005), “A note on mail surveys and response rates in logistics research”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 211-222.
Larson, T. and Greenwood, R. (2004), “Perfect complements: synergies between lean production and
eco-sustainability initiatives”, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 27-36.
Li, S., Jayaraman, V., Paulraj, A. and Shang, K. (2016), “Proactive environmental strategies and
performance: role of green supply chain processes and green product design in the Chinese
high-tech industry”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 2136-2151.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
 JMTM Lindell, M.K. and Brandt, C.J. (2000), “Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the
relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 331-348.
Malhotra, N.K., Patil, A. and Kim, S.S. (2007), “Bias breakdown”, Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 24-29.
Matthews, W., Hair, J. and Mathews, R. (2018), “PLS-SEM: the holy grail for advanced analysis”,
Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1990), “The economics of modern manufacturing: technology, strategy, and
organization”, American Economic Review, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 511-528.
Nakamura, M., Sakakibara, S. and Schroeder, R. (1998), “Adoption of just-in-time manufacturing at
US – and Japanese-owned plants: some empirical evidence”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 230-240.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M. and Viswanathan, S. (2010), “On decisions for integration implementation:
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

an examination of complementarities between product-process technology integration and

supply chain integration”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 355-372.
Prasad, S., Khanduja, D. and Sharma, S.K. (2016), “An empirical study on applicability of lean and
green practices in the foundry industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 408-426.
Shah, R. and Ward, P. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 129-149.
Sower, V.E. (2011), Essentials of Quality with Cases and Experiential Exercises, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.-M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modeling”, Computational
Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205.
Vinodh, S., Arvind, K.R. and Somanaathan, M. (2011), “Tools and techniques for enabling sustainability
through lean initiatives”, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 469-479.
Vokurka, R.J., Lummus, R.R. and Krumwiede, D. (2007), “Improving manufacturing flexibility: the
enduring value of JIT and TQM”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 14-21.
Vuppalapati, K., Ahire, S.L. and Gupta, T. (1995), “JIT and TQM: a case for joint implementation”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 84-94.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling for assessing
hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 177-195.
Wu, S.J., Melnyk, S.A. and Swink, M. (2012), “An empirical investigation of the combinatorial nature of
operational practices and operational capabilities”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 121-155.
Young, I. (2009), “Beyond lean towards green: linking manufacturing excellence with environmental
sustainability”, Manufacturers’ Monthly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 14-15.
Zee, S.M.L., Fok, L.Y. and Hartman, S.J. (2011), “Exploring the relationships between organization size
and market focus and commitment to the green movement and impacts of organizational
culture: a comparative study of Jamaica and the United States”, International Journal of Business
and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 22, pp. 19-34.
Zelbst, P., Green, K.W. Jr, Sower, V.E. and Abshire, R.D. (2010), “Relationships among marketing orientation,
JIT, TQM, and agility”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 110 No. 5, pp. 637-658.
Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W. Jr, Abshire, R.D. and Sower, V.E. (2010), “Relationships among market
orientation, JIT, TQM, and agility”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110 No. 5,
pp. 637-658.
Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W. Jr, Sower, V.E. and Abshire, R.D. (2014), “Impact of RFID and information
sharing on JIT, TQM, and operational performance”, Management Research Review, Vol. 37
No. 11, pp. 970-989.
 Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performance among JIT, TQM and
early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing green supply
enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-289.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2008), “Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain
chain practices
management practices implementation”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 111
No. 2, pp. 261-273.

Further reading
Miller, G., Pawloski, J. and Standridge, C. (2010), “A case study of lean, sustainable manufacturing”,
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 11-32.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Soda, G. and Furlotti, M. (2017), “Bringing tasks back in: an organizational theory of resource
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

complementarity and partner selection”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 348-375.
Yang, M.G., Hong, P. and Modi, S.B. (2011), “Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental
management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 251-261.

Appendix. Measurement scales

Unique JIT management practices (Flynn et al., 1995)

Please indicate the extent to which agree or disagree with each statement (1 ¼ strongly disagree,
7 ¼ strongly agree).

Kanban
(1) Vendors fill our kanban containers, rather than filing purchase orders.
(2) Our suppliers deliver to us in kanban containers, without the use of separate packaging.
(3) We use kanban pull system for production control.
(4) We use kanban squares, containers or signals for production control.

Lot size reduction practices

(1) We have small lot sizes in our plant.
(2) We tend to have small lot sizes in our master schedule.
(3) We are aggressively working to lower lot sizes in our plant.

Setup time reduction practices

(1) Our crews practice setups to reduce the time required.
(2) We are aggressively working to lower setup times in our plant.
(3) We have low setup times of equipment in our plant.

JIT scheduling
(1) We usually meet the production schedule each day.
(2) There is time in the schedule for machine breakdowns or production stoppages.
(3) Our schedule is designed to allow time for catching up, due to production stoppages for
quality problems.
 JMTM Unique TQM practices (Flynn et al., 1995)
Please indicate the extent to which agree or disagree with each statement (1 ¼ strongly disagree,
7 ¼ strongly agree).

Customer focus
(1) We frequently are in close contact with our customers.
(2) Our customers often visit our plant.
(3) Our customers give us feedback on quality and delivery performance.

Product design
(1) There is considerable involvement of manufacturing and quality people in the early design of
products, before they reach the plant.
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

(2) We design for producibility.

(3) We make an effort, in the design process, to list only the specifications which are clearly needed.
(4) The emphasis in part design is on minimizing the part count.
(5) We are concerned about the number of parts in an end item.
(6) New product designs are thoroughly reviewed before the product is produced and sold.
(7) Manufacturing engineers are involved to a great extent before the introduction of
new products.

Statistical process control

(1) A large number of the equipment or processes on the shop floor are currently under statistical
process control.
(2) We make extensive use of statistical techniques to reduce variance in processes.
(3) Charts showing defect rates are posted on the shop floor.

Green supply chain management practices (Zhu et al., 2008)

Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your plant is implementing each of the following:
( five-point scale: 1 ¼ not considering it; 2 ¼ planning to consider it; 3 ¼ considering it currently;
4 ¼ initiating implementation; 5 ¼ implementing successfully).

Internal environmental management

(1) Commitment of GSCM from senior managers.
(2) Support for GSCM from mid-level managers.
(3) Cross-functional cooperation for environmental improvements.
(4) Total quality environmental management.
(5) Environmental compliance and auditing programs.
(6) ISO 14001 certification.
(7) Environmental management systems.

Green purchasing
(1) Eco labeling of products.
(2) Cooperation with suppliers for environmental objectives.
 (3) Environmental audit of suppliers’ internal management. JIT, TQM and
(4) Suppliers’ ISO 14000 certification. green supply
(5) Second-tier supplier environmentally friendly practice evaluation. chain practices
(6) Providing design specification to suppliers that include environmental requirements for
purchased item.

Cooperation with customers

(1) Cooperation with customers for eco-design.
(2) Cooperation with customers for cleaner production.
(3) Cooperation with customers for green packaging.
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

(4) Cooperation with customers for using less energy during product transportation.

Eco-design
(1) Design of products for reduced consumption of material/energy.
(2) Design of products for reuse, recycle, recovery of material and/or component parts.
(3) Design of products to avoid or reduce use of hazardous products and/or their
manufacturing process.

Investment recovery
(1) Investment recovery (sale) of excess inventories/materials.
(2) Sale of scrap and used materials.
(3) Sale of excess capital equipment.

Environmental performance (Zhu et al., 2008)

Please indicate the extent to which you perceive that your plant has achieved each of the following
during the past year ( five-point scale: 1 ¼ not at all; 2 ¼ a little bit; 3 ¼ to some degree; 4 ¼ relatively
significant; 5 ¼ significant):
(1) Reduction of air emissions.
(2) Reduction of effluent waste.
(3) Reduction of solid wastes.
(4) Decrease in consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic materials.
(5) Decrease in frequency for environmental accidents.
(6) Improvement in an enterprise’s environmental situation.

About the authors

Kenneth W. Green (DBA from Louisiana Tech University) is LeMay Professor of Management at
Southern Arkansas University. His research appears in Journal of Operations Management,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, International Journal of Production
Research, Industrial Marketing Management, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Production Planning and Control, Industrial
Management and Data Systems and Journal of Computer Information Systems.
 JMTM R. Anthony Inman (DBA from University of Memphis) is Bank of Ruston Professor of Management
at Louisiana Tech University. His research appears in Journal of Operations Management, Decision
Sciences, Interfaces, International Journal of Production Research, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, International Journal of Production Economics, European Journal of
Operational Research and Production Planning & Control. R. Anthony Inman is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Victor E. Sower has PhD from the University of North Texas and is Distinguished Professor
Emeritus of Management at Sam Houston State University. His research appears in Quality Progress,
Quality Management Journal, Southwest Business and Economics Journal, Health Care Management
Review, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Industrial Management and
Data Systems, Management Research News, International Journal of Management Education,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, Journal of International
Information Management, Teaching Business Ethics, Benchmarking for Quality Management and
Technology, Journal of Management Education, International Journal of Management and Systems,
Downloaded by University of Sunderland At 06:11 23 September 2018 (PT)

Industrial Management and Data Systems and Production and Inventory Management Journal, and he
is the author or coauthor of seven books.
Pamela J. Zelbst has PhD from University of Texas at Arlington and is Professor of Management at
Sam Houston State University. Her research appears in the International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, Industrial Management and
Data Systems, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Management Research Review, Journal of
Productivity and Quality Management, RFID Journal, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change,
Production & Inventory Management Journal, Journal of Computer Information Systems and
International Journal Management in Education, and she is the coauthor of a book.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]