Mapping and Assessing Green Entrepreneurial Performance: Evidence from a Vertically Integrated Organic Beverages Supply Chain

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to use strategy mapping (SM) and balanced scorecard (BSC) in portraying and assessing green entrepreneurial supply chain management (GESCM) performance of a vertically integrated entrepreneurial supply chain in an Egyptian emerging market of organic beverages industry. Based on thematic literature review and qualitative research (in-depth interviews with experts, focus groups, observations, and reports’ analysis), multi-item measurement quantitative BSC scale and strategy map were proposed to measure and communicate the GESCM performance of a hierarchical chain with multiple nodes and cross-functional green practices. This article conceptually contributes to the active debate on contemporary GESCM performance measurement. It integrates the literature of green production and operations management, strategic management and entrepreneurial supply chain management (ESCM) to investigate the unexplored context of GESCM research. It empirically assesses GESCM performance of an attractive network using BSC and maps its strategy with its multidisciplinary environment-friendly practices. The GESCM performance was measured in terms of four integrated perspectives (innovative and proactive processes, learning and growth, financial gains and supply chain stakeholders’ delight). Results showed that BSC and SM are effective and efficient tools in managing the performance of a successful GESC in an emerging market. Royal Herbs’ BSC key performance indicators (KPIs), which were used in assessing a GESCM strategy, indicate improvements along the BSC’s four perspectives. Results give green entrepreneurs/manufacturers in an emerging market as Egypt a comprehensive view on how they can effectively assess/improve their GESCM performance. It draws attention to the importance of investing in GESCM practices for maintaining sustainable development in a clean business environment. It helps practitioners, academics and policymakers in Egypt to bridge the gap between theory and practice regarding GESCM performance. From an interdisciplinary perspective, it provides insights on improving the ESCM performance of the industry without harming its natural environment.

Keywords

Green entrepreneurship entrepreneurial supply chain management balanced performance measurement vertical integration strategy organic beverages industry green production and operations management

Introduction

There is abundant literature (Huang et al., 2002; Li et al., 2006; Naylor et al., 1999) asserting the importance of applying different supply chain management (SCM) strategies for sustaining unique competitive advantages. In addition, there is an apparent accelerating interest in one of these strategies (i.e., green SCM) throughout recent research studies (Diabat et al., 2013; Green et al., 2012; Özlen & Omerhodžić, 2013; Petljak et al., 2018; Sarkis, 2012; Yu et al., 2014). However, some researchers (e.g., Brewer & Speh, 2000; Rao et al., 2006) contended that there is an active debate regarding the challenge of setting relevant key performance indicators (KPIs) for assessing and managing supply chain performance (SCP). Thus, different yet limited number of studies (e.g., Bhagwat & Sharma, 2007; Brewer & Speh, 2000; Wu & Chang, 2012) in the contemporary management literature used, or suggested the usage of, the balanced score card (BSC) approach for measuring/assessing SCP for more effective evaluation. Additionally, few research papers (e.g., Okongwu et al., 2015; Wu & Chang, 2012) used strategy maps for communicating SCM strategies yet not the environment-friendly ones. However, in spite of the importance of these two approaches as effective tools for strategy communication and assessment, there is only scant literature available on research (Duarte & Cruz-Machado, 2014; Duarte et al., 2011; Hsu & Liu, 2010; Reefke & Trocchi, 2013) conducted using such hierarchical frameworks (BSC and SM) and advocating their usage to communicate and assess the green/environmental supply chain performance (GSCP) of manufacturing and service institutions. Moreover, none of these studies employed these frameworks in evaluating the green entrepreneurial supply chain performance (GESCP). In regard to the GESCM strategy, the literature is divided into four main parts. First, various researchers studied green production and operations management (e.g., Baines et al., 2012; Heidrich & Tiwary, 2013) and green supply chain management (GSCM) (e.g., Bag et al., 2020; Taleizadeh et al., 2020). Second, other studies (e.g., Haldar, 2019; Lin & Chen, 2018; Schaper, 2016) discussed the importance of having green entrepreneurs, in which the performance of their individual companies can be characterised by being proactive, innovative, risk-taker and environment-friendly. However, these studies disregarded their performance among their supply chains. Third, few studies (e.g., Akbar et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2010) investigated the competencies of entrepreneurial supply chains (ESCs) in general yet not the eco-friendly ones. Fourth, only a limited number of papers (e.g., Kirkwood & Walton, 2010) explored the performance of ecopreneurs or green entrepreneurs across their supply chains (i.e., GESCM). Despite the importance of GESCM, it is still an under-researched area, especially in the emerging/developing markets. Also, there is a lack of studies that illustrated and assessed in-depth GESCP of an innovative leading exemplar using balanced KPIs. All these reasons triggered the author’s research interest to use BSC and SM for assessing and communicating GESCP of a vertically integrated network in an emerging attractive market of organic beverages. The BSC and strategy map were established after embedding KPIs that assess:

green cross-functional practices across SC;

entrepreneurial aspects of innovation, proactivity and calculated risk-taking; and

financial/non-financial dimensions.

With regard to the chosen sector for this study, the author was motivated to measure GESCP of an organic beverages network because of its uniqueness. Worldwide, there is an international accelerating demand for healthy food and organic beverage industries (Harfmann, 2015; Mogelonsky, 2007). In Egypt, organic farming and agriculture are expanding because of the country’s suitable weather as well as the local and international rising demand for environment-friendly food and beverage products (American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, 2019). Besides, the Egyptian government is currently supporting green initiatives (Egypt Vision 2030, 2016; Ministry of Environment, 2018) and other innovative entrepreneurial strategies, which reinforce the recent sustainable development implemented in different sectors such as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Adel et al., 2020), telecommunication and artificial intelligence-powered businesses (Younis & Adel, 2020) and creative handicrafts and manufacturing industries (Adel & Younis, 2019). Moreover, the organic beverages industry in Egypt has a long hierarchical GSC that involves multiple tiers of nodes/stakeholders (suppliers, manufacturers/service providers, distributors and customers). Thus, it represented an attractive context for this multidisciplinary research, which showed how green entrepreneurial practices can be applied and assessed at each node/function. Furthermore, GSCM studies were applied to many industries (e.g., textile, automobile, hospitality and electronics) (de Oliveira et al., 2018; Lin & Chen, 2018) other than the organic beverages sector. For these reasons, the author chose to carry out this research at an innovative entrepreneurial network of organic beverages, which serves as an example of a proactive calculated risk-taking GESC applying backward–forward vertical integration strategy.

Literature Review

Evolution of Green Entrepreneurial Supply Chain Management

Recently, rivalry has been observed between entire supply chains (SCs) and not individual players/companies (Li et al., 2006; Towill & Christopher, 2002). Thus, SC and SCM have been conceptualised and investigated in business research by many authors to communicate a clear understanding of this approach and its practices. A supply chain is defined as a network of interconnected nodes/tiers of suppliers, producers/service providers, distributors and customers, which are exchanging value across flows of raw material, information, cash and final product (Al-Turki et al., 2008; Jackson & Singh, 2015; Naylor et al., 1999). Accordingly, SCM was described as the managerial integration of SCs’ nodes/entities through the coordination of their processes/practices concerning the creation/flow of single product across that network (Bowersox & Closs, 1996; Huang et al., 2002; Kainuma & Tawara, 2006; Li et al., 2006). Considerable interest in the literature has been directed towards various SCM strategies to support manufacturing/service organisations in sustaining inimitable competitive advantages across their SCs (Al-Turki et al., 2008; Lau, 2007); for example, GSCM attracted increasing attention from recent studies that called for its implementation (Diabat et al., 2013; Green et al., 2012; Guo & Tsai, 2015; Hassan et al., 2013; Khalilzadeh & Derikvand, 2018; Luthra et al., 2014; Özlen & Omerhodžić, 2013; Malviya & Kant, 2015; Maryam Masoumi et al., 2015; Masoumik et al., 2015; Sharma & Gandhi, 2016; Yu et al., 2014). In the light of the aforementioned SCM definition, Luthra et al. (2014) and other scholars pointed out that GSCM strategy can be viewed as embedding multidisciplinary environmental thoughts into the philosophy of SCM (Abdallah et al., 2012; Dorantes et al., 2018; Jackson & Singh, 2015; Luthra et al., 2014; Singh & Trivedi, 2016; Yu et al., 2014). Thus, green SCM strategy was also termed in the literature as environmental SCM (Green et al., 2012; Hassan et al., 2013). Concerning its activities, Hervani et al. (2005) formulated an equation for GSCM that illustrates internal and external coordination of cross-functional practices (green purchasing, manufacturing/operations, marketing/distribution and reverse logistics). Such GSCM formula was also pointed out by other papers (Dorantes et al., 2018; Fernando et al., 2018; Mutingi et al., 2014; Tonape & Owk, 2013; Wang et al., 2013) while calling for an enhanced environment-friendly performance. Those green practices were studied by management researchers differently either individually, such as by concentrating only on one GSCM function: green production (Heidrich & Tiwary, 2013), green marketing (Dangelico & Vocalelli, 2017; Dean & Pacheco, 2014), and green human resource management (HRM) (Singh et al., 2020), or collaboratively from an SC perspective (Yu et al., 2014; Zhu et al., 2018). With respect to this article, the author contributed to the literature by measuring and communicating the GSCM performance of an entrepreneurial chain with its cross-functional green practices. In regard to the Egyptian context, Elbarky and Elzarka (2015) pinpointed that such GSCM practices (packaging, procurement, logistics, production and marketing) should be collaboratively implemented but in phases to deal effectively with the obstacles related to the implementation of each green process. With regard to the challenges of GSCM implementation, Majumdar and Sinha (2018) warned about the insufficient support of the suppliers or customers in addition to the high initial cost of its execution. On the other hand, Abd-Rahman et al. (2014) concluded that GSCM practices have a positive impact on the organisational financial and market performance as well as customers’ satisfaction. Despite the challenges of its initial implementation, the benefits of applying GSCM in terms of having long-term economic and environmental gains exceed its associated risks (Dorantes et al., 2018; Sarkis, 2012).

Regarding the GESCM performance, the author followed Ketchen and Craighead (2020) and depicted a diagram (Figure 1) to illustrate how the previous studies investigated the interaction among the relevant management research fields until this new GESCM strategy was developed. This diagram also points out the contribution of this article by addressing an under-researched area. The literature is divided into the following four main interrelated parts (as depicted by the author in Figure 1):

The integration between the two research fields of green production and operations management (GPOM) (Afum et al., 2020; Baines et al., 2012; Digalwar et al., 2013; Heidrich & Tiwary, 2013) and SCM resulted in GSCM studies. Various researchers (Abdullah, 2016; Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2020; Bag et al., 2020; Ding & Wang, 2020; Lou et al., 2020; Taleizadeh et al., 2020) studied GSCM strategy and its cross-functional practices.

The interaction between GPOM and entrepreneurship research areas generated the green entrepreneurship (GE) research interest. Some studies (Braun, 2010; Demirel et al., 2019; Gibbs & O’Neill, 2012; Haldar, 2019; Lin & Chen, 2018; Schaper, 2016) discussed the importance of having green entrepreneurs or eco-entrepreneurs, in which the performance of their individual companies can be characterised by being proactive, innovative, risk-taker and environment-friendly. These studies combined the entrepreneurial aspects together with the environment-friendly dimension but disregarded the overall supply chain performance.

The interface between entrepreneurship and SCM represents the entrepreneurial SCM strategies that were investigated by few studies (Akbar et al., 2012; Ketchen & Craighead, 2020; Wu et al., 2010). These researchers investigated the competencies of entrepreneurial SCs in general not the eco-friendly ones. In other words, they studied the ability of the entire SC to be proactive in implementing innovative ideas/processes/products (Akbar et al., 2012; Ketchen & Craighead, 2020; Wu et al., 2010).

The convergence of entrepreneurship, SCM and GPOM triggered the research interest of only limited number of papers (Habib et al., 2020; Kirkwood & Walton, 2010), which discussed the performance of ecopreneurs or green entrepreneurs across their SCs (i.e., GESCM). They pointed out the importance of integrating these three approaches together. Despite the importance of GESCM, it is still an under-researched area, especially in the emerging/developing markets. Also, there is a lack of studies that illustrated and assessed the GESCP of an innovative leading exemplar in-depth using balanced KPIs. As a result, the author was encouraged to use BSC and SM for assessing and communicating GESCP of a vertically integrated network in an emerging attractive market of organic beverages.

Figure 1.

Source: The author.

Strategy Mapping and Balanced Scorecard for Assessing and Managing Green Entrepreneurial Supply Chain Performance

Through a series of studies (Kaplan, 2005, 2009; Kaplan et al., 2010; Norton & Kaplan, 2018), Kaplan and Norton (2007, 2008) drew on their successful experience of communicating and evaluating the performance of a number of strategies in various manufacturing/service industries using BSC and SM techniques. Building on the work of Kaplan and Norton, many authors advocated using these tools for organisational performance management; for example, Umayal Karpagam and Suganthi (2012) discussed how the balanced scorecard (BSC) was invented to overcome the challenge of effective performance evaluation through using balanced framework of indicators across four interdependent financial/non-financial perspectives. These perspectives include measurement items to assess the internal business processes, customer delight and learning and innovation instead of relying only on individual financial ratios (Norton & Kaplan, 2018). Accordingly, objectives are formulated with their relevant KPIs; then, they are aligned altogether in the form of cause-and-effect relationships, which depict BSC diagrams that are coined by Kaplan and Norton as strategy maps (Umayal Karpagam & Suganthi, 2012). With respect to the benefits of SM, it portrays how investment at an individual level leads to enhancement in the internal processes and stakeholder delight in addition to favourable financial results (Kaplan et al., 2010). Through a case study approach, a number of researchers (Brown, 2017; Cheowsuwan, 2016; Cugini & Michelon, 2007; Owusu-Ansah & Takyi, 2017; Umayal Karpagam & Suganthi, 2012) assessed and demonstrated the performance of educational organisations (college, school, or university) using SM and BSC. However, these studies did not embed any measures that reflect their whole SCP. Moving from an organisational perspective to SCP evaluation, some scholars (Brewer & Speh, 2000; Rao et al., 2006) contended that there is an active debate regarding the challenge of setting relevant KPIs to monitor SCP. Additionally, Adel (2020), Brewer and Speh (2000) and Saad and Patel (2006) warned about the risk of depending solely on financial KPIs while evaluating the implementation of different SCM practices. For these reasons, a multidimensional set of measures was established later by various institutions for better performance measurement (Wilcox & Bourne, 2003). Moreover, a limited number of studies (Bhagwat & Sharma, 2007; Brewer & Speh, 2000; Wu & Chang, 2012) in the management literature advocated using BSC for measuring SCP, but they did not consider specifically the green performance. In addition, few other papers (Okongwu et al., 2015; Wu & Chang, 2012) used SM in communicating SCM strategies yet not the environment-friendly ones. Despite the aforementioned importance of these tools, only few studies (Duarte & Cruz-Machado, 2014; Duarte et al., 2011; Hsu & Liu, 2010; Reefke & Trocchi, 2013) used such hierarchical frameworks (BSC and SM) to communicate and assess the green/environmental SCP of manufacturing/service institutions. However, these few articles did not consider the entrepreneurial aspects in their BSC frameworks. In this regard, Gumbus and Lussier (2006) reported three case studies of successful entrepreneurs, who used BSC for evaluating their entrepreneurial performance. With regard to measuring GSCP with other tools, a number of studies (Kurien & Qureshi, 2012; Wei et al., 2014) used a multidimensional framework similar to BSC but after including an environmental performance perspective. On the other hand, some papers (Laosirihongthong et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2014) used questionnaires as feasible data collection tools on a large scale to assess GSCP. Yet, these studies did not use comprehensive and balanced KPIs throughout their measurement process. In summary, there is a lack of studies that illustrated and assessed their GESCM performance in-depth using balanced KPIs in one framework. For these reasons, the author chose to use BSC and SM for measuring GESCP of an emerging organic beverages network with balanced dimensions. One of the contributions of this research relates to the measurement of GESCP after embedding KPIs that assess: (a) green SC cross-functional practices; (b) entrepreneurial aspects of innovation, proactivity and calculated risk-taking; and (c) financial/non-financial dimensions. Thus, the findings of this study can generate supportive insights to more entrepreneurs about the GESCP management and enhancement.

Research Methodology

For production and operations management research, Mangan et al. (2004) supported the usage of a case study approach due to its effectiveness in investigating in-depth innovative research ideas in one institution that can generate valuable insights for future studies. Further, Mangan et al. (2004), Farquhar (2012), Creswell (2014) and Sekaran and Bougie (2016) promoted the employment of mixed-methods approach (qualitative and quantitative) in data collection while conducting case research in order to build a thorough understanding/analysis of specific contemporary organisational processes/practices. Specifically, in the area of entrepreneurship, scholars (e.g., Natarajan, 2017) used the case study approach to analyse comprehensively the entrepreneurial practices of a successful organisation. Following these aforementioned studies, the author used mixed-methods approach and case study research strategy in this article. First, based on a conducted thematic literature review and qualitative research (exploratory research using in-depth personal interviews with experts working at an Egyptian organic beverages GESC), a BSC framework was proposed with balanced objectives and KPIs. Second, a triangulation mixed-methods approach (quantitative BSC measures, qualitative in-depth interviews, focus groups, observations and reports’ analysis) was used to construct BSC and strategy map as communication/evaluation tools.

Figure 2.

Source: The author.

As was recommended by Creswell (2014), triangulation mixed-methods approach was applied to obtain an in-depth understanding, from different standpoints, of: (a) the research problem related to measuring GESCP from a balanced perspective (using financial and non-financial measures) and (b) the nature of an attractive Egyptian organic beverages industry SC with its sub-sectors (e.g., Green Life, Classic Infusion, Royal Blends, and Royal Health) and multiple nodes (e.g., suppliers, producers and distributors). Figure 2 presents the research data collection process, conducted by the author, including the techniques used and outcomes generated.

Concerning the methodological principle of saturation in qualitative research, the author followed Creswell (2014) and Saunders et al. (2018), who advocated stopping the data collection process and proceeding with the data analysis after realising that further data collection will result in redundancy without adding value. Accordingly, the author conducted 25 in-depth interviews with the supply chain manager, the production and operations manager and other experts at OTTOMAN Group, Royal Herbs GESC in Egypt. This GESC acts as a supplier of herbs as well as innovative producer and distributor of green products, thus forming a backward–forward vertical GESC integration strategy. Further, two focus groups were conducted with experts working at this GESC and were recommended by the operations manager to respond to the questions asked by the author. Moreover, as was advocated by Creswell (2014), the researcher conducted qualitative observations in Royal Factory, through which field notes were taken and quantitative/qualitative reports were analysed. Based on the data collected from those experts via this mixed-methods approach, the author was able to (a) design the GESCM strategy map, (b) develop the GESCM BSC and (c) draw the green entrepreneurial SC with its different nodes in a detailed manner. The strategy map was constructed to communicate the formulated GESCM strategy with its cross-functional practices (green purchasing, green manufacturing, green innovative processes, green marketing, green HRM and reverse logistics) at this organic beverages SC. The quantitative multi-item BSC scale was established to measure and manage the GESCM performance of that successful network operating in Egypt as an important exemplar of a manufacturing emerging market.

Vertically Integrated GESCM Strategy of Royal Herbs in Egypt

Royal Herbs GESC successfully operates in the Egyptian organic beverages industry, which acts as an example of a prosperous yet unexplored market/context by the contemporary management researchers. Such GESC applies a backward–forward vertical integration SCM strategy by acting as a herbs’ cultivator, raw materials/work-in-process supplier, organic beverage producer and distributor in the local and international markets (Ottoman Group Royal Herbs, 2018). Its main organic product lines (Green Life, Classic Infusion, Royal Blends and Royal Health) are sold in the form of tea bags along two main SC distribution networks in Egypt, which are the retail and pharmaceutical organic beverages (Ottoman Group Royal Herbs, 2018).

Regarding its vertically integrated GESCM strategy, the supply chain manager (one of the interviewees at Royal Herbs GESC in Egypt) stated that:

As a pioneer of such green industry in Egypt, Royal Herbs besides acting as a producer, it is also the herbs’ cultivator and work-in-process supplier to our factories as well as to the international market (e.g., UK and U.S.A). In addition, Royal Herbs GESC deals with other international suppliers of raw materials (e.g., filter paper and herbs) from China, India, Turkey and Kenya in addition to local Egyptian suppliers of raw materials (e.g., herbs) and others (e.g., packages).

Furthermore, the production and operations manager (another interviewee at Royal Herbs GESC) added that:

Along our organic beverages GESC, there are different SC flows of raw materials, semi-finished/finished products, information, cash, human resources (HR) and value. With respect to the HR SC flow, there are different international and local suppliers of information and HR (e.g., research centers and educational institutions/universities) to Royal Herbs to supply us with research, employees and trainees. Also, such GESC encompasses remanufacturing of herbs, recycling of packages and reusing/redistributing of extra/returned finished products.

With regard to sustaining a continuous process of quality management, Royal Herbs GESC is being certified from different suppliers (e.g., ECOA, Fair-Trade, Naturland, BIO SUISSE, JAS, USDA Organic, ISO 9001, 22000:2005, OHSAS 18001, ISO/IEC 17025:2005) (Ottoman Group Royal Herbs, 2018). Royal Herbs is currently expanding among few local rivals (Sekem/ISIS, Imtenan and Roots) in an oligopoly market. With regard to its international expansion, while operating as both supplier of herbs and producer of organic beverages, Royal Herbs Group is exporting to other countries (Japan, Italy, UK, USA, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar and Germany) (Ottoman Group Royal Herbs, 2018). Worldwide, there is an international accelerating demand on healthy food and organic beverages industries (Harfmann, 2015; Mogelonsky, 2007). Currently, Royal Herbs as a GESC is carrying out innovative entrepreneurial practices collaboratively with its international partners to sustain its competitive advantage like many Egyptian entrepreneurs in other different sectors (Adel et al., 2018). To sum up, such a long hierarchical organic SC that involves tiers of nodes/stakeholders represented an attractive context for the current multidisciplinary management research, which showed how green entrepreneurial practices can be implemented and measured at these vertically integrated nodes. Thus, the author of the current study was motivated to carry out this study at one of its networks, which represents an example of a pioneer GESC applying backward–forward vertical integration.

Figure 3.

Source: The author.

Prior research literature (e.g., Agrawal et al., 2016; Björklund et al., 2012; Gardner & Cooper, 2003; Gechevski et al., 2016; Hervani et al., 2005; Jaggernath & Khan, 2015; Kurien & Qureshi, 2012) on green SCM specifically mapped the green/environmental SC nodes of different sectors; for example, Wang et al. (2013) depicted a green SC for a restaurant in Taiwan and Balasubramanian and Shukla (2017) illustrated the stakeholders of a green SC in a construction sector. For mapping the nodes of Royal vertically integrated GESC, the author conducted 25 in-depth interviews with the supply chain manager and the production and operations manager, as well as other experts working at Royal Herbs in Egypt. Based on the aforementioned previous studies and the data collected via mixed-methods approach, the author drew GESC of Royal Herbs as an exemplar of organic beverages hierarchical network in an emerging market. Figure 3 illustrates this GESC, which includes its main SC nodes/players (multiple tiers of suppliers, manufacturers/service providers, distributors and customers) that exchange tangible/intangible benefits in the form of different flows of value, raw materials, work-in-process, final product, information, financial and human resources, remanufactured herbs and recycled packages.

Data Analysis, Findings and Discussion

The author developed a multi-item measurement BSC scale (quantitative approach) in order to monitor and manage the GESCM performance of a prosperous Egyptian organic beverages SC. Such BSC’s KPIs, used as a GESC strategy evaluation tool, were developed by the author based on: (a) the data collection via face-to-face interviews, focus groups, field observation and reports’ analysis at Royal GESC and (2) the techniques used in the prior research literature for GSCP measurement by BSC or other similar multidimensional KPIs (Bhattacharya et al., 2014; Duarte & Cruz-Machado, 2014; Duarte et al., 2011; Hervani et al., 2005; Hsu & Liu, 2010; Kurien & Qureshi, 2012; Mutingi et al., 2014; Naini et al., 2011; Reefke & Trocchi, 2013; Shaw et al., 2010). Table 1 shows Royal Herbs’ GESCM BSC, developed by the author, which includes financial/non-financial objectives and KPIs of 2 years (before and after applying Royal Herbs’ GESCM strategy). Moreover, Royal Herbs’ GESCM strategy map was developed by the author based on: (1) the research data collection and (2) the previous studies that used strategy mapping of SCM practices and green SCM strategies in specific (Bhattacharya et al., 2014; Duarte & Cruz-Machado, 2014; Kaplan, 2005, 2009; Kaplan & Norton, 2008; Kaplan et al., 2010; Norton & Kaplan, 2018; Reefke & Trocchi, 2013; Scholey, 2013; Shaw et al., 2010). Figure 4 shows Royal Herbs’ GESCM strategy map. After carrying out this research, the author recommended to Royal managers that this GESCM strategy map could be used as a communication tool among their stakeholders to ensure common interpretation and clear implementation of that strategy. This GESCM strategy map illustrates how the performance of Royal Herbs incorporates the main GESC dimensions—as emphasised by Akbar et al. (2012) and Lin and Chen (2018)—of being innovative, proactive, collaborative, calculated risk-taker and environment-friendly.

According to the BSC results presented in Table 1, Royal Herbs’ KPIs that were measured after the GESCM strategy implementation indicated obvious improvements along its four perspectives in comparison with the year before that new strategy was implemented; for example, with regard to the learning and growth BSC perspective, the objective of enhancing the awareness for the GESCM practices (investing in organisation capital) was assessed with two KPIs. One of them, was the percentage of competency-based trained labour on green manufacturing and operations management, indicated an increase in its percentage from 40 to 75 after the new GESCM strategy was implemented. With respect to the internal process perspective, the usage of newly purchased remanufacturing machines has reduced the material/herb wastes from 20% to 2% only, which enhanced operational efficiency. These new machines remanufactured the smaller parts of herbs into larger ones that can be kept effectively inside the filter bags. Thus, it led to best usage of natural resources. Regarding the stakeholder delight perspective, the elimination of customer returns through quality enhancement processes led to enhanced external customer delight. Moving to the final financial perspective, these above-mentioned improvements led to an increase in the overseas B2B revenues of organic products to 20% and a decrease in the non-value adding costs to reach only 2% of total costs. Within the financial perspective, Royal Herbs embraced entrepreneurial calculated risk-taking orientation (as suggested by Ndubisi & Nair, 2009; Sadiku-Dushi et al., 2019) while pursuing green business opportunities to enhance the value and minimise the cost associated with adopting these GESC practices.

In conclusion, as was pinpointed by the production and operations manager (one of the interviewees) at Royal Herbs GESC:

Having precise frameworks with predetermined performance indicators can help in sustaining a process of continuous improvement in a proactive GESC at an emerging organic beverages sector. Accordingly, such hierarchical SC can provide an example for other similar organisations on how to operate and grow in an environment-friendly way and align their performance with Egypt’s vision 2030 of sustainable development.

As exemplified in Table 1 and displayed in Figure 4, Royal Herbs carried out GESCM practices using a bottom-up approach starting from investing in promoting the human assets, information and communication technology (ICT) and organisation capital, which in turn improved the relevant innovative proactive green processes that led to both SC stakeholders’ delight and financial gains. Furthermore, the effective performance assessment of that GESCM approach can support the organisational alignment with the requirements of the country’s sustainable development strategy and its environmental dimension (Egypt Vision 2030, 2016; Ministry of Environment, 2018) published by the Egyptian Government, which is a stakeholder of this GESC. This environmental dimension requires all manufacturing companies in Egypt to produce and develop their products without harming the society and its natural environment.

Table 1.

Royal Herbs’ Green Entrepreneurial Supply Chain Management Balanced Scorecard.

BSC Perspective	Objective	KPIs	Before GESCM	After GESCM
Financial perspective with entrepreneurial calculated risk-taking orientation	Enhance the green supply chain revenue opportunities	Revenue of organic products (% of overseas B2B)	5	20
	Enhance the green supply chain revenue opportunities	Market share of organic exports (%)	10	20
	Decrease the supply chain’s non value-adding costs	Rework/scrap costs (% of total costs)	10	2
	Reduce the cost related to environmental pollution	Pollution fines/penalties (%)	15	7
SC stakeholders’ perspective	Enhance external customer delight	Lead time (months)	4–5	2.5
		Ontime delivery (%)	45	95
		Customer returns (%)	1	0
	Sustain a synergistic partnership with the suppliers and asking them to be also quality certified	% of supplied defective herbs	2	0
		% of claims on first tier suppliers of Chamomile Tea	20	0
	Improve the responsiveness rate towards satisfying customers’ demands	% of resolved quality problems	50	80
		Number of customer complaints	10	2
	Increase the internal customer delight (employees’ delight)	Turnover rate (%)	30	15
		Absenteeism (%)	15	10
		Utilisation rate of invested funds on family medical insurance (%)	85	100
	Strengthen the relationship with the society	CSR invested funds required by Fair-Trade (% of sales)	1	5
	Establish better distribution networks through environment-friendly transportation and safer warehousing	% of rejected products	3	0
Innovative, proactive and green processes perspective	Improve the operational efficiency in an innovative way	Material wastes (%) (reducing material wastes via remanufacturing)	20	2
	Improve the operational efficiency in an innovative way	% of redistributed products	0	15
	Develop new environment-friendly manufacturing processes	Energy wastes (%)	50	25
	Develop a new process of quality management across GESC	Number of certifying suppliers that provide quality certificates to Royal Herbs	8	10
		% of certified suppliers	0	60
		% of accomplished quality enhancement programmes with suppliers	20	60
		% of quality audit areas/scores that still need improvement	8	2
		% of certified facilities	50	100
	Motivate HR to conduct GESCM practices or generate new ideas for green innovative processes/products/services	% of incentives related to GESCM practices or new ideas generated	0	5
	Design a new facility layout that supports the green manufacturing process	% of improvements in the productivity rate after the new layout	25	50
Learning and growth perspective	Enhance the awareness for the GESCM practices (organisation capital)	Number of educational/training programmes on green MFG/operations	0	5
		% of competency-based trained labour	40	75
	Embed the philosophy of safety in the corporate culture	Number of safety training workshops	10	35
	Promote the information and communication technology (ICT) capital	% of improvements to update the website	20	80
	Invest in developing the human capital	Number of HR received funded post graduate programmes on green MFG/SCM	0	1

Source: The author.

Conclusions, Contributions, Limitations and Managerial Implications

The purpose of this article was to use SM and BSC approach for portraying and assessing GESCM performance from integrated perspectives ( SC stakeholder delight, internal processes, financial gains and learning and growth) of a vertically integrated organic beverages SC in an Egyptian emerging market. This article adds value conceptually and empirically to the scholars and practitioners, who are studying/adopting a GESCM strategy that can be both responsible as well as profitable. It addressed an under-researched area (GESCM) using a case study approach with mixed methods and thematic multidisciplinary literature review. Conceptually, it contributes to the ongoing debate on GESCM performance measurement by reflecting critically on the relevant studies related to these lines of research (GSCM, ESCM, and GE as illustrated in Figure 1). From an interdisciplinary perspective, it integrates the literature of green production and operations management, strategic management and entrepreneurial supply chain management to investigate an unexplored context of GESCM research. Empirically, it assesses the GESCM performance of one successful entrepreneurial network using a BSC and maps its green strategy with its cause-and-effect cross-functional practices. Moreover, according to the author’s knowledge, it is the first article that provides a comprehensive picture of a GESC in an emerging organic beverages industry with its hierarchical tiers of global stakeholders. The Royal Herbs’ BSC that was established by the author to assess the GESCM strategy indicated improvements along its four perspectives in comparison with the year before that new strategy was implemented. Results showed that BSC and SM are effective tools in managing the GESCM performance of a successful manufacturing network in an emerging market. Findings of this research supported Sarkis (2012) and Dorantes et al. (2018), who asserted that despite the challenges in GSCM implementation (e.g., convincing the SC stakeholders of its importance in spite of its high initial costs), the benefits of applying GSCM in terms of having long-term economic and environmental gains exceed its associated risks.

Figure 4.

Source: The author.

The findings of this research have valuable implications for practitioners, academics and policymakers in Egypt by helping them in bridging the gap between the theory and practice regarding GESCM. Thereby, this article represents an exemplar for managing the sustainable development in an emerging market like Egypt and improving its industrial sectors without harming its natural environment. Based on the findings of this article, the following managerial implications were directed to leaders/managers of GESCs of organic beverages in an emerging market as Egypt:

To carry out entrepreneurial environment-friendly SCP so that they will be able to retain sustainable development in a growing yet clean business environment because operating in an eco-friendly way is a crucial dimension of sustainability (Adel & Mahrous, 2018).

To invest in enhancing their cross-functional GSCM practices in terms of green purchasing, production, marketing and distribution to reinforce their environment-friendly performance along their entire supply chains (as demonstrated in Figures 3 and 4).

To develop GESCM strategies that employ aspects/dimensions of entrepreneurship (e.g., calculated risk-taking, innovativeness and proactiveness), green production and operations (e.g., environment-friendly manufacturing, internal green operations and external upstream and downstream green processes) and SCM (e.g., coordination, integration, and information sharing) (as displayed in Figure 1).

To assess and manage their GESCM strategies using a BSC approach by setting SMART objectives (i.e., specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound) with their relevant financial and non-financial KPIs across four main perspectives (stakeholder delight, internal processes, financial and learning and growth) (as exemplified in Table 1).

As a limitation of this research, the author investigated only one manufacturing GESC in an emerging market of organic beverages industry. Hence, generalisation is limited in case of using a case study approach. Yet, Yin (2013) asserted that using a triangulation mixed-methods approach for integrating qualitative and quantitative techniques can maximise the confidence in the research findings of a case study. Despite the challenges of data collection that researchers might face in an emerging market, especially when using a detailed case study approach, the author used a BSC for assessing comprehensively the performance of an Egyptian GESC using relevant KPIs. Also, the author followed Yin (2013) and Creswell (2014), who called for using a triangulation mixed-methods approach to enhance the value generated from the case study research. This approach was selected to develop an in-depth understanding and analysis concerning: (a) the assessment of GESCP from balanced perspectives using non-financial/financial measures and (b) the nature of a promising Egyptian organic beverages industry with its interactive players. For future research, the author recommends that more conceptual/empirical studies should be investigating the assessment of GESCM strategies in other manufacturing or service industries while adapting BSC and SM frameworks according to each context. Other studies can compare the GESCM practices applied at developed countries with those of the emerging markets to communicate successful GESCM endeavours and their challenges among the learning community and practitioners and support the green development in their societies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Heba Mohamed Adel

References

Abdallah

Farhat

Diabat

Kennedy

(2012). Green supply chains with carbon trading and environmental sourcing: Formulation and life cycle assessment. Applied Mathematical Modelling , 36(9), 4271–4285.

Abd-Rahman

J. A.

Rusli

K. A.

(2014). Pressures, green supply chain management practices and performance of ISO 14001 certified manufacturers in Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Management , 8(1), 1–24.

Abdullah

(2016). Green supply chain management practices and sustainable performance among ISO 14001 manufacturing firms: The moderating effect of supply chain integration (PhD Thesis). Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Adel

H. M.

(2020). ICT, information sharing and a new hybrid lean-agile performance: Empirical evidence from automotive hierarchical supply chains. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development , 19(2), 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1386/tmsd_00023_1

Adel

H. M.

Mahrous

(2018). Sustainability communication and evaluation: A practice-based case study on British-Egyptian universities value-chain . Proceedings of the 32^nd Annual International Conference of The British Academy of Management (BAM) 2018: Driving productivity in uncertain and challenging times, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, United Kingdom, 4–6 September.

Adel

H. M.

Younis

R. A. A.

(2019). Using co-creating mass-customisation and innovation climate for enhanced value: Empirical investigation in international modular jewellery market. Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences , 1(1), 25–42.

Adel

H. M.

Mahrous

A. A.

Hammad

(2020). Entrepreneurial marketing strategy, institutional environment, and business performance of SMEs in Egypt. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies , 12(5), 727–746.

Adel

H. M.

Zeinhom

G. A.

Mahrous

A. A.

(2018). Effective management of an internationalization strategy: A case study on Egyptian–British universities’ partnerships. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development , 17(2), 183–202.

Afum

Osei-Ahenkan

V. Y.

Agyabeng-Mensah

Amponsah Owusu

Kusi

L. Y.

Ankomah

(2020). Green manufacturing practices and sustainable performance among Ghanaian manufacturing SMEs: The explanatory link of green supply chain integration. Management of Environmental Quality , 31(6), 1457–1475.

10.

Agrawal

Singh

R. K.

Murtaza

(2016). Outsourcing decisions in reverse logistics: Sustainable balanced scorecard and graph theoretic approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 108, 41–53.

11.

Agyabeng-Mensah

Ahenkorah

Afum

Agyemang

A. N.

Agnikpe

Rogers

(2020). Examining the influence of internal green supply chain practices, green human resource management and supply chain environmental cooperation on firm performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 25(5), 585–599.

12.

Akbar

Muzaffar

Ur Rehman

(2012). Entrepreneurial supply chain management competence: Performance of manufacturing small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Management & Organizational Studies , 1(2), 39–46.

13.

Al-Turki

U. M.

Duffuaa

Ayar

Demirel

(2008). Stakeholders integration in higher education: Supply chain approach. European Journal of Engineering Education , 33(2), 211–219.

14.

Ali

Saad

T. B.

Sabir

Muhammad

Salman

Zeb

(2020). Integration of green supply chain management practices in construction supply chain of CPEC. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal , 31(1), 185–200.

15.

American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt. (2019). Organic farming on the rise . AmCham.

16.

Bag

Gupta

Kumar

Sivarajah

(2020). Role of technological dimensions of green supply chain management practices on firm performance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management , https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-10-2019-0324

17.

Baines

Brown

Benedettini

Ball

(2012). Examining green production and its role within the competitive strategy of manufacturers. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM) , 5(1), 53–87.

18.

Balasubramanian

Shukla

(2017). Green supply chain management: An empirical investigation on the construction sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 22(1), 58–81.

19.

Bhagwat

Sharma

M. K.

(2007). Performance measurement of supply chain management: A balanced scorecard approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 53(1), 43–62.

20.

Bhattacharya

Mohapatra

Kumar

Dey

P. K.

Brady

Tiwari M.

Nudurupati

S. S.

(2014). Green supply chain performance measurement using fuzzy ANP-based balanced scorecard: A collaborative decision-making approach. Production Planning & Control , 25(8), 698–714.

21.

Björklund

Martinsen

Abrahamsson

(2012). Performance measurements in the greening of supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 17(1), 29–39.

22.

Bowersox

D. J.

Closs

D. J.

(1996). Logistical management: The integrated supply chain process . McGraw-Hill.

23.

Braun

(2010). Going green: Women entrepreneurs and the environment. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship , 2(3), 245–259.

24.

Brewer

P. C.

Speh

T. W.

(2000). Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain performance. Journal of Business Logistics , 21(1), 75–93.

25.

Brown

(2017). Balanced scorecard implementation in a school of nursing: A Case study analysis. Planning for Higher Education , 45(4), 1–14.

26.

Cheowsuwan

(2016). The strategic performance measurements in educational organizations by using Balance Scorecard. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science , 8(12), 17–22.

27.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . SAGE Publications.

28.

Cugini

Michelon

(2007). Performance evaluation in research departments: From the balanced scorecard to the strategy map . In 4th Conference on Performance Measurement and Management Control, Measuring and Rewarding Performance, Nice France, September, pp. 1–27.

29.

Dangelico

R. M.

Vocalelli

(2017). “Green Marketing”: An analysis of definitions, strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production , 165, 1263–1279.

30.

de Oliveira

U. R.

Espindola

L. S.

da Silva

I. R.

da Silva

I. N.

Rocha

H. M.

(2018). A systematic literature review on green supply chain management: Research implications and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production , 187, 537–561.

31.

Dean

T. J.

Pacheco

D. F.

(2014). Green marketing: A strategic balancing act for creating value. Journal of Business Strategy , 35(5), 14–22.

32.

Demirel

Q. C.

Rentocchini

Tamvada

J. P.

(2019). Born to be green: New insights into the economics and management of green entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics , 52(4), 759–771.

33.

Diabat

Khodaverdi

Olfat

(2013). An exploration of green supply chain practices and performances in an automotive industry. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , 68(1/4), 949–961.

34.

Digalwar

A. K.

Tagalpallewar

A. R.

Sunnapwar

V. K.

(2013). Green manufacturing performance measures: An empirical investigation from Indian manufacturing industries. Measuring Business Excellence , 17(4), 59–75.

35.

Ding

Wang

(2020). Information sharing in a green supply chain with promotional effort. Kybernetes , 49(11), 2683–2712.

36.

Dorantes

G. A.

Salais Fierro

T. E.

Camacho Ruelas

(2018). The relevance of green practices worldwide: An overview. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development , 15(2), 1–12.

37.

Duarte

Cruz-Machado

V. A.

(2014). Lean and green supply chain performance: A balanced scorecard perspective. In Xu

Cruz-Machado

V. A.

Lev

Nickel

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, Part IV, Focused on Intelligent System and Management Science, 280, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (pp. 645–654). Springer.

38.

Duarte

Cabrita

Cruz-Machado

V. A.

(2011). Exploring lean and green supply chain performance using balanced scorecard perspective . Paper Presented at the 2011 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22–24 January, pp. 520–525.

39.

Egypt Vision 2030. (2016). Sustainable development strategy—Third pillar: Knowledge, innovation and scientific research . Ministry of Planning, Monitoring and Administrative Reform.

40.

Elbarky

Elzarka

(2015). A green supply chain management migration model based on challenges faced in Egypt . Paper presented at the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM), Dubai, 3–5 March, pp. 1–8.

41.

Farquhar

J. D.

(2012). Case study research for business . SAGE Publications.

42.

Fernando

Walters

Ismail

M. N.

Seo

Y. W.

Kaimasu

(2018). Managing project success using project risk and green supply chain management: A survey of automotive industry. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , 11(2), 332–365.

43.

Gardner

J. T.

Cooper

M. C.

(2003). Strategic supply chain mapping approaches. Journal of Business Logistics , 24(2), 37–64.

44.

Gechevski

Kochov

Popovska-Vasilevska

Polenakovik

Donev

(2016, January/March). Reverse logistics and green logistics way to improving the environmental sustainability. Acta Technica Corvininesis—Bulletin of Engineering , 9(1), 63–70.

45.

Gibbs

O’Neill

(2012). Green entrepreneurship: Building a green economy? Evidence from the UK. Social and Sustainable Enterprise: Changing the Nature of Business, Contemporary Issues in Entrepreneurship Research , 2, 75–96.

46.

Green

K. W. Jr

Zelbst

P. J.

Meacham

Bhadauria

V. S.

(2012). Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 17(3), 290–305.

47.

Gumbus

Lussier

R. N.

(2006). Entrepreneurs use a balanced scorecard to translate strategy into performance measures. Journal of Small Business Management , 44(3), 407–425.

48.

Guo

J.-J.

Tsai

S.-B.

(2015). Discussing and evaluating green supply chain suppliers: A case study of the printed circuit board industry in China. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering , 26(2), 56–67.

49.

Habib

M. A.

Bao

Ilmudeen

(2020). The impact of green entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and green supply chain management practices on sustainable firm performance. Cogent Business & Management , 7(1), 1–26.

50.

Haldar

(2019). Green entrepreneurship in the renewable energy sector–A case study of Gujarat. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management , 10(1), 234–250.

51.

Harfmann

(2015, October). Mainstreaming organic natural beverages. Beverage Industry , 106(10), 36–40.

52.

Hassan

ElBeheiry

M. M.

Hussein

K. N.

(2013). Drivers and barriers facing adoption of green supply chain management in Egyptian food and beverage industry. College of International Transport and Logistics, Arab Academy for Science Technology and Maritime Transport , pp. 1–22.

53.

Heidrich

Tiwary

(2013). Environmental appraisal of green production systems: Challenges faced by small companies using life cycle assessment. International Journal of Production Research , 51(19), 5884–5896.

54.

Hervani

A. A.

Helms M.

Sarkis

(2005). Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmarking: An International Journal , 12(4), 330–353.

55.

Hsu

Y.-L.

Liu

C.-C.

(2010). Environmental performance evaluation and strategy management using balanced scorecard. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 170(1/4), 599–607.

56.

Huang

S. H.

Uppal

Shi

(2002). A product driven approach to manufacturing supply chain selection. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 7(4), 189–199.

57.

Jackson

L. A.

Singh

(2015). Environmental rankings and financial performance: An analysis of firms in the US food and beverage supply chain. Tourism Management Perspectives , 14, 25–33.

58.

Jaggernath

Khan

(2015). Green supply chain management. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development , 11(1), 37–47.

59.

Kainuma

Tawara

(2006). A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean and green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics , 101(1), 99–108.

60.

Kaplan

R. S.

(2005). How the balanced scorecard complements the McKinsey 7-S model. Strategy & Leadership , 33(3), 41–46.

61.

Kaplan

R. S.

(2009). Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research , 3, 1253–1269.

62.

Kaplan

R. S.

Norton

D. P.

(2007). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review , 85(7/8), 150–161.

63.

Kaplan

R. S.

Norton

D. P.

(2008). Mastering the management system. Harvard Business Review , 86(1), 62–79.

64.

Kaplan

R. S.

Norton

D. P.

Rugelsjoen

(2010). Managing alliances with the balanced scorecard. Harvard Business Review , 88(1), 114–120.

65.

Ketchen

D. J.

Jr Craighead

C. W.

(2020). Research at the intersection of entrepreneurship, supply chain management, and strategic management: Opportunities highlighted by COVID-19. Journal of Management , 46(8), 1330–1341.

66.

Khalilzadeh

Derikvand

(2018). A multi-objective supplier selection model for green supply chain network under uncertainty. Journal of Modelling in Management , 13(3), 605–625.

67.

Kirkwood

Walton

(2010). How ecopreneurs’ green values affect their international engagement in supply chain management. Journal of International Entrepreneurship , 8(2), 200–217.

68.

Kurien

G. P.

Qureshi

M. N.

(2012). Performance measurement systems for green supply chains using modified balanced score card and analytical hierarchical process. Scientific Research and Essays , 7(36), 3149–3161.

69.

Lau

A. K. W.

(2007). Educational supply chain management: A case study. On the Horizon , 15(1), 15–27.

70.

Laosirihongthong

Adebanjo

Tan

K. C.

(2013). Green supply chain management practices and performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 113(8), 1088–1109.

71.

Ragu-Nathan

T. S.

Subba Rao

(2006). The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. The International Journal of Management Science , 34(2), 107–124.

72.

Lin

Y.-H.

Chen

H.-C.

(2018). Critical factors for enhancing green service innovation: Linking green relationship quality and green entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology , 9(2), 188–203.

73.

Liu

Blome

Sanderson

Paulraj

(2018). Supply chain integration capabilities, green design strategy and performance: A comparative study in the auto industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 23(5), 431–443.

74.

Lou

Lai

Fan

(2020). Coordination in a composite green-product supply chain under different power structures. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 120(6), 1101–1123.

75.

Luthra

Garg

Haleem

(2014). Green supply chain management: Implementation and performance—A literature review and some issues. Journal of Advances in Management Research , 11(1), 20–46.

76.

Majumdar

Sinha

(2018). Modeling the barriers of green supply chain management in small and medium enterprises: A case of Indian clothing industry. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal , 29(6), 1110–1122.

77.

Malviya

R. K.

Kant

(2015). Green supply chain management (GSCM): A structured literature review and research implications. Benchmarking: An International Journal , 22(7), 1360–1394.

78.

Mangan

Lalwani

Gardner

(2004). Combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies in logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 34(7), 565–578.

79.

Maryam Masoumi

K. S.

Abdul-Rashid

S. H.

Olugu

E. U.

Raja Ghazilla

R. A.

(2015). An integrated framework- for designing a strategic green supply chain with an application to the automotive industry. International Journal of Industrial Engineering , 22(1), 46–61.

80.

Masoumik

S. M.

Abdul-Rashid

S. H.

Olugu

E. U.

(2015). The development of a strategic prioritisation method for green supply chain initiatives. PLoS ONE , 10(11), 1–33.

81.

Ministry of Environment. (2018). A summary report on the activities of the ministry of environment . Ministry of Environment.

82.

Mogelonsky

(2007, May). Category analysis: Organic beverages. Prepared Foods , 176(5), 11–20.

83.

Mutingi

Mapfaira

Monageng

(2014). Developing performance management systems for the green supply chain. Journal of Remanufacturing , 4(1), 1–20.

84.

Naini

S. G. J.

Aliahmadi

A. R.

Jafari-Eskandari

(2011). Designing a mixed performance measurement system for environmental supply chain management using evolutionary game theory and balanced scorecard: A case study of an auto industry supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 55(6), 593–603.

85.

Natarajan

(2017). Entrepreneurial organization building in the emerging economy. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 3(2), 91–104.

86.

Naylor

J. B.

Naim

M. M.

Berry

(1999). Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics , 62(1/2), 107–118.

87.

Ndubisi

N. O.

Nair

S. R.

(2009). Green entrepreneurship (GE) and green value added (GVA): A conceptual framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurship , 13, 21–34.

88.

Norton

D. P.

Kaplan

R. S.

(2018). Balanced scorecard. In Augier

Teece

D. J.

(Eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of strategic management . Palgrave Macmillan.

89.

Okongwu

Brulhart

Moncef

(2015). Causal linkages between supply chain management practices and performance: A balanced scorecard strategy map perspective. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management , 26(5), 678–702.

90.

Ottoman Group Royal Herbs. (2018). Main products, export partner and certifications . Royal Herbs.

91.

Owusu-Ansah

C. M.

Takyi

L. N.

(2017). Performance management in academic libraries: A balanced scorecard approach for digital services. Journal of Balkan Libraries Union , 5(1), 1–10.

92.

Özlen

M. K.

Omerhodžić

(2013). Green supply chain management: A new movement towards healthier environment. European Researcher , 55(7/2), 1919–1928.

93.

Petljak

Zulauf

Štulec

Seuring

Wagner

(2018). Green supply chain management in food retailing: Survey-based evidence in Croatia. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 23(1), 1–15.

94.

Rao

V. M.

Phillips

C. L. M.

Johnson

(2006). Assessing supply chain management success factors: A case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 11(2), 179–192.

95.

Reefke

Trocchi

(2013). Balanced scorecard for sustainable supply chains: Design and development guidelines. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , 62(8), 805–826.

96.

Saad

Patel

(2006). An investigation of supply chain performance measurement in the Indian automotive sector. Benchmarking: An International Journal , 13(1), 36–53.

97.

Sadiku-Dushi

Dana

L.-P.

Ramadani

(2019). Entrepreneurial marketing dimensions and SMEs performance. Journal of Business Research , 100, 86–99.

98.

Sarkis

(2012). A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 17(2), 202–216.

99.

Saunders

Sim

Kingstone

Baker

Waterfield

Bartlam

Burroughs

Jinks

(2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity , 52(4), 1893–1907.

100.

Schaper

(2016). Understanding the green entrepreneur. In Schaper

(Ed.), Making ecopreneurs: Developing sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 27–40). Routledge.

101.

Scholey

(2013). Strategy mapping: Saskatchewan green roofing (Teaching case). Chartered Professional Accountants (CPA).

102.

Sekaran

Bougie

(2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach . John Wiley & Sons.

103.

Sharma

Gandhi

M.A.

(2016). Exploring correlations in components of green supply chain practices and green supply chain performance. Competitiveness Review , 26(3), 332–368.

104.

Shaw

Grant

D. B.

Mangan

(2010). Developing environmental supply chain performance measures. Benchmarking: An International Journal , 17(3), 320–339.

105.

Singh

Trivedi

(2016). Sustainable green supply chain management: Trends and current practices. Competitiveness Review , 26(3), 265–288.

106.

Singh

S. K.

Del Giudice

Chierici

Graziano

(2020). Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 150, 1–12.

107.

Taleizadeh

A. A.

Noori-Daryan

Sana

S. S.

(2020). Manufacturing and selling tactics for a green supply chain under a green cost sharing and a refund agreement. Journal of Modelling in Management , https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-01-2019-0016

108.

Tonape

Owk

(2013). An overview, trends and future mapping of green supply chain management–perspectives in India. Journal of Supply Chain Management Systems , 2(3), 48–56.

109.

Towill

Christopher

(2002). The supply chain strategy conundrum: To be lean or agile or to be lean and agile. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications , 5(3), 299–309.

110.

Umayal Karpagam

P. L.

Suganthi

(2012). A strategy map of balanced scorecard in academic institutions for performance improvement. IUP Journal of Business Strategy , 9(3), 7–16.

111.

Wang

Y. F.

Chen

S. P.

Lee

Y. C.

Tsai

C. T. S.

(2013). Developing green management standards for restaurants: An application of green supply chain management. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 34, 263–273.

112.

Wei

Liu

Yin

(2014). Research on performance evaluation system for green supply chain management based on the context of recycled economy – Taking Guangxi’s manufacturing industry as example. Journal of Grey System , 26(2), 177–187.

113.

Wilcox

Bourne

(2003). Predicting performance. Management Decision , 41(8), 806–816.

114.

I.-L.

Chang

C.-H.

(2012). Using the balanced scorecard in assessing the performance of e-SCM diffusion: A multi-stage perspective. Decision Support Systems , 52(2), 474–485.

115.

Park

Chinta

Cunningham

(2010). Global entrepreneurship and supply chain management: A Chinese exemplar. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship , 2(1), 36–52.

116.

Yin

R. K.

(2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation , 19(3), 321–332.

117.

Younis

R. A. A.

Adel

H. M.

(2020 September 2–4). Artificial intelligence strategy, creativity-oriented HRM and knowledge-sharing quality: Empirical analysis of individual and organisational performance of AI-powered businesses . Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of The British Academy of Management (BAM) 2020: Innovating for a Sustainable Future, London, UK. https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/events/1520/secure/program-app/submission/206970; https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/events/1520/submissions/206970/question/25454/programme-builder/download

118.

Solvang

W. D.

Chen

(2014). A green supply chain network design model for enhancing competitiveness and sustainability of companies in high north arctic regions. International Journal of Energy & Environment , 5(4), 403–418.

119.

Chavez

Feng

Wiengarten

(2014). Integrated green supply chain management and operational performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 19(5/6), 683–696.

120.

Zhu

Zhao

(2018). Cost-sharing models for green product production and marketing in a food supply chain. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 118(4), 654–682.