FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MARA

PUNCAK ALAM CAMPUS

BUSINESS OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

OPM537

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT 1

TITLE OF ASSIGNMENT:
ARTICLES REVIEW

PREPARED FOR:
MADAM NOR AZIAN BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN

PREPARED BY:
ERMAWATI BINTI SUDIRMAN (2023690714)

SUBMISSION DATE:
25TH APRIL 2024
 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
NO CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2

2.0 ARTICLES SUMMARY

2.1 ARTICLES 1 3-5

2.2 ARTICLES 2 6-8

3.0 CONCLUSION 9
 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At its foundation, sustainable product design is a long-term oriented and progressive.

The main objective of sustainable design is to positively affect the people, profits, and other
factors. The company must take into account the three possible impact areas which is the
environmental, social, and economic in order to create sustainable product design.

In this assignment, I was choosing two articles to write a summary about it. For the first
article, I chose the article from Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu, and Sachin Kumar Mangla with
the title “The impact of digital traceability on sustainability performance: investigating the
roles of sustainability-oriented innovation and supply chain learning. This article explores the
topic of food sustainability, which is globally recognized issue that calls for immediate, multi-
level integrated solutions. In addition to taking into account the moderating impact of supply
chain learning (SCL) and the mediating effect of sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) for
the food supply chain. The goal of this research is to look into how food firms can improve
their sustainability performance through digital traceability practices.

In the second article from Babu John-Mariados, Nadia Pomirleanu, Pavan R.

Chennamaneni, Rajani Ganesh Pillai, and Suhaiza Zailani with the title “Interactive effects of
organizational resources on sustainable product design practices: a resource orchestration
perspective that published in 2023. The purpose of this research article is to analyze how a
company’s customer capital (CRC) and strategic sustainability orientation (SSO) interact to
influence sustainable product design practices (SPDP).
 3

2.0 ARTICLES SUMMARY

2.1 Article 1: The impact of digital traceability on sustainability performance:

investigating the roles of sustainability-oriented innovation and supply chain learning.

Based on a study looking into how digital traceability affects sustainability performance
in the food industry, conducted by Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu, and Sachin Kumar Mangla.
The study intends to find out how food companies can enhance their sustainability through
digital traceability methods, focusing on supply chain learning (SCL) and sustainability-
oriented innovation (SOI). Organizational innovation, process innovation, and production
innovation are the three perspectives that make up SOI. Based on the data from 359 food firms
in China, the study found out that digital traceability gives the positively impacts on
sustainability performance across products, process, and organizational innovation. The main
focus of research on SOI in SCM has been on how to restructure business models to prioritize
the implementation of sustainability across the whole supply chain, which will enhance a
company’s performance. digital traceability and sustainability performance are mediated by
SOI, while the relationship between digital traceability, product, and innovation process is
managed by SCL. By examining digital traceability procedures in Chinese food companies and
emphasizing the value of funding sustainability innovation for improving social,
environmental, and economic performance, this article also adds to the body of literature. By
providing a light on the best places to invest in sustainability innovation according to the food
supply chain, these findings contribute to the developments of food sustainability practices.
The study also discusses the need for integrated approaches to improve the standard of food
sustainability in order to meet global challenges like environmental problems and food security.

Environmental-related pollutants are a concern to the food sector as they are facing
challenges such as food insecurity and an energy crisis, as well as generating significant food
loss and waste. The food system is increasingly globalized and energy-intensive, with energy
costs accounting for a large portion of plants expenses in advanced economies. Furthermore, a
substantial amount of global food output is wasted by consuming a significant portion of energy
in the global food system. Sustainable development strategies in the food chain are thought to
be essential to resolving these problems. This is because of the reality that technologies are
crucial for protecting a competitive edge along the supply chain. Because SCL allows for better
adaptation to changes in the business environment, it also encourages leadership
transformation, which can assist the organization in addressing supply chain ambidexterity and
 4

u certainty. By offering enhanced tracking and monitoring of sustainability-related practices,

such as food quality, operational efficiency, and waste reduction, digital traceability is
highlighted as a critical innovation that can aims to improving sustainability practices in the
supply chain management. Other than that, a holistic method that considers the economic,
social and environmental factors that aims to enhance the production, processing, and overall
performance is required to make the effective management of food chain sustainability.

In order to increase production efficiency and decrease food waste, multitier supply
chain must integrate resources, information, and capabilities. A digital traceability system that
makes use of communication innovations and technology can improve the transparency
throughout the supply chains in various tiers, allowing food safety issues to be more effective
fixed. It is imperative that innovations be used to move towards sustainability, with a
concentration on the “triple-bottom line” of social, environmental, and economic aspects. The
goal of sustainability-oriented innovation or SOI is to preserve economic value while
accomplishing social and environmental sustainability through both progressive and drastic
changes. To achieve the higher sustainability performance, SOI also includes innovation at the
organizational process and product levels. Product innovation plays an important role in
reducing environmental impact throughout the product lifecycle, product innovation also
requiring a change of organizational to embrace social and environmental considerations. The
current research suggests that SOI can help to improve the responsiveness to customers,
improve lean manufacturing, and promote sustainability practices in the food chain sector.
However, further exploration is needed to understand the full impacts of SOI-related initiatives
on sustainable food systems. For the overall, adopting a SOI can contribute to the improvement
on how to manage the food waste with wisely, global food chain sustainability, and operational
efficiency towards sustainability goals that can help the organization to minimize the costs
include in the production of goods.

A comprehensive approach is required to dealing with the theoretical gap in

understanding the effect of sustainable operations initiatives (SOI) on the sustainability of the
food chain, as stated by Hansen et al. (2022). Based on Friedman and Ormitson (2022), digital
innovation specifically in the context of blockchain technologies, is essential in enhancing the
environmental and social sustainability of the food chain. Supply chain learning (SCL) is the
process for exchanging knowledge and developing procedures in order to move a company
resource towards sustainable practices and continuing on SOI improvement.
 5

Organizational, process and sustainable product innovation are all positively impacted
by digital traceability. The activities in the food chain are also directly impacted by the
outcomes of this digital traceability. By studying this article, we can get new information that
is useful to our life.

Nowadays, digital technology is important to all the organizations to improve their

system and make the work of the company easy to manage. Without digital technology, the
organization will lag than other organizations. Therefore, the need for technology is very much
used to advance the company in addition to being able to reduce costs.

Sustainability-oriented innovation plays an important role in this context. This is

because the driving development of novel technologies and practices aimed to minimize the
environmental impact while maintaining economic viability. These innovations not only can
enhance the efficiency of the supply chain process but also contribute to the overall
sustainability of the organization’s agenda.

In my opinion, this article highlights the transformative potential of digital

traceability in advancing the sustainability objective through supply chains. By leveraging
technology and fostering innovation and learning, business can achieve greater transparency,
efficiency, and accountability in their effort on sustainability. However, a successful
implementation requires a holistic approach that integrates technological solutions with
organizational culture, stakeholder collaboration, and regulatory frameworks.
 6

2.2 Article 2: Interactive effects of organizational resources on sustainable product design

practices: a resource orchestration perspective.

Babu John-Mariados, Nadia Pomirleanu, Pavan R. Chennamaneni, Rajani Ganesh

Pillai, and Suhaiza Zailani The article was conducted by John-Mariados, Nadia Pomirleanu,
Pavan R. Chennamaneni, Rajani Ganesh Pillai, and Suhaiza Zailani study the interactive effects
of looks at how a firm’s company’s customer relationship capital (CRC) and strategic
sustainability orientation (SSO) and customer relationship capital (CRC) on interact to effect
sustainable product design practices (SPDP). The article stated that when CRC is low, SSO has
a greater impact on SPDP based on data from 132 Malaysian manufacturers. Lastly, when CPs
are higher than when they are lower, the interactive effects of the previously mentioned firm-
level resources are stronger. The article found out that when customer pressure is high, these
firm-level resources have stringer interactive effects The interactive effects of the firm-level
resources mentioned in the article are stronger when CP is higher than when it is lower. High
CPs are a sign of client expectations for more specific and demanding actions from solid SPD
solutions. High customer pressure (CP) situations are highlight more specific and nuanced
needs, preference, and demands regarding sustainability solutions by emphasizing the value of
customer buy-in. by looking at the impacts of firm-level strategic resources and their
interactions with SPDP, the research also adds to the body of literature. One study disadvantage
is that it only uses the data from a single source and time period, which means it is unable to
give other researchers more accurate and detailed information.

Manually, the findings of these articles offer insights about the potential negative
impact of customer relationships with assets on how business should react to customer
pressure. The study also underscores the importance of sustainable product design practices in
order to reduce the environmental impact of product lifecycle decisions, which are often
influenced by marketing strategies. We can conclude, the research sheds light on the strategic
resources’ orchestration perspective in sustainable product design practices and their
implications for organizations and society as a whole.

Other than that, marketing strategy information often fails to consider the impacts of
ecosystem as a standard decision-making factor and leading to a lack of recognition of
sustainable product design practices (SPDP). Product design is a basic characteristic of the
marketing mix and a source of the firm’s competitive advantage. Based on this article, they
explore the effects of strategic resources at the firm level and their interactions in relation to
 7

SPDP, a crucial aspect of sustainable product development. Previous research indicates that
institutional pressures such as industry self-regulation, government regulations, and self-
organized attempts at collective action can have an impact on the firm SPDP. Product design is
a key component of the marketing mix and essential for the firm’s competitive advantage. The
academic interest in sustainable product design has grown in various disciplines like marketing,
supply chain management, and operations management. As many firms accept sustainability in
their operations, the importance of SPDP among the people will also increase through focusing
on reducing environmental impact throughout a products lifecycle. The research states that
designing products in an environmentally responsible manner can improve profitability.
Sustainable product design practices involve identifying and integrating environmental impact.
By implementing SPDP, firms can contribute to sustainability goals and reduce the
environmental effects toward their products. The significance of a customer relationship with
capital and resource orchestration to foster strategic sustainability orientation in product design
practices is further explained by this study.

In order to explain how firm-level resources affect sustainable product development

(SPD), recent research on the topic has concentrated on the resource-based view (RBV). The
impact of supplier-focused relationships with human resources has been studied, but minimal
is known about how organizational culture and customer relationship assets affect the
implementation of supply chain productivity plans (SPDPs). To guarantee the economic, social
and environmental sustainability of products, organizational resources must be used to their
fullest potential. Business would be more capable to meet market demands and boost product
acceptance if they took organizational culture and customer relationships into consideration
when designing new products. Actually, the purpose of this study is to look into how a
company’s customer relationship capital and sustainability orientation interact with SPDP, as
well as the factors that affect customer pressure.

To fully understanding on how the combination of resources give businesses a

competitive advantage in the marketplace, theoretical frameworks like resource-based view
and resource orchestration theory are applied. By bringing together resources, developing
capabilities, and fostering them into routines and practices so they cannot be exchanged or
copied, the company will gain a competitive advantage. For marketing researchers and
practitioners, filling the research gap is essential since a company strategic orientation and
sustainability-focused culture have a big impact on how well SPDP is implemented.
 8

Understanding these relationships can guide product design practitioners and researchers in
implementing sustainable practices effectively.

The research’s managerial consequences highlight the value of fostering a sustainability

mindset across the entire organization and contribute to the body of knowledge on
organizational culture. Furthermore, as far as the authors aware, this is the first study to look
into how two distinct kinds of firm resources interact with SPDP. Subsequently, the authors
contribute to the body of literature by enhancing our general comprehension of the ways in
which relational and organizational culture resources work together to implement SPDP inside
an organization. Finally, by looking at the three-way interactions between the resources of the
two firms an external sustainability driver-CPs as they relate to SPDP, this research adds to the
literature.

The effects on sustainable product design practices are provided by organizational

resources like customer relationship capital (CRC) and strategy sustainability orientation
(SSO). To be able to address customer pressure, organizations need to keep an eye on the
pressure levels being applied to them. They also need to make decisions about how best to
encourage sustainable behaviors and thinking within their teams, as well as implement strategic
initiatives to foster sustainability orientations within the organization.

In my opinion, organizations can get the great benefit from the relationship that exist
between sustainable product design practices and organization resources. It provides a
framework for firms to optimize their resource allocation and orchestration efforts to enhance
their sustainability performance. Companies can develop more effective strategies for
integrating sustainability into their product design process, and ultimately contribute to a more
sustainable future by leveraging a resource orchestration perspective.
 9

3.0 CONCLUSION

As a conclusion, based on the summary for both articles, I identify that product design
and sustainability is important in the organization to sustain in the industry. The organization
must be careful in creating products to make it last longer and durable to sustain.

Based on the first article, I can conclude that digital traceability is necessary for all
organizations nowadays because it can help them to compete with others organization and
makes them sustain in the industry. Positive effects on the three pillars of sustainability
performance among food firms are also provided by digital traceability. Digital traceability and
sustainability performance are mediated by sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI), which is
made up for organizational, process, and product innovation. It acts as mediator in the
relationship between digital traceability and innovation in both processes and products for
supply chain learning (SCL).

For the second article, I am able to make a conclusion that organizational resources
have an impact on sustainable product design techniques. The research demonstrates that when
customer relationship capital (CRC) is low, the impact of strategic sustainability orientation
(SSO) on sustainable product design (SPDP) is greater. When customer pressures (CPs) are
higher, the firm-level resources stated have stronger interactive effects.
 The impact of digital traceability on
sustainability performance: investigating the
roles of sustainability-oriented innovation
and supply chain learning
Xiongyong Zhou
School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China and
Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Haiyan Lu
Business School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and
Sachin Kumar Mangla
Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK and Jindal Global Business School, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India

Abstract
Purpose – Food sustainability is a world-acknowledged issue that requires urgent integrated solutions at multi-levels. This study aims to explore
how food firms can improve their sustainability performance through digital traceability practices, considering the mediating effect of sustainability-
oriented innovation (SOI) and the moderating effect of supply chain learning (SCL) for the food supply chain therein.
Design/methodology/approach – Hierarchical regression with a moderated mediation model is used to test the proposed hypotheses with a
sample of 359 food firms from four provinces in China.
Findings – Digital traceability has a significant positive impact on the three pillars of sustainability performances among food firms. SOI (product
innovation, process innovation and organisational innovation) mediates the relationship between digital traceability and sustainability performance.
SCL plays moderating roles in the linkage between digital traceability and both product and process innovation, respectively.
Originality/value – This paper contributes as one of the first studies to develop digital traceability practices and their sustainability-related improvements
for Chinese food firms; it extends studies on supply chain traceability to a typical emerging market. This finding can support food sustainability practice in
terms of where and how to invest in sustainability innovation and how to improve economic, environmental and social performance.
Keywords Food sustainability, Food supply chain management, Digital traceability, Sustainability-oriented innovation, Supply chain learning
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction In addition, the food sector is on one hand suffering from food
insecurity and an energy crisis, on the other hand, causing a huge
The current global food system is facing major challenges that amount of food loss and waste (Wang et al., 2021; Zhao et al.,
hinder sustainable development. Food security has been a 2021). Our food system is becoming more globally integrated and
concerning issue for decades, with around 800 million people now energy intensive in all activities; the current energy crisis has
facing hunger (FAO, 2022). The lack of food security is caused difficulties in the food sector to some extent where 40%–
devastating when local and global food systems are disrupted by 50% of total variable costs of cropping are direct and non-direct
natural hazards, political conflicts or global outbreaks in the energy costs in advanced economies (IEA, 2022). On the other
public health system. A vicious circle is in operation when the food hand, approximately one-third of the total global food output is
system is heavily reliant on natural conditions and resources, such wasted, accounting for 38% of total energy usage in the global
as weather, temperature, water and soil, while a series of food system (United Nations, 2022). Drawing on the current
environmental problems arise due to systems in farming,
production and distribution. These are responsible for one-third
of global greenhouse gas emissions (United Nations, 2021) and
For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative
environmental-related pollutants (European Commission, 2022). Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted
Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Funding: Major Project of Social Science Research Base in Fujian Province

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
(No. FJ2023JDZ020).
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1359-8546.htm
Received 30 January 2023
Revised 1 June 2023
12 August 2023
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13 October 2023
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546] 12 December 2023
[DOI 10.1108/SCM-01-2023-0047] Accepted 15 December 2023
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

issues in the food sector, the necessity of implementing call for exploring solutions that contribute to sustainability
sustainable development practices in the food chain is widely development (Hansen et al., 2022). A theoretical gap needs to
acknowledged (Chauhan et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2021; Zhou et al., be further addressed to examine the impact of SOI on food
2022a). chain sustainability, incorporating the holistic view of the three
Digital traceability is a key aspect of innovation that enhances pillars in systemic changes. In addition, digital innovation is
sustainability practices in food supply chain management (SCM) one of the key aspects of SOI that enables technology
(Pougnet et al., 2022; Gloet and Samson, 2022). When dealing innovation for sustainability development. For example,
with food safety and security issues, digital traceability allows supply blockchain drives technology innovation and organisational
chain tracking and tracing to better manage and monitor innovation in SOI that enhances the implementation of
sustainability-related practices; these include food quality, environmental and social sustainability in the food chain
operational efficiency, eco-friendly practice and reducing food (Friedman and Ormiston, 2022). As such, this study aims to
waste (Hew et al., 2020; Epelbaum and Martinez, 2014; Saurabh investigate the relationship between SOI and sustainable food
and Dey, 2021; Zhou and Xu, 2022; Lu et al., 2021). For example, chains to address the current research gap that could be
digital traceability can support on-farm productivity and efficiency, influenced by the adoption of digital traceability.
enhancing food production and processing, by improving supply Supply chain learning (SCL) is a form of synergy that involves
chain performance and sustainability while addressing economic, experience sharing and practice transformation at various stages of
social and environmental performance (Bahn et al., 2021). inter-firm interaction (Bessant et al., 2003). The learning process is
Managing food chain sustainability successfully requires extending seen as a type of dynamic capability that influences the
beyond the firm level and integrating resources, information and transformation of companies’ resources into sustainability-
capabilities in a multi-tier supply chain (Lu et al., 2021). A digital oriented routines and continuous improvement in SOI (Inigo and
traceability system leverages technology and communication Albareda, 2019). This includes organisational learning processes
innovation (Epelbaum and Martinez, 2014), increasing with external stakeholders to build system resilience (Roome and
transparency across different tiers of the supply chain to improve Wijen, 2006). Current research shows the importance of SCL in
production efficiency and reduce food waste. A practical example is influencing sustainable SCM, involving the adjustment of supply
to better identify the cause of contamination during an outbreak of chain structure with multi-tier actors (Gong et al., 2018). Yet,
food safety issues (Astill et al., 2019). there is a lack of comprehensive insights regarding the role of SCL
The debate on companies adjusting business activities in SOI and the influence of digital traceability. As such, this study
towards sustainability via innovation was initially highlighted aims to fill this research gap by investigating the influence of digital
through eco and environmental innovation; a more holistic traceability on SOI, its impact on sustainability performance and
view on sustainability covering the “triple-bottom line” should the role of SCL in the relationship.
be addressed (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014). As such, scholars This study makes three important theoretical contributions.
deliberate on the context of sustainability-oriented innovation Firstly, it is among the first to investigate sustainability
(SOI) that has addressed changes in both incremental and performance in the food sector from the SOI perspective;
radical innovation, aiming to create environmental and social secondly, SOI extends product and process innovation to
sustainability while generating economic value (Neutzling organisational and systemic changes along the three
et al., 2018). SOI consists of product, process and dimensions of breadth, depth and lifecycle for sustainability
organisational-level innovation to achieve higher sustainability practice; finally, this study develops the insights needed to
performance (Adams et al., 2016). The rapidly growing field of understand SCL in the field of SOI and of sustainable
SOI emphasises product innovation to increase the triple development in the food chain. This provides a means to tackle
bottom line practice of a product during every stage of its the barriers of undertaking SOI through a broad sustainable
lifecycle (Hansen et al., 2009). This starts at the product development programme (Testa et al., 2022).
design, viewing this as a way of reducing the environmental The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2
footprint, then implementing an environmental management provides a literature background and addresses the hypothesis
system, such as international organization for standardization development. Section 3 presents the methodology followed by
14000, in the initial stage (Dey et al., 2020). As such, SOI not data analysis in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the study findings
only encompasses technical innovation in the product-life cycle against the existing literature and summarises the theoretical
but also requires an organisational system to embrace wide- and practical contributions. Finally, Section 6 concludes the
ranging social changes (Testa et al., 2022) that fundamentally paper, acknowledging identified limitations of the study.
engage with innovation partners in the supply network and
external stakeholders in the social system (Inigo et al., 2020).
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
In current research on sustainable food chains, the
overarching view of how SOI-related initiatives can make a 2.1 Literature review
substantial difference in sustainable food systems remains 2.1.1 Digital traceability in supply chain management
unclear, necessitating further investigation (Testa et al., 2022). Digital technologies have been a key to helping businesses
Existing studies show that SOI can promote responsiveness to reshape supply chains, resulting in better resource management
customers and enhance lean manufacturing to increase and greater operational efficiency in recent years (Alexander
operational efficiency towards sustainability practice (Jum’a et al., 2022). Digital technologies incorporate the dynamic
et al., 2022). Using SOI is claimed to improve food waste capabilities for sensing, seizing and reconfiguring firm and
management (Martin-Rios et al., 2020) and global food chain supply chain capabilities for improving resiliency (Hallikas
sustainability (Friedman and Ormiston, 2022). Yet, there is a et al., 2021; Irfan et al., 2022). In the use of digital technologies,
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

such as internet of things, blockchain and big data analytics, the 2016). SOI strategies, applied in the context of SCM, are
global supply chain system is reconfigured with the capabilities receiving increasing attention from practitioners and
of proven transparency, traceability and decentralised researchers (Neutzling et al., 2018). If some innovative
emergence (Bhandal et al., 2022). Digital traceability, technologies of food firms have unique value, these
recognised as one of the capabilities of using digital technologies will play a vital role in maintaining a competitive
technologies, refers to the use of innovative technology to advantage throughout the food supply chain.
connect physical products for digital identification and SOI is comprised of three perspectives – production
recording, providing better ability of tracing and tracking the innovation, process innovation and organisational innovation
processes, location and function of SCM and that impacts on (Adams et al., 2016). Yet, in existing literature, firms’ SOI is
food operations effectiveness (Zhou et al., 2023; Casino et al., often viewed as a single dimension (Le and Ikram, 2022; De
2021). Digital traceability reflects the expectation of et al., 2020). This requires further development in theory
manufacturers and consumers to digitally record and because, in actual performance, SOI is not only reflected in the
document changes in all conditions and locations to visualise all development of new products or services but also in processes
features of a product (Zhou et al., 2023). Facilitating the track- and organisational innovations that may result from
and-trace system is one of the major drivers to adopt digital management practices (Adams et al., 2016; Demirel and
applications, with the aim of improving supply chain Kesidou, 2019; Jum’a et al., 2022). Therefore, this study takes
traceability and performance (Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018; an overarching view to investigate SOI by involving product
Zhou et al., 2023). A number of recent studies reveal the innovation, process innovation and organisational innovation.
positive outcomes of integrating digital traceability in SCM Product innovation means the introduction of new or
(e.g. Bienhaus and Haddud, 2018; Nakandala et al., 2023; substantially improved products (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014).
Paolucci et al., 2021). Annosi et al. (2021) triangulate the Process innovation is the substantial improvements made to
emerging findings from empirical studies, showing that production processes or logistical support (Adams et al., 2016).
digitalisation affects supply chain collaborative practices and Organisational innovation refers to the reorganisation of
food waste management. Digital traceability requires the practices and structures within the company and the adoption
generation and organisation of supply chain data; this enables of new forms of management, including cooperation with
increased supply chain visibility (Anastasiadis et al., 2022). supply chain members and better stakeholder engagement
Data analytics capabilities that are yielded in digital traceability (Neutzling et al., 2018; Adams et al., 2016).
significantly improve operations and supply chain processes, Research on SOI in SCM primarily focuses on how to
e.g. to visualise the processes in the procurement system and enhance company performance by reconfiguring business
improve supply chain integration (Hallikas et al., 2021). models to prioritise sustainability implementation throughout
Digital traceability essentially falls within the scope of the the entire supply chain (Friedman and Ormiston, 2022).
supply chain. In a digital traceable supply chain, farmers and Companies are expected to comply with sustainability-related
producers can document the source of their food and confirm regulations; this may require adopting integrated approaches
adherence to a set of standards. Manufacturers and distributors into the processes, practices culture and strategy innovation in
can digitise data on secure, unalterable ledgers. Retailers can socio-technological systems (Adams et al., 2016). In food
gauge the freshness of products, communicate authentically SCM, adoption of SOI is claimed to assure equality in SCM,
with consumers, make business operations more efficient and enhanced by digital traceability, to ultimately drive
reduce food waste. Consumers can scan food products and sustainability in SCM (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014; Friedman
quickly access relevant information online (Ringsberg, 2014). and Ormiston, 2022). Transformation of sustainability in
Existing research on digital traceability primarily examines the practice is a challenge. While SOI stimulates an adaptive
drivers and barriers to its implementation (Centobelli et al., approach in product innovation processes (Keskin et al., 2020),
2021; Hew et al., 2020; Malik et al., 2021), as well as the companies with higher capabilities in SCM react in a more
technological realisation process (Casino et al., 2021; Sunny radical fashion in SOI with innovation processes to make
et al., 2020). Less attention is paid to performance changes (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014). Food companies need to
improvement, particularly at the supply chain level. In practice, adopt different innovative technologies in their product,
the implementation of digital traceability can provide unique process and organisational aspects to enable sustainable
advantages for food SCM (Zhou et al., 2022b). Carefully practices (Dey et al., 2020; Jum’a et al., 2022). In addition,
designed and managed traceability systems, regardless of the research shows that SOI does not only influence innovative
platform used, can facilitate market access for producers and product and processes but also reshapes supply chain
enhance food safety for consumers (Aung and Chang, 2014). relationships; this impacts on resource investment,
Digital traceability offers companies an opportunity to provide collaboration and supply chain governance structure for
greater transparency to customers and ensure the reliability of sustainability practices (Neutzling et al., 2018).
sustainability claims in areas such as human rights, labour
2.1.3 Supply chain learning
(including health and safety), the environment and anti-
SCL refers to building the capacity to create new knowledge or
corruption (Hastig and Sodhi, 2020).
new insights together through a process where participants can
2.1.2 Sustainability-oriented innovation collectively learn how to rethink and renew their supply chain
SOI refers to the synergetic management of integrating frame (Lambrechts et al., 2012). Research shows that there are
economic, social and ecological aspects into the design of new two inclusive components of learning. These are the “core
products, processes and organisational structures (Adams et al., competence” which differentiates one company from the other
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

and that can offer potential competitive advantages; the other is flow and market share, as highlighted by Wang and Dai (2018).
the long-term development of a capacity for continued learning Environmental sustainability relates to pollution and resources,
and improvements (Bessant et al., 2003, p. 168). Most water security, climate change, energy conservation and
discussions of learning in current literature address learning not biodiversity (Büyüközkan and Karabulut, 2018). Social
only as intra-firm processes but also in inter-firm applications sustainability addresses human rights and community, labour
to enhance the dynamic capabilities in managing the supply standards, health and safety, customer responsibility and
chain (Yang et al., 2008). Derived from inter-organisational animal welfare (Dey et al., 2020).
learning, SCL addresses how members of an organisation act Sustainable SCM has been a growing area of research for a
together to create collective knowledge (Gosling et al., 2016). couple of decades. With evolving discussions on the complexity
Successful firms can acquire, assimilate and leverage of sustainability practice, research has looked at stakeholder
knowledge within their internal functions as well as key views (Hussain et al., 2018), socio-eco system perspectives
suppliers and customers (Huo et al., 2021). (Büyüközkan and Karabulut, 2018), technology and
SCL shows a significant impact on logistics and supply chain traceability (Zhou et al., 2022a) to understand the internal
performance (e.g. Manuj et al., 2014; Parast, 2020). However, capabilities (Bag and Rahman, 2023; Gruchmann et al., 2019),
there is a lack of investigation on their influence on digital external motives (Kitsis and Chen, 2019) and multi-tier
traceability in SCM research. Exploring the adoption of interactions (Oyedijo et al., 2023). Given that digitalisation is
digitalisation in sustainable SCM is currently a prominent area well-acknowledged in business and operations, scholars further
of research (Beske et al., 2014; Gruchmann et al., 2019; Lu develop the insights of adopting digital technologies (Belhadi
et al., 2021). Embedded within the dynamic capability et al., 2022; Garcia-Torres et al., 2019) in sustainable supply
framework, the concept of knowledge management plays a chain performance. For example, a recent study visualises the
pivotal role by encompassing knowledge acquisition and overarching view of data analytics at different levels to
evaluation within SCM. This, in turn, has a significant impact overcome challenges in food production for better performance
on the development and implementation of environmentally in societal, environmental and economic responsibilities
friendly and sustainable practices (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., (Kamble et al., 2020). Future research on sustainable SCM can
2022). Through the lens of SCL, this study acknowledges the address the existing gap by investigating the interactions
critical significance of knowledge management and learning as between different actors and the complexity of supply chain
fundamental capabilities that organisations must cultivate to structure (Centobelli et al., 2022). As such, this study
promote sustainability practices, extending these practices endeavours to investigate a holistic framework that integrates
throughout their supply chains (Secundo et al., 2020). SCL both digitalisation and innovation with SCL to identify the
fosters leadership transformation that can help to address impacts on sustainability performance in SCM.
uncertainty and supply chain ambidexterity, as a result of better
adapting changes in the business environment (Ojha et al., 2.2 Hypotheses development
2018), as a result of yielding to better operations performance 2.2.1 The direct effect of digital traceability on sustainability
(Khan and Wisner, 2019; Yang et al., 2023). Besides, SCL performance
positively influences knowledge on supply chains and green To improve sustainability performance, food companies wish
innovation (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2022). The assimilation to be accountable for the provenance of their goods and the
of existing and new information into valuable knowledge for environmental-and-social sustainability of the supply chain in
food companies is essential for effective innovation activities which they operate (Garcia-Torres et al., 2019). They seek
and for gaining an innovative edge (Gong et al., 2018). SCL is opportunities to benefit from traceability across the entire
important in inspiring dialogues, the legitimacy they endow, supply chain by trimming costs, improving the carbon footprint
the opportunities for new knowledge acquisition and the or increasing the resilience of inputs or conversion (Zhou et al.,
creative and responsive solutions they stimulate (Flint et al., 2022a).
2008; Loke et al., 2012). With a high level of SCL capability, Malik et al. (2021) applied the resource orchestration theory
the food sector can use digital technology to accelerate the and the causal complexity perspective to conceptualise and
acquisition, digestion, integration and utilisation of the vast validate supply chain traceability and supply chain
amount of traceability information dispersed among supply transparency as interrelated organisational capabilities that may
chain members to generate new knowledge and experience that mutually enhance or compensate each other for competitive
can be useful for product development, process improvement advantage. Gallo et al. (2021) stated that digital traceability can
and structural optimisation (Garcia-Torres et al., 2019). enhance supply chain operations in the food process, storing,
shipping and monitoring throughout the product life cycle.
2.1.4 Sustainability performance Logistic and qualitative traceability of food production allows
Sustainability performance is the alignment of environmental, greater resource savings (e.g. reducing costs and the waste of
social and financial objectives in the delivery of core business inputs) through the use of real-time data for decision-making
activities to maximise value (Wang and Dai, 2018). Such (Lezoche et al., 2020). Food traceability is becoming a must-
performance involves three aspects of sustainability, namely, have in the industry to mitigate and manage risks around food
people – social sustainability, planet – environment safety recalls (Aung and Chang, 2014). Aligning digital
sustainability and profit – economic sustainability (Elkington, traceability with business objectives can enable quick and
1998; Park and Li, 2021; Seuring and Müller, 2008). prompt recall of ineffective, unsafe or sub-standard products
Specifically, economic sustainability focuses on achieving which may cause harm to consumers or negatively impact the
economic objectives through considerations related to cash brand’s reputation and market value (Stranieri et al., 2017).
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Adopting blockchain traceability in food companies not only 2.2.2 The direct effect of digital traceability on sustainability-ori-
facilitates quick insights into evolving market trends but also ented innovation
allows for the exploration of profit opportunities to meet the SOI encompasses technical, organisational and wide-ranging
demands of new products or services, thereby enhancing the social changes (Testa et al., 2022). Digital traceability
potential for economic growth (Hastig and Sodhi, 2020). technologies, such as blockchain-enabled traceability, hold
The adoption of food traceability systems is seen by many promise to enhance the responsiveness of supply chains to
firms as one of the most certain approaches to ensure trends and movements (Hastig and Sodhi, 2020). These
environmental sustainability (Ringsberg, 2014), especially in technologies enable the food sector to identify innovation
terms of waste control, pollution, environmental impact, opportunities for new product development, process
emission monitoring or reduction. As energy systems target optimisation and organisational structures. For instance,
decarbonisation, promoting transparency will be a key tactic in Walmart’s adoption of a blockchain traceability solution in its
ensuring that entities across the global supply chain meet new food supply chain provides a granular understanding of each
emissions standards; data-driven traceability may have a role to event. This heightened visibility inspires food firms to innovate
play (Hastig and Sodhi, 2020). Tracking carbon emissions with in their products, processes and organisations, empowering
end-to-end traceability solutions can bring a competitive edge them to take well-informed action (Kamath, 2018).
to organisations. A whole chain traceability system would allow More specifically, by using digital traceability systems such as
sources of contamination (e.g. food loss and waste) in the blockchain, food companies can seek to implement renewables,
supply chain to be identified and unsafe food recalled, thereby innovation, rapid new product development, new business
reducing the environmental damage caused by any accident models/markets and rapid technological development in the
longer term (Hastig and Sodhi, 2020). Food firms first of all
(Zhou et al., 2022a). In addition to optimising available
may foster product innovation in terms of eco-design, life-cycle
resources, facilitating reuse of materials and identifying
analysis and sustainable materials through digital traceability.
pollutants, traceability allows a business to take control of their
On the one hand, as blockchain connects all partners,
products’ carbon footprints (Hastig and Sodhi, 2020).
companies can access valuable intelligence related to new
Capturing carbon measurement across all supply chain
product development, such as eco-design and green packaging,
participants into an immutable ledger facilitates audit trails,
through a uniform digital traceability platform (Anastasiadis
thus assuring traceability, security and accountability (Cousins
et al., 2022). On the other hand, end-to-end traceability is the
et al., 2019).
key to product life-cycle analysis. Through digital traceability
Responsible food companies aim to have traceability systems
technologies, firms can assess a product’s impact throughout all
that can assure social sustainability in their supply chains on the stages of its life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials
pressing social problems (Hastig and Sodhi, 2020). Digital (cradle) through to disposal (grave) or recycling process
traceability allows a company to reduce food safety risks to the (cradle) (Corallo et al., 2020). In addition, digital traceability
general public through adherence to legal and ethical systems provide an online platform for consumers to
procurement and production practices (Aung and Chang, communicate, interact and exchange innovative suggestions
2014). Digital traceability can also help provide mechanisms to with the food sector, helping firms to understand the latest
combat human rights violations and improve the occupational feedback on consumer demand for sustainable products and
health and safety of employees. For example, food companies materials. This provides fresh ideas and market positioning for
can strictly monitor supply and production conditions through new product design and development (Zhou et al., 2022a),
traceability systems to avoid socially irresponsible practices such as optimising available resources and facilitating the reuse
such as poor conditions in meat processing or modern slavery of materials.
(Zhou et al., 2022a). In certain markets where sustainability is Secondly, the implementation of digital traceability practices
becoming increasingly important to consumers, traceability by food firms has the potential to act as a catalyst for process
offers companies a huge opportunity to comply with innovation, particularly in the advancement of cleaner
regulations and demonstrate the truth of claims such as production and the enhancement of both eco-efficiency and
“emissions neutral”, “organic” and “free of child labor” logistical efficiency. Organisations are likely to be more
(Hastig and Sodhi, 2020). A product cannot be labelled as incentivised to optimise their processes if they can easily
sustainable if there is no traceability system collecting and identify and track their products, and if greater transparency is
validating the data to prove this claim (Garcia-Torres et al., provided on how they are produced (Malik et al., 2021).
2019). Besides, traceability can be seen as a tool to maintain Upadhyay et al. (2021) argued that blockchain technology,
trust within a supply chain and build a reputation for producing with its ability to facilitate secure communication among
high-quality products (Saak, 2016). Digital traceability stakeholders, can be a powerful instrument for promoting
technologies can certify products to ensure only fair and cleaner production of goods and services and addressing ethical
sustainable goods make it to market and that the authenticity of considerations in business development. Moreover, digital
these products is communicated to the consumer (Barling traceability can enable the effective monitoring and
et al., 2009). Hence, a hypothesis is proposed: management of non-product outputs such as waste, hazardous
substances and effluent, thereby driving eco-efficient
H1. Digital traceability implementation is positively production activities and processes (Sunny et al., 2020).
related to improved sustainability performance in regard Additionally, logistics represents a unique domain of process
to (a) economic, (b) environmental and (c) social innovation. A comprehensive, accurate and transparent
performance. traceability system can significantly improve visibility in
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

logistics and help foster a more secure and sustainable supply substances (Anastasiadis et al., 2022). As societal concern for
chain (Pournader et al., 2020). environmental preservation and sustainable development
Finally, digital traceability can also facilitate innovation in continues to grow, companies are proactively adopting
organisational structure, stakeholder management and SCM. sustainable materials, including high-performance, low-carbon
More specifically, by acquiring, processing and updating new materials, to improve and develop products that align with
relevant traceability data in a timely manner, food firms can environmental friendliness and meet the needs of society. Such
ensure that consumers have access to comprehensive quality an approach elevates a company’s sense of social responsibility,
information as required (Zhou et al., 2022b). By effectively enhances its brand reputation and expands its market
using the opportunities provided by quality information to opportunities, resulting in heightened consumer recognition
identify non-value-added processes, food companies help to (Melander, 2017).
continuously improve production processes and optimise With regard to process innovation, those firms engaged in
organisational structures (Hastig and Sodhi, 2020). The cleaner production can change the way they use resources to
possibilities of blockchain-based traceability systems may lead manage non-product outputs through closed-loop production
to new organisational systems by configuring the whole supply or industrial symbiosis solutions, thereby improving the overall
chain structure and partner interaction rules (Agrawal et al., performance of their operations (Giannetti et al., 2020). Eco-
2021). Meanwhile, companies have stakeholders who should efficiency differs from cleaner production with its stronger
be engaged with and managed; these firms need to provide focus on the economic benefits of sustainability. Within this
transparency and traceability for them (Sodhi and Tang, context, food companies may potentially derive short-term
2019). Blockchain-based digital traceability systems can advantages by selectively targeting readily achievable goals with
facilitate supply chain partner connectivity (Wohlrab et al.,
minimal resource outlay (Côte et al., 2006). Food firms may
2020) and provide an interactive platform for stakeholders to
introduce process changes in terms of transportation modes to
carry out dialogues and means of communication; this helps to
maximise the environmental efficiency of product
attract more stakeholders to participate in the drive towards
transportation and delivery (Hussain, 2022), enhance energy
sustainable practice (Zhou et al., 2022a). A blockchain-based
and transport savings or develop new distribution channels
traceability system can be helpful to achieve better supply chain
with effects on product recognition. The implementation of
coordination (Shou et al., 2021). Hence, the following
cleaner production can prevent health hazards in the
hypothesis is proposed:
workplace, thereby improving occupational health and worker
H2. Digital traceability implementation is positively related safety (Severo et al., 2018).
to (a) product innovation, (b) process innovation and In terms of organisational innovation, businesses can manage
(c) organisational innovation. risk by continuously innovating and improving their
organisational structure to ensure customer responsiveness and
2.2.3 The direct effect of sustainability-oriented innovation on sus- loyalty to safeguard their market share (Le on-Bravo et al.,
tainability performance 2021). The principal purpose of corporate stakeholder
SOI can be defined as the introduction of novel or improved engagement is to establish and maintain relationships with
processes, organisational structures, products or technologies stakeholders with the objective of understanding their
that confer economic, environmental and social benefits by viewpoints and concerns regarding significant issues, including
mitigating the persistence of unsustainable practices (Adams those that pertain to environmental and social matters, then
et al., 2016; Klewitz and Hansen, 2014). integrating those perspectives and concerns into the company’s
Product innovation refers to the improvement or completely corporate strategy (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014). Stakeholder
new development of products or services. Eco-design, for engagement is a crucial component of corporate social
example, can improve products that are made of more responsibility and achieving the triple bottom line. Through the
environmentally friendly materials (e.g. organic, recycled mechanism of dialogue, companies can elicit and understand
materials), are highly durable, and have low energy the social and environmental issues that are most salient to
consumption designs, thus increasing the competitiveness of stakeholders and engage them in the decision-making process,
products and market share for food companies (Dey et al., as emphasised by Hillman and Keim (2001). Innovating the
2020). Sustainable product innovation can effectively enhance way food firms manage their supply chains can help facilitate
and refine the design methodologies and approaches, resulting supply chain coordination and thus stabilise relationships with
in reductions in material consumption and production costs, distributors and vendors (Dey et al., 2020). SCM represents a
shorter product development cycles and ultimately, increased pivotal element that underpins economic growth, given its
economic benefits (Chen, 2008). Digital traceability platforms function in enabling the seamless exchange of goods between
can be adopted by food companies to trace the life cycle of businesses and consumers. In particular, the adoption of
specific products so that they can understand and control the sustainable SCM practices can lead to enhancements in living
environmental and social impact of any type of product by standards by providing consumers with greater access to
verifying its origin and measuring how the carbon footprint is essential products at lower costs (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014).
incremental at each stage of the supply chain (Corallo et al., Hence, the hypothesis is posited:
2020). In addition, the use of safe processes and green materials
across the entire supply chain helps food firms to ensure the H3. SOI (product, process, organisational) is positively related
ultimate reconciliation of environmental and economic to improved sustainability performance (economic,
concerns by reducing the emission of pollutants and hazardous environmental, social).
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

2.2.4 The mediating effect of sustainability-oriented innovation on and sustainability performance (economic, environmental,
the digital traceability-sustainability performance link social).
Implementing efficient SOI is essential if the goal of digital
traceability in food firms is to attain sustainability performance 2.2.5 The moderating effect of supply chain learning on the digital
improvements. Without effective product innovation, the traceability-sustainability orentied innovation link
implementation of digital traceability alone may not be To achieve sustainable innovation, food firms need to integrate
sufficient to improve firm sustainability performance (Zhou various knowledge resources relating to economic, social and
et al., 2022a). Digital traceability provides an important source environmental factors (Adams et al., 2016). Such knowledge
of information for advancing product eco-design (Shou et al., management may not exist within a company, especially
2021). Food firms may benefit from the eco-innovation of their concerning sustainability tools. Instead, external expert
products as they reduce energy consumption and waste output knowledge may be required to help with navigation and
(García-Sanchez et al., 2021). The implementation of implementation. Suppliers and customers are important
blockchain traceability by food firms can also promote sources of external knowledge that companies can access from
transparency in product lifecycles, the circular economy and their supply chains (Bessant et al., 2003). By identifying and
thus better management and control of their environmental digesting information or knowledge from the supply chain and
footprint (Centobelli et al., 2021). In addition, digital applying it to sustainable practices, SCL can stimulate more
traceability can optimise the use and reuse of materials or innovative thinking and approaches (Loke et al., 2012; Adams
resources, thus enhancing the sustainability and cost- et al., 2016).
effectiveness of the food supply chain (Epelbaum and Digital traceability is a digital investment based on
Martinez, 2014). knowledge and technological resources (Hastig and Sodhi,
Effective process innovation is also necessary for food firms 2020) that provides a two-way mechanism for the exchange of
to reap sustainability performance through the implementation information and knowledge between the focal firm and their
of digital traceability. Firms can engage in cleaner production supply chain members, encourages firms to develop daily
to speed up production processes and raise productivity routines shaped by best practices and can be used to build
through cleaner technologies. Blockchain can be combined learning mechanisms and support innovation activities. SCL
with more innovative and clean technology solutions to better can facilitate knowledge transfer and allow firms to extend the
address environmental sustainability issues (Parmentola et al., value of their traceability practices (Engelseth, 2009). Food
2022). In particular, digital traceability can be used for firms using digital traceability platforms to transform these
monitoring, while end-point solutions and cleaner production knowledge resources into new sustainability-oriented
technologies play a governance role, both of which can be capabilities can further promote SOI practices and processes
configured to minimise environmental impact and improve (Chang et al., 2013).
economic gains (Sunny et al., 2020). Firms aim to move In a traceable supply chain, when traceability information
towards cleaner and more eco-efficient production, which may and heterogeneous knowledge (e.g. food safety, traceability,
yield innovative potential in terms of redesigning, for instance, provenance and maintaining strict biosecurity conditions) is
their packaging systems (Wong et al., 2020). In addition, there effectively shared and exchanged among supply chain
is a need to make the logistics process more efficient, connected members, it can be internalised into the organisation’s existing
and agile through digital traceability technology for food firms. knowledge base through collective learning, thereby enriching
This improves logistics efficiency (Bosona and Gebresenbet, the organisation’s knowledge base and capital (Zhou et al.,
2013). The ability of firms to track and trace their products and 2022b). Relying on digital traceability platforms, food firms can
furnish end consumers with the logistics impact of the products share information related to product sources, expertise and
sold to them improves transparency; this results in improved applied research with their supply chain members (Huo et al.,
social performance (Saak, 2016). 2021). In this case, information dispersed within and outside
Organisational innovation is required if food firms want to the organisation will be absorbed, integrated and transformed
improve sustainability performance through digital traceability. into new knowledge and experience (Bessant et al., 2003);
Relying on the robust digital traceability platform, food firms digital traceability may then help bring about sustainable
can evaluate and realign their organisational structures to innovation in products, processes and organisations. The
minimise the environmental and social impact of their stronger the SCL capability of food firms, the more the wealth
operations (Dey et al., 2020). By involving stakeholders in of knowledge and information related to environmental
traceability practices, digital traceability can play a greater role management and social responsibility is gained. Accessing data
in meeting stakeholders’ needs to show responsibility in society externally through digital traceability may help facilitate new
(Hastig and Sodhi, 2020). Businesses that value product development, process optimisation and organisational
communication between supply chain members and create innovation (Chang et al., 2013). Furthermore, by integrating
more synergistic partnerships can better lead to more existing and new knowledge, digital traceability practices can
sustainable products and address ethical and transparency further spawn new product eco-design, cleaner production
issues with digital traceability platforms (Zhou et al., 2022b). processes and business management models. Klewitz and
Hence, the following hypothesis is presented: Hansen (2014) argued that food firms with strong SCL
capabilities have the sustainable potential for innovation in
H4. SOI (product, process, organisational) mediates the digital traceability practices. Hence, the following hypothesis is
relationship between digital traceability implementation developed:
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

H5. SCL positively moderates the relationship between of sustainability performance is refined by incorporating
digital traceability implementation and (a) product feedback from the experts, including combining or rephrasing
innovation, (b) process innovation and (c) scale items and eliminating irrelevant ones.
organisational innovation. The fourth phase involves a pilot test with senior managers
from the food industry, conducted during two workshops on
Considering the aforementioned arguments, based on the SOI digital traceability in Shanghai. A total of 25 valid
perspective, this study develops a theoretical model in Figure 1 questionnaires are collected during the pilot test. The managers
to examine the links among digital traceability implementation, are requested to provide feedback on the suitability of the
SOI, SCL and sustainability performance. questionnaire items and their understandability to the target
respondents in the food sector. Based on the feedback received
3. Methodology from respondents in the workshops, minor modifications are
made to the questionnaire, particularly to enhance legibility
3.1 Survey instruments
and avoid potential misunderstandings. For example, in the
This study uses a questionnaire survey to collect empirical data.
initial questionnaire, the third and fifth questions which were
To test the above hypotheses, a survey questionnaire is initially
derived from Loke et al. (2012) were “Our firm conducts
developed based on previous studies. It is then adjusted
systematic internal checks to ensure that the knowledge from
according to the suggestions of industrial managers considering
stakeholders is utilized” and “Our firm has the ability to draw
the practical situation and characteristics of the Chinese food
on the knowledge, experience, and capabilities of stakeholders
industry. To ensure content validity, the study designs
to absorb and interpret new knowledge”, respectively. After
measurement instruments using the following four steps.
receiving input from respondents and much discussion, we
The study is initiated by conducting semi-structured
further clarified the stakeholders in these two items to be supply
interviews with three academic experts and three industrial
chain members, allowing respondents to more clearly
managers from the food supply chain sector. During these
understand that the questions are asking how they can
interviews, the research questions, methodology and rationale assimilate knowledge from their supply chain members. The
of the study are presented to the participants, who are then survey questionnaire was originally in English and is translated
invited to evaluate the theoretical model. The industrial into Chinese by a team of native English and Chinese speakers,
managers are also requested to provide information regarding with meanings verified through a standard inter-translation
digital traceability, SOI, SCL and sustainability performance procedure (Brislin, 1980).
within their respective companies, to refine the theoretical This study encompasses four research constructs, that is,
model to meet practical requirements. digital traceability, SOI, SCL and sustainability performance.
Subsequently, a preliminary pool of measurement items is Digital traceability items are derived from prior empirical
developed by consolidating the outcomes of the initial studies (Zhou et al., 2023), as reflected by the seven items
interviews and literature review. Notably, existing measures of selected. Zhou et al. (2023) did seminal work on the
related research constructs are reported in well-known measurement of digital traceability and the items they
academic journals (Adams et al., 2016; Epelbaum and developed are widely used in follow-up studies. Respondents
Martinez, 2014; Huo et al., 2021; Klewitz and Hansen, 2014; are asked to assess the implementation level of each digital
Loke et al., 2012; Wang and Dai, 2018; Zhou et al., 2023). traceability practice for each firm regarding its complete supply
The third stage of the study entails pre-testing the draft chain. Among items asked are “To what level of
questionnaire with experts in relevant fields to assess its clarity, implementation does your firm know the processes involved in
utility and relevance with respect to the research context and producing food products across the complete supply chains?”
objectives. The expert panel consists of five senior scholars in Responses to digital traceability items use a five-point scale
the supply chain traceability domain, three government officials ranging from 1 ¼ not considering it to 5 ¼ successfully
responsible for developing food traceability policies and six implemented.
practitioners with extensive experience in digital traceability Learning from two previous studies (Adams et al., 2016;
operations, whose companies received traceability system Klewitz and Hansen, 2014), SOI comprises three dimensions,
certification from the China Quality Certification Center in including product innovation, process innovation and
2017. Each pre-test interview lasts approximately 2 h. Through organisational innovation. All items are evaluated by
three rounds of face-to-face discussions, the measurement scale respondents considering the implementation level of each SOI

Figure 1 Theoretical framework

Supply chain
learning
H4
Sustainability-oriented
H5 Innovation Sustainability performance
Digital traceability
Product innovation
• Economic performance
implementation H2 H3 • Environmental performance
Process innovation • Social performance
Organisational innovation

H1

Source: Authors own work

 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

in their firms. Responses to SOI items use a five-point scale transformation in terms of end-to-end supply chain visibility
ranging from 1 ¼ not considered yet to 5 ¼ implemented and sustainability (Gillani et al., 2020). Relying on well-
successfully. functioning digital traceability to promote a high balance
SCL is measured with five items adapted from two earlier between economic development and social needs is an
studies (Loke et al., 2012; Huo et al., 2021). Loke et al. (2012) important pathway for developing a sustainable food supply
devised a preliminary measuring instrument for SCL, which chain in China.
has since been extensively acknowledged and implemented by Supported by both the Ministry of Commerce and the
subsequent scholars. In line with the recommendations of the Ministry of Finance of China since 2016, four provinces,
managers interviewed, as well as the current literature, namely, Shandong, Shanghai, Ningxia and Fujian, have been
specifically Loke et al. (2012) and Huo et al. (2021), the SCL selected as the pioneers in implementing digital technology-
measurement scale is modified to enhance its appropriateness enabled traceability systems via exploratory projects, which is
to the specific setting of this study and to explicate the research documented in the statistic report in the Ministry of Commerce
inquiries. All items are assessed by respondents for each People’s Republic of China (MOFCOM, 2016). After several
knowledge integration perceived in their firms. Items asked years of sustained traceability efforts, these regions have made
include “To what extent does your firm access and benefit from substantial investments in information technology
the basic, key business knowledge and technologies held by infrastructure technical support and services, including cutting-
supply chain members?” Responses to knowledge integration edge technologies such as big data and blockchain. They also
items use a five-point scale ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree actively promote the development of traceability systems for
to 5 ¼ strongly agree. important products, spanning platform construction,
The 15 measurement items on sustainability performance standardisation, management assessment mechanisms and
are adapted from previous empirical studies (Wang and Dai, integration with market regulations. This concerted effort has
2018; Epelbaum and Martinez, 2014), and include three yielded multiple positive outcomes, and the experiences gained
dimensions: economic performance, environmental
are both replicable and scalable (MOFCOM, 2019). As such,
performance and social performance. Wang and Dai (2018)
this study chose these four provinces as the sample of the study
proposed a measurement scale for evaluating sustainability
and collected the survey accordingly.
performance that encompasses the aforementioned three
In detail, food firms that have implemented or participated in
dimensions. This scale is used by successive scholars to assess
digital traceability systems in the above regions are selected as
the sustainability performance of sustainable SCM practices.
the targets of the survey. A list of 2,125 food firms is initially
To better align the scale with the specific research context, field
drawn up with the support of relevant government departments
investigations of Chinese food companies are conducted;
and industry associations, as well as through self-searching
refinement of the measurement instrument developed by Wang
(including online resources, public reports, etc.). Taking into
and Dai (2018) is then made. Specifically, an additional item
account the different positions of traceability dominators in the
from Epelbaum and Martinez (2014) to evaluate social
food supply chain, the list of food firms is divided into three
performance is included. Respondents are asked to evaluate the
significant level of each sustainability performance groups according to sub-sectors; these include 1,167 food
improvement after implementing digital traceability/SOI manufacturers, 542 food distributors and 416 food retailers.
practices. Items on each type of performance are rated using a Using a stratified sampling technique, a randomly selected total
five-point scale ranging from 1 ¼ not at all to 5 ¼ highly of 500 food firms is made, divided into three groups, as targeted
significant. samples. Through the connections and coordination of the
The control variables are primarily developed based on local bureau of commerce, the contact information of these
discussions during interviews with industrial managers when firms is obtained.
the questionnaire is developed. The control variables include Questionnaires are distributed to potential respondents from
size (i.e. number of employees), ownership (nature of firm), May to November 2019, using a mixed survey method
traceability year (i.e. length of time in traceability including site visits, mail, email and posted online. The target
implementation) and industry sub-sector (i.e. manufacturers, respondents are managers, supervisors and management
distributors and retailers). The selection of these four variables personnel in charge of purchasing, operations, production,
refers to the control variables selected by Zhou et al. (2022b) logistics or information technology of food firms. Respondents
which investigated the impact of supply chain traceability on have to be familiar with the general situations of their firms,
performance improvement of food firms. Sub-sector and especially in digital traceability system implementation and
ownership are both represented by three classification dummy overall performance. Respondents are asked to answer
variables. questions with regard to the overall situation of their respective
companies. For example, irrespective of whether a senior
3.2 Data collection manager or department director completes the questionnaire,
China is chosen for data collection because it is one of the participants are requested to assess the general organisational
largest and fastest-growing food and beverage consumer situation while answering each related question. To improve
markets in the world (Zhou et al., 2022b). In the global market, the authenticity of the questionnaires completed by
Chinese food firms have experienced rapid market changes and respondents, the academic purpose and value of the research
yet face severe challenges in achieving sustainable performance are clearly expressed during the survey process. A promise to
(Zhou et al., 2022b). A digital traceability programme is an process the questionnaire anonymously is made to ensure that
important technical application and practice of digital respondents are voluntary and free from any related concerns.
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

From May to July 2019, the first survey is conducted, with 3.3 Non-response bias and common method bias
600 questionnaires distributed to potential respondent firms in To examine the non-response bias, the t-test is used to
four regions; 231 questionnaires are eventually returned. determine whether a significant difference exists between the
Because some firms did not respond to the first survey, a questionnaires collected from early (208) and late (151)
second supplementary survey is conducted from August to responses; this follows the method recommended by a
October 2019, when questionnaires are sent to non- previous study (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). The t-test
respondents; a further 163 questionnaires are returned. results of mean values for all constructs and items
Eliminating questionnaires that are not complete or have more demonstrate that no significant difference exists between the
than six blanks, a total of 359 usable questionnaire returns are groups (p > 0.05). Thus, non-response bias should not be a
collated. This represents an effective response rate of 59.83%, problem in this study.
including 127 from Shanghai, 98 from Shandong, 74 from To examine the common method bias (CMB), this study
Ningxia and 60 from Fujian. The characteristics of survey firms uses Harman’s one-factor test provided by Podsakoff et al.
in the sample are shown in Table 1, including firm size, (2003). The results show that the variance interpretation rate of
ownership, industry sub-sector, participation in traceability the largest factor is 31.847%; this is less than 50%, indicating
(years) and respondent profiles.
that there is no single factor in the sample data that can explain
most of the variation. To further check if CMB exists,
Harman’s one-factor test using confirmatory factor analysis is
Table 1 Sample characteristics conducted. Results of this one-factor model are x2(434) ¼
Category Sample % 5,069.539, CFI ¼ 0.420, TLI ¼ 0.378, IFI ¼ 0.422, RMSEA ¼
0.173, suggesting a poor model fit. Thus, CMB should not be a
Location
problem in this study.
Shandong 98 27.30
Shanghai 127 35.38
3.4 Factor analysis
Ningxia 74 20.61
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with maximum likelihood
Fujian 60 16.71
and a varimax rotation is applied to explore dimensions
Size (number of employees) (factors) for all constructs from the survey data. Both the scree
Less than 200 72 20.06 test and the initial eigenvalue test indicate the factor for digital
201–500 122 33.98 traceability, explaining 75.978% of the inherent variation.
501–1,200 73 20.33 Table 2 shows the loadings for digital traceability items. The
More than 1,201 92 25.63 reliability coefficient alpha value for digital traceability is high at
Ownership 0.946.
State-owned 109 30.36 The same method is used to indicate three factors for SOI,
Private 214 59.61 explaining 78.249% of the inherent variation. Table 3 shows
Foreign or joint ventures 36 7.24 the loadings for SOI items. Each item has a high loading (over
Industry sub-sector 0.60) for one factor and low loadings (less than 0.30) for the
Manufacturing 208 57.94 other factors. Based on the item characteristics, the three
Distribution 99 27.58 factors labelled product innovation, process innovation and
Retailing 52 14.48 organisational innovation are high with 0.866, 0.845 and 0.862
of reliability coefficient alpha values, respectively.
Participating in traceability (years)
Less than three 87 24.24
4–9 148 41.23 Table 2 Rotated component matrixa on digital traceability
10–16 93 25.91 Item description Factor
More than 17 31 8.64
Know the processes involved in producing food products
Position of respondents
across the complete supply chains 0.862
Senior executive 38 10.58
Trace the source of our purchases throughout entire
Senior managers 75 20.89
supply chains 0.856
Middle managers 153 42.62
Track food product distribution channels and sales process 0.864
First-line managers 82 22.84
Quickly exchange and transmit traceability information 0.846
Others 11 3.06
Implement quick and precise recalls of contaminated food
Department of respondents products 0.903
Purchasing 47 13.09 Improve digital records and storage of traceability
Production 54 15.04 information 0.900
Information technology 89 24.79 Optimize whole-process data management and digital
Operations 98 27.30 analysis 0.869
Logistics 50 13.93 a
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; One component
Others 21 5.85 extracted
Source: Authors’ own work Source: Authors’ own work
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Table 3 Rotated component matrixa on SOI

Factors
Item description 1 2 3

Eco-design/design for the environment 0.864 0.127 0.085

Life-cycle-analysis 0.884 0.127 0.167
Materials (reduce, replace, sustainable; e.g. recycled resources, biodegradables) 0.864 0.065 0.182
Cleaner production 0.088 0.071 0.877
Eco-efficiency 0.183 0.052 0.862
Logistics (e.g. efficient transportation) 0.149 0.097 0.838
Organisational structures (e.g. environmental team, health and safety,
employee engagement in sustainability/CSR activities) 0.135 0.875 0.018
Stakeholder management (e.g. interaction with external actors, dialog) 0.089 0.866 0.087
Supply chain management 0.084 0.893 0.117
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalisation; aRotation converged in four iterations. CSR =
Corporation social responsibility
Source: Authors’ own work

EFA also presents the potential factor of SCL which explains 4. Statistical analysis and results
69.600% of the inherent variation. Table 4 presents the
4.1 The main effect test
loadings for SCL items. The reliability coefficient alpha value
The causal steps approach is used to test the mediating effect of
for SCL is high at 0.890.
SOI in the relationship between digital traceability and
For sustainability performance, EFA reveals three factors,
sustainability performance (see Tables 8 and 9).
with the loadings of all items shown in Table 5. These three
For the impact of control variables, as revealed, traceability
factors are labelled as economic performance, environmental
year has significant positive effects on product innovation
performance and social performance which explain 74.539% of (M1, b ¼ 0.136, p < 0.001), process innovation (M4, b ¼
the inherent total. Each item has a high loading (over 0.60) for 0.143, p < 0.001) and economic performance (M10, b ¼
one factor and low loadings (less than 0.30) for the other 0.114, p < 0.01). State-owned has significant positive effects
factors. The reliability coefficient alpha values for the three on product innovation (M1, b ¼ 0.110, p < 0.05), process
performance factors are high at 0.903, 0.897 and 0.937, innovation (M4, b ¼ 0.159, p < 0.05), organisational
respectively. innovation (M7, b ¼ 0.122, p < 0.05), economic
According to the results of the reliability and validity performance (M10, b ¼ 0.204, p < 0.001) and environmental
assessment shown in Table 6, all composite reliability (CR) performance (M18, b ¼ 0.158, p < 0.01). Private firms has
values are greater than 0.7, indicating that the inherent quality significant positive effects on product innovation (M1, b ¼
of the model is ideal. In terms of the results of the average 0.134, p < 0.01), economic performance (M10, b ¼ 0.190,
variance extracted (AVE), the AVE value of each construct is p < 0.001) and environmental performance (M18, b ¼ 0.136,
greater than 0.5; this means that the quality of the convergent p < 0.01). Size has significant negative effects on process
validity is high. Furthermore, Table 7 shows that the square innovation (M4, b ¼ 0.097, p < 0.05) and environmental
root of the AVE of each construct is greater than the correlation performance (M18, b ¼ 0.075, p < 0.05). Distribution
coefficient of any two variables, thus supporting the (M4, b ¼ 0.107, p < 0.05) has significant negative effects on
discriminant validity. process innovation.
When entering control variables into the model, as shown in
3.5 Correlation analysis Table 9, digital traceability is significantly and positively
Table 7 summarises the mean, standard deviation and associated with economic performance (M11, b ¼ 0.256, p <
correlation coefficient of each variable. The correlation of key 0.001), environmental performance (M19, b ¼ 0.145, p <
constructs is consistent with the research hypothesis, providing 0.001) and social performance (M27, b ¼ 0.177, p < 0.001),
preliminary evidence for verification of the hypotheses. respectively. Thus, H1a approximately H1c is supported.

Table 4 Rotated component matrixa on SCL

Item description Factor
Accessing and benefiting from the basic, key business knowledge and technologies held by supply chain members 0.829
Combining and integrating new knowledge with existing knowledge 0.823
Systematically checking to ensure that the knowledge from supply chain members is used 0.829
Capacity to assimilate new technologies and innovations that are useful or have proven potential 0.845
Ability to draw on the knowledge, experience and capabilities of supply chain members to absorb and interpret new knowledge 0.845
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; aOne component extracted
Source: Authors’ own work
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Table 5 Rotated component matrixa on sustainability performance

Factors
Item description 1 2 3

Increase market share 0.195 0.793 0.156
Increase profit 0.151 0.813 0.204
Reduce the direct operational cost 0.100 0.842 0.214
Improve the return on sales 0.114 0.831 0.217
Improve the return on investment 0.164 0.801 0.137
Decrease consumption of hazardous/harmful/toxic materials 0.120 0.132 0.818
Decrease the frequency of environmental accidents 0.060 0.153 0.826
Improve compliance with environmental standards 0.091 0.228 0.815
Reduce the environmental damage caused by the accident 0.059 0.156 0.828
Improve the firm’s environmental situation 0.076 0.225 0.806
Reduce food safety risks to the general public 0.830 0.184 0.073
Improve occupational health and safety of employees 0.902 0.152 0.092
Ensure compliance with the laws and regulations 0.896 0.072 0.122
Ensure the reliability of sustainability claims 0.907 0.116 0.088
Improve the social reputation 0.851 0.197 0.047
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalisation; aRotation converged in five iterations
Source: Authors’ own work

Table 6 Reliability and validity assessment Therefore, H3 is supported. However, the direct effects of
digital traceability on economic performance (M13, b ¼ 0.170,
Constructs Reliability AVE (>0.5) CR (>0.6)
p < 0.001), environmental performance (M21, b ¼ 0.110, p <
Digital traceability 0.946 0.760 0.957 0.01) and social performance (M29, b ¼ 0.133, p < 0.01) are
Product innovation 0.866 0.758 0.904 lessened but still significant. This implies that the effects of
Process innovation 0.845 0.738 0.894 digital traceability on the three types of sustainability
Organisational innovation 0.862 0.771 0.910 performance are partially mediated by product innovation.
SCL 0.890 0.696 0.920 Thus, H4 is partially supported.
Economic performance 0.903 0.666 0.909 Process innovation is positively influenced by digital
Environmental performance 0.897 0.670 0.910 traceability (M5, b ¼ 0.311, p < 0.001) after entering the
Social performance 0.937 0.770 0.944 mediator. Therefore, H2 receives support. Process innovation
Source: Authors’ own work is positively linked with economic performance (M14, b ¼
0.282, p < 0.01), environmental performance (M22, b ¼
0.302, p < 0.001) and social performance (M30, b ¼ 0.142,
4.2 The mediating effect test p < 0.001) as well. Therefore, H3 is supported. However, the
Product innovation is positively influenced by digital direct effect of digital traceability on environmental
traceability (M2, b ¼ 0.434, p < 0.001) after entering the performance (M23, b ¼ 0.056, n.s) becomes non-significant;
mediator. Therefore, H2a approximately H2c is supported. this implies that process innovation fully mediates the
Product innovation is positively linked with economic relationship between digital traceability and environmental
performance (M12, b ¼ 0.263, p < 0.001), environmental performance. Meanwhile, the direct effects of digital
performance (M20, b ¼ 0.116, p < 0.001) and traceability practices on economic performance (M15, b ¼
social performance (M28, b ¼ 0.151, p < 0.001) as well. 0.184, p < 0.001) and social performance (M31, b ¼ 0.145,

Table 7 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Digital traceability 3.738 0.623 (0.872)a
2. Product innovation 3.799 0.555 0.463 (0.871)
3. Process innovation 3.772 0.650 0.356 0.327 (0.859)
4. Organisational innovation 3.666 0.670 0.283 0.244 0.185 (0.878)
5. SCL 3.854 0.543 0.409 0.297 0.392 0.213 (0.834)
6. Economic performance 3.848 0.579 0.459 0.495 0.510 0.303 0.359 (0.816)
7. Environmental performance 3.641 0.594 0.237 0.216 0.520 0.228 0.263 0.432 (0.819)
8. Social performance 3.683 0.675 0.230 0.218 0.213 0.508 0.195 0.341 0.221 (0.877)

Notes: Pearson correlations; n ¼ 359; p < 0.01; Square root of AVE reported along diagonal in italic
a

Source: Authors’ own work

 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Table 8 Regression analysis results (n ¼ 359)

Product innovation Process innovation Organisational innovation
Variable M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
Constant 3.799 0 0.072 3.772 0 0.058 3.666 0 0.043
Traceability year 0.136 0.062 0.037 0.143 0.089 0.060 0.050 0.054 0.07
Size 0.035 0.052 0.044 0.097 0.141 0.118 0.080 0.112 0.104
State-owned 0.110 0.133 0.128 0.159 0.198 0.164 0.122 0.137 0.129
Private 0.134 0.184 0.169 0.105 0.121 0.081 0.052 0.037 0.023
Manufacturing 0.010 0.027 0.045 0.021 0.027 0.007 0.017 0.030 0.045
Distribution 0.006 0.033 0.050 0.107 0.150 0.108 0.033 0.034 0.019
Digital traceability 0.434 0.367 0.311 0.192 0.305 0.253
SCL 0.132 0.276 0.109
Digital traceability  SCL 0.175 0.142 0.105
R2 0.079 0.231 0.268 0.078 0.172 0.245 0.029 0.104 0.122
F 5.018 15.029 14.170 6.057 10.381 12.580 1.754 5.826 5.366
Notes:  p < 0.001;  p < 0.01 and  p < 0.05
Source: Authors’ own work

p < 0.001) are lessened but still significant; this implies that the (excluding zero). Meanwhile, the direct impact of digital
effects of digital traceability on both economic and social traceability on social performance is not significant (including
performance are partially mediated by process innovation. zero) in the 95% confidence interval whereas the indirect effect
Thus, H4 is partially supported. via organisational innovation is significant (excluding zero).
Organisational innovation is positively influenced by digital Therefore, H4 is partially supported.
traceability (M8, b ¼ 0.305, p < 0.001) after entering the
mediator. Therefore, H2 receives support. Organisational 4.3 The moderated mediating effect test
innovation is positively linked with economic performance As revealed in Table 8, the moderating effect on the first half
(M16, b ¼ 0.161, p < 0.001), environmental performance indirect path (digital traceability-SOI) is examined. The
(M24, b ¼ 0.119, p < 0.001) and social performance (M32, interaction term (digital traceability  SCL) has a significant and
b ¼ 0.344, p < 0.001) as well. Therefore, H3 is supported. positive association with product innovation (M2, b ¼ 0.175,
However, the direct effect of digital traceability on social p < 0.001), suggesting a significant and positive moderating
performance (M33, b ¼ 0.078, n.s) becomes non-significant; effect on the relationship between digital traceability and
this implies that organisational innovation fully mediates the product innovation. The interaction term (digital traceability 
relationship between digital traceability and social SCL) has a significant and positive association with process
performance. Meanwhile, the direct effects of digital innovation (M4, b ¼ 0.142, p < 0.01), suggesting a significant
traceability practices on economic performance (M17, b ¼ and positive moderating effect on the relationship between
0.224, p < 0.001) and environmental performance (M25, b ¼ digital traceability and process innovation. The interaction term
0.118, p < 0.01) are lessened but still significant; this implies (digital traceability  SCL) has a significant and positive
that the effects of digital traceability on both economic and association with organisational innovation (M6, b ¼ 0.105, n.s.),
environmental performance are partially mediated by suggesting a significant and positive moderating effect on the
organisational innovation. Thus, H4 is partially supported. relationship between digital traceability and organisational
The bootstrapping method is further adopted to confirm the innovation. To sum up, SCL plays a moderating role in the first
mediation results of SOI in the digital traceability-sustainability half-indirect path (digital traceability-product innovation, digital
performance link. As depicted in Table 10, the direct impacts traceability-process innovation) of the mediation effects, thus
of digital traceability on three types of sustainability partially confirming H5a approximately H5b.
performance are significant (excluding zero) in the 95% This study further plots a moderating effect diagram using
confidence interval; the indirect effects via product innovation the simple slope diagram method proposed by Aiken et al.
are also significant (excluding zero) therein. The direct impacts (1991). As shown in Figures 2 apparoximately 3, low SCL is
of digital traceability on both economic and social performance represented by one standard deviation below the mean, and
are significant (excluding zero) in the 95% confidence interval; high SCL is represented by one standard deviation above the
the indirect effects via process innovation are also significant mean. As depicted in Figure 2, the moderating effect on the
(excluding zero). Meanwhile, the direct impact of digital first half indirect path (digital traceability-product innovation)
traceability on environmental performance is not significant is examined. Digital traceability is found to be insignificantly
(including zero) in the 95% confidence interval whereas the related to product innovation when SCL is low (b ¼ 0.192, p <
indirect effect via process innovation is significant (excluding 0.05), and more positively related to product innovation when
zero). The direct impacts of digital traceability on both SCL is high (b ¼ 0.542, p < 0.001).
economic and environmental performance are significant As revealed in Figure 3, the moderating effect on the first half
(excluding zero) in the 95% confidence interval and the indirect path (digital traceability-process innovation) is
indirect effects via organisational innovation are also significant examined. Digital traceability is insignificantly related to
Table 9 Regression analysis results (n ¼ 359)

Economic performance
Supply chain learning

Variable M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22
Constant 3.848 3.848 3.848 3.848 3.848 3.848 3.848 3.848 3.641 3.641 3.641 3.641 3.641
Traceability year 0.114 0.006 0.049 0.006 0.052 0.015 0.102 0.012 0.031 0.030 0.003 0.03 0.035
Size 0.040 0.033 0.024 0.023 0.002 0.001 0.021 0.022 0.075 0.071 0.068 0.068 0.030
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

State-owned 0.204 0.165 0.152 0.139 0.135 0.120 0.174 0.151 0.158 0.137 0.136 0.127 0.085
Private 0.190 0.157 0.127 0.120 0.145 0.129 0.178 0.153 0.136 0.117 0.108 0.103 0.087
Manufacturing 0.006 0.011 0.001 0.006 0.015 0.017 0.002 0.008 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.010
Distribution 0.016 0.029 0.013 0.022 0.063 0.064 0.024 0.033 0.079 0.072 0.080 0.07 0.029
Digital traceability 0.256 0.170 0.184 0.224 0.145 0.11
Product 0.263 0.199 0.116 0.073
 
Process 0.282 0.232 0.302
Organisational 0.161 0.105
R2 0.086 0.243 0.276 0.334 0.302 0.376 0.161 0.273 0.052 0.100 0.087 0.114 0.287
F 5.519 16.127 19.35 21.937 21.672 26.363 9.653 16.399 3.223 5.599 4.787 5.706 20.200
Notes:  p < 0.001;  p < 0.01 and  p < 0.05
Source: Authors’ own work
(continued)
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Table 9 (Continued)

Economic performance
Variable M23 M24 M25 M26 M27 M28 M29 M30 M32 M33
Supply chain learning

Constant 3.641 3.641 3.641 3.683 3.683 3.683 3.683 3.683 3.683 3.683
Traceability year 0.056 0.022 0.026 0.020 0.055 0.017 0.061 0.011 0.006 0.037
Size 0.031 0.061 0.062 0.025 0.021 0.016 0.015 0.004 0.016 0.016
State-owned 0.08 0.137 0.124 0.068 0.042 0.039 0.029 0.034 0.006 0.002
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Private 0.082 0.127 0.114 0.030 0.006 0.007 0.012 0.007 0.003 0.006
Manufacturing 0.011 0.003 0.000 0.019 0.016 0.022 0.019 0.015 0.028 0.026
Distribution 0.029 0.073 0.069 0.039 0.030 0.040 0.033 0.015 0.022 0.019
Digital traceability 0.056 0.118 0.177 0.133 0.078
Product 0.151 0.101
Process 0.287 0.142
 
Organisational 0.119 0.089 0.344 0.324
R2 0.294 0.091 0.121 0.007 0.063 0.054 0.080 0.048 0.259 0.269
F 18.200 5.019 6.000 0.433 3.344 2.840 3.789 2.503 17.62 16.119
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Table 10 Bootstrapping result of the mediation of SOI

Path Effect BootSE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Digital traceability ! Product ! Economic Total 0.256 0.030 0.197 0.315
Indirect 0.086 0.020 0.050 0.129
Direct 0.170 0.031 0.109 0.230
Digital traceability ! Product ! Environmental Total 0.145 0.034 0.080 0.211
Indirect 0.032 0.018 0.000 0.069
Direct 0.114 0.036 0.042 0.186
Digital traceability ! Product ! Social Total 0.177 0.039 0.100 0.253
Indirect 0.044 0.020 0.006 0.083
Direct 0.133 0.042 0.050 0.216
Digital traceability ! Process ! Economic Total 0.256 0.030 0.197 0.315
Indirect 0.072 0.018 0.041 0.111
Direct 0.184 0.029 0.128 0.240
Digital traceability ! Process ! Environmental Total 0.145 0.034 0.080 0.211
Indirect 0.089 0.019 0.053 0.129
Direct 0.056 0.031 0.005 0.117
Digital traceability ! Process ! Social Total 0.177 0.039 0.100 0.253
Indirect 0.032 0.017 0.003 0.070
Direct 0.145 0.040 0.066 0.224
Digital traceability ! Organisational ! Economic Total 0.256 0.030 0.197 0.315
Indirect 0.032 0.013 0.010 0.062
Direct 0.224 0.031 0.164 0.284
Digital traceability ! Organisational ! Environmental Total 0.145 0.034 0.080 0.211
Indirect 0.027 0.011 0.009 0.050
Direct 0.118 0.035 0.050 0.186
Digital traceability ! Organisational ! Social Total 0.177 0.039 0.100 0.253
Indirect 0.099 0.024 0.053 0.148
Direct 0.078 0.036 0.007 0.148
Notes: Number of bootstrap samples ¼ 5,000;  p < 0.01 and  p < 0.001
Source: Authors’ own work

Figure 2 Moderating effect of SCL on the digital traceability-product innovation link

4.5
Low in SCL
4.3 High in SCL
Product innovation

4.1

3.9

3.7

3.5

3.3
Low High

Digital traceability

Source: Authors own work

process innovation when SCL is low (b ¼ 0.049, n.s.), and improvements in sustainability performances via product and
more positively related to process innovation when SCL is high process innovation.
(b ¼ 0.334, p < 0.001). To present the results clearly and logically, we summarise the
Table 11 further demonstrates the significance level of the final results into a model with hypotheses and corresponding
mediating effect with the inclusion of the moderating variables. values, as shown in Figure 4.
The mediating effect of both product and process innovation in
the connection between digital traceability and sustainability 4.4 The endogeneity test
performance is significant at all three levels of SCL, with an To address potential endogeneity concerns arising from the
increasing trend. The results imply that as the level of SCL potential influence of better sustainability performance on
increases, digital traceability is more likely to promote firms demonstrating higher levels of digital traceability, a two-
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Figure 3 Moderating effect of SCL on the digital traceability-process innovation link

Table 11 Moderated mediating effect

Effect BootSE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Digital traceability ! Product ! Economic M – 1 SD 0.038 0.018 0.005 0.077
M 0.073 0.018 0.040 0.112
M 1 1 SD 0.108 0.025 0.064 0.162
INDEX 0.035 0.012 0.014 0.061
Digital traceability ! Product ! Environmental M – 1 SD 0.014 0.010 0.002 0.037
M 0.027 0.015 0.001 0.058
M 1 1 SD 0.039 0.022 0.001 0.085
INDEX 0.013 0.008 0.000 0.031
Digital traceability ! Product ! Social M – 1 SD 0.019 0.012 0.000 0.045
M 0.037 0.017 0.005 0.073
M 1 1 SD 0.055 0.025 0.006 0.108
INDEX 0.018 0.010 0.002 0.041
Digital traceability ! Process ! Economic M  1 SD 0.011 0.020 0.026 0.051
M 0.044 0.017 0.014 0.081
M 1 1 SD 0.077 0.024 0.036 0.130
INDEX 0.033 0.014 0.008 0.063
Digital traceability ! Process ! Environmental M – 1 SD 0.014 0.024 0.033 0.061
M 0.055 0.019 0.019 0.093
M 1 1 SD 0.096 0.027 0.046 0.152
INDEX 0.041 0.017 0.009 0.077
Digital traceability ! Process ! Social M  1 SD 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.031
M 0.020 0.013 0.002 0.051
M 1 1 SD 0.034 0.020 0.004 0.081
INDEX 0.015 0.009 0.001 0.037
Digital traceability ! Organisational ! Economic M – 1 SD 0.016 0.013 0.006 0.043
M 0.027 0.012 0.007 0.054
M 1 1 SD 0.038 0.017 0.010 0.074
INDEX 0.011 0.008 0.002 0.030
Digital traceability ! Organisational ! Environmental M  1 SD 0.013 0.010 0.006 0.036
M 0.023 0.009 0.007 0.043
M 1 1SD 0.032 0.013 0.010 0.060
INDEX 0.009 0.007 0.001 0.025
Digital traceability ! Organisational ! Social M  1 SD 0.048 0.033 0.018 0.115
M 0.082 0.025 0.036 0.136
M 1 1SD 0.116 0.033 0.056 0.183
INDEX 0.034 0.021 0.006 0.077
Source: Authors’ own work
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Figure 4 Model with the hypotheses and corresponding values

H1b, 0.145***

H1a, 0.256***

Supply chain
learning

H5
b,
Production H3a, 0.263*** Economic
innovation performance

H5c, n.s
H3d

H5b
H3
b
a
H2
Digital H2b
Process H3e, 0.302*** Environmental
traceability innovation performance
H2
c H
3c

g
H3 H3
h H3f,

Organisational Social
innovation H3i, 0.344*** performance

H1c, 0.177***

Source: Authors own work

stage least squares (2SLS) regression analysis with instrumental To comprehensively address endogeneity concerns, a Durbin–
variables is used; a Durbin–Wu–Hausman post-estimation test Wu–Hausman test is conducted incorporating the error terms
of endogeneity is conducted following the recommended from the first-stage regression model; this assesses the
methodology of Lu et al. (2018). Within the extensive survey correlation between these error terms and those in the original
data set, coercive isomorphism is identified as a relevant sub- model. The Durbin–Wu–Hausman test (p ¼ 0.99) also suggests
variable of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, that the study results have no serious endogeneity problem.
1983) to serve as the instrumental variable for the endogeneity
tests. The institutional theory explores how external pressures 5. Discussion and implication
encompassing social, political and economic factors influence
organisational strategies, decisions and actions. It recognises 5.1 Main findings
three mechanisms through which institutional isomorphic In the era of Industry 4.0, the linkage between digital technology-
changes occur – coercive isomorphism, mimetic isomorphism enabled food traceability and sustainability performance is a
and normative isomorphism. Specifically in the Chinese heating topic. Our empirical results reveal a positive correlation
context, coercive isomorphism assumes a significant role in between digital traceability and sustainability performance. This
the implementation of digital traceability, primarily through the finding broadly supports the view (Zhou et al., 2022a; Epelbaum
imposition of strict laws and regulations by the Chinese and Martinez, 2014) that food traceability can positively improve
Government. To validate the appropriateness of coercive sustainability performance. More specifically, the empirical results
isomorphism as an instrumental variable, a correlation analysis show that digital traceability practices have the greatest positive
is conducted. The results confirm a statistically significant impact on economic performance, followed by social and finally
positive correlation between coercive isomorphism and digital environmental performances. In existing literature, Zhou et al.
traceability (R ¼ 0.31, p < 0.01) while indicating no significant (2022a) previously verify the relationship between traceability
correlation between coercive isomorphism and sustainability practices and sustainability performance. Nevertheless, they have
performance. These findings reinforce the selection of coercive yet to thoroughly examine and compare the relationship between
isomorphism as an instrumental variable in the above analysis, traceability and different dimensions of sustainability performance
mitigating endogeneity concerns. (economic, environmental and social). This study further extends
Subsequently, the 2SLS estimation procedure is used to their findings and helps scholars and practitioners to gain a more
mitigate potential endogeneity concerns. In the first stage, a explicit understanding of how digital traceability affects economic,
linear regression analysis is performed, using coercive environmental and social sustainability.
isomorphism as the independent variable and digital traceability This research shows that digital traceability positively affects
as the dependent variable. The results, presented in Table 12, sustainable product innovation, process innovation and also
reveal a significant effect of coercive isomorphism on digital organisational innovation. Of these, digital traceability has the
traceability (b ¼ 0.236, p < 0.001). Moving to the second stage, most significant impact on product innovation. This may be
the predicted values from the first stage are included as due to the fact that managers of food companies are very
independent variables to estimate their respective effects on the interested in product innovation and, therefore, pay more
three dimensions of sustainability performance. Table 12 attention to feedback from external consumers on product
(M35–M37) displays the results of the second-stage regression quality or price, for example. The implementation of digital
analysis, indicating statistically insignificant findings (p > 0.10). traceability provides as much information as possible about
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Table 12 2SLS Regression model for endogeneity test

Digital traceability Economic performance Environmental performance Social performance
Variable M34 M35 M36 M37
Constant 3.738 3.848 3.641 3.683
Traceability year 0.210 0.010 0.030 0.052
Size 0.001 0.038 0.072 0.024
State-owned 0.087 0.162 0.136 0.040
Private 0.087 0.150 0.115 0.002
Manufacturing 0.020 0.015 0.004 0.013
Distribution 0.008 0.017 0.074 0.039
Digital traceability – 0.115 0.135 0.054
Coercive isomorphism 0.236 – – –
R2 0.324 0.009 0.011 0.001
F 24.029 3.360 4.003 0.479
Source: Authors’ own work

product updates, which can bring many new ideas to product performance. This is because sustainability-oriented product
development. These research findings differ from those of Shou innovation aims at eco-design, life-cycle analysis and
et al. (2021), who suggest that substantial levels of traceability sustainable materials, all of which can contribute to improving
and supply chain coordination configurations could lead to the sustainable performance of food firms.
significant organisational changes through operational The statistical results also confirm that process innovation
innovation, resulting in better performance. However, their partially mediates the relationship between digital traceability
study does not consider traceability as a direct contributor to and both economic and social performance, respectively.
innovation and fails to investigate the direct relationship This means that process innovation is sometimes necessary if
between traceability and innovation. In contrast, this study digital traceability practices by food companies aim to
shows that digital traceability has a direct impact on SOI, improve economic and social performance. Echoing the
highlighting the importance of food companies using digital reflections of Dey et al. (2020), who demonstrate that
traceability platforms and technologies as key drivers for sustainable process innovation is required for firms to gain
product, process and organisational innovation. sustainability performance through lean management
A positive relationship between SOI and sustainability practices, this study suggests that food firms who implement
performance is also identified. Moreover, all three dimensions of digital traceability practices may struggle to create economic
SOI have a strong positive association with economic, benefits and may lose their social reputations without
environmental and social sustainability performance. As innovative practices in cleaner production, eco-efficiency and
highlighted by Adams et al. (2016), SOI entails deliberate logistics.
alterations to an organisation’s philosophy, values, products, The empirical results provide evidence of the full mediation
processes or practices with the explicit goal of creating and effect of process innovation on the relationship between digital
achieving social, environmental and economic value. These study traceability and environmental performance. This means that
findings align with the main conclusions made by Dey et al. (2020), the impact of digital traceability on environmental
De et al. (2020) and Wu (2017), all of whom assert that SOI can performances can be achieved only when process innovation is
drive improvements in sustainability performance. In this study, implemented; therefore, it is necessary and critical for food
their ideas in a new research context with a large sample are firms to promote process innovation during their trackback
validated, thus reinforcing their findings and providing new investigations. In contrast with the view of Chang (2011) who
empirical evidence to understand the link between SOI and indicates that process innovation does not have a mediating role
sustainability performance. in corporate environmental ethics and competitive advantage,
This study further examines the mediating effect of SOI on these findings highlight that food firms actively involved in
the causal relationship between digital traceability and digital traceability can reap environmental benefits if they value
sustainability performance to fill a current research gap. When and implement process innovations.
considering digital traceability practices, few studies have The empirical results also represent the partial mediation
investigated the impact of SOI on environmental and social effects of organisational innovation on the connections between
sustainability in the food supply chain. Indeed, innovation digital traceability and both economic and environmental
provides an important mediating role between sustainable performances. This implies that associated economic and
practices and performance improvement. This study fills this environmental performance with digital traceability can be
research gap by revealing that product innovation partially partly achieved through effective organisational innovation
mediates the impact of digital traceability practices on activities; therefore, improving organisational structure and
economic, environmental and social performance. These cooperation with supply chain members seems to be necessary.
findings extend the understanding of Klewitz and Hansen Our findings echo the observations of Zhu et al. (2019) who
(2014), suggesting that product innovation is needed to some claim that corporate social responsibility practices can help
extent for digital traceability to improve sustainable improve financial and environmental returns through
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

organisational restructuring, stakeholder management and 5.2 Theoretical implications

SCM. Digital traceability is a quality management and risk Food sustainability is a major issue in global affairs for
prevention practice of high public value. Such findings support academia and practitioners alike. Being aligned with current
and broaden the view of Zhu et al. (2019) in the context of sustainable SCM research, sustainable development in the food
digital traceability. sector ought to consider economic, environmental and social
The findings of this paper reveal that the link between digital performance from a holistic perspective (Jum’a et al., 2022).
traceability and social performance is fully mediated by However, the current research in innovation shows a producer-
organisational innovation. This implies that digital traceability centred model that mainly addresses product and process
practices may allow food firms to improve social performance innovation for optimal profit incentives (Trischler et al., 2020).
only with the support of organisational innovation activities. This study takes an overarching view to consider production
These findings are inconsistent with Epelbaum and Martinez and process innovation with company organisational culture in
(2014), who assert that improvements in firm efficiency, SOI, showing that production and process innovation can
including firm reputation, brand protection, product quality enhance economic and environmental performance. This is
and communication with stakeholders, can result from the consistent with current literature (Martin-Rios et al., 2020;
direct impact of technological innovation in traceability. This Friedman and Ormiston, 2022). This research further tests the
study highlights the pivotal role of organisational innovation in causal relationship between organisational culture and social
the food supply chain to enable the food sector to reap social sustainability in the food supply chain. As such, this study
benefits through the implementation of digital traceability contributes to filling the current research gap by providing
practices. Accordingly, it is proposed that food companies can further sustainability solutions in sustainable food systems
attain organisational innovation by enhancing their (Testa et al., 2022).
organisational structures, engaging with external stakeholders Secondly, this study fills the theoretical gap to extend
and embracing sustainable SCM practices. discussion of sustainability-related improvements in the food
Statistical results show that the linkage between digital sector (Chauhan et al., 2021). Current research is broadly in
traceability and product innovation is positively moderated by agreement on the importance of digitalisation and its impact
SCL. Such a finding supports the view of Tsai et al. (2015); on sustainable practices (Saurabh and Dey, 2021; Zhou et al.,
their study posited an inverted U-shaped relationship between 2023). This study examines the relationship between digital
product innovation and knowledge integration mechanism. traceability and SOI, showing different levels and aspects of
This study extends the results of the aforementioned work, causality for economic, environmental and social
revealing how SCL exerts its moderating role to enhance the sustainability for food chain management. This study
behaviour of product innovation in the context of digital revealed that digital traceability can substantially increase
traceability. These results further suggest that the impact of marketing and operational performance, yielding positive
digital traceability on product innovation in the food sector can economic growth. These findings align with prior research
be somewhat of an externalising effect, being more susceptible (e.g. Joshi et al., 2023) that economic sustainability as a
to changes in the external environment than process and primary motivator for investments in digital technologies and
organisational innovation. innovation. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the
The empirical results further suggest that SCL can positively ecosystem and socio-economic factors play a substantial role
moderate the relationship between digital traceability and in determining long-term economic sustainability within the
process innovation. Such a result implies that digital food sector. Therefore, there is a need to consider the
traceability can reinforce the strength of process innovation in a environmental and social dimensions alongside economic
close learning environment. This finding reinforces the work of considerations.
Flint et al. (2008) who show that multiple supply chain partners Finally, SCL is taken into account as the study contributes to
engaging in interactions, learning and focusing on supply chain building the theoretical link to SOI and the impact on
problems and solutions can enhance the effect of traceability sustainability performance in the food chain. The study
practices on process innovation. confirms the influence of SCL on supply chain practice, aligned
This study also reveals an unexpected result. SCL does not with current literature (Manuj et al., 2014; Parast, 2020).
moderate the association between digital traceability and Furthermore, this research tests the role of SCL in SOI and
organisational innovation. This indicates that SCL does not sustainability performance, thus developing the understanding
significantly alter the impact of digital traceability on of the dynamic capabilities of SOI (Inigo and Albareda, 2019).
organisational innovation, neither strengthening nor weakening Despite the significance of digital traceability and innovation in
it. These findings contrast with those of Wohlrab et al. (2020) fostering sustainable SCM, organisations and their extended
who observe that the use of traceability technologies facilitates networks face considerable challenges in the transformation of
large-scale organisational innovation in a collective learning digitalisation and SOI, as highlighted by previous studies
environment. This research emphasises that digital traceability (Nambisan et al., 2019; Li, 2020). This study has unveiled how
practices primarily facilitate product and process innovations in SCL plays a pivotal role in harnessing the results of SOI to
food firms. They are more likely to benefit from inter- amplify the influence of digital traceability on product, process
organisational knowledge exchange and learning as opposed to and organisational innovation. These findings can be further
organisational innovations that involve the reorganisation of examined and applied in the context of emerging countries to
practices and structures, as well as the adoption of new forms of explore the factors that affect digital transformation in supply
management within firms. chains.
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

5.3 Managerial implications References

Nowadays, companies are aiming to make the journey of
adopting innovation in sustainability practice, implying Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D. and Overy,
profound sustainability transformation and making systemic P. (2016), “Sustainability-oriented innovation: a systematic
changes (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014). This study provides review”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 18
instrumental insights for companies to invest on improving SOI No. 2, pp. 180-205.
and sustainability practices in digitalisation. Even though Agrawal, T.K., Kumar, V., Pal, R., Wang, L. and Chen, Y.
current literature shows the relationship between digitalisation (2021), “Blockchain-based framework for supply chain
and SOI (Friedman and Ormiston, 2022) and sustainable food traceability: a case example of textile and clothing industry”,
supply chain (Chauhan et al., 2021), this study shows different Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 154, p. 107130.
levels of impact. This can help companies to make better Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Afum, E., Acquah, I.S.K. and Baah, C.
decisions about where to invest in digitalisation to improve (2022), “How does supply chain knowledge enhance green
sustainability practice. Investing in product innovation is innovation? The mediation mechanisms of corporate
fundamentally important to improve food chain sustainability reputation and non-supply chain learning”, Journal of
(Khurana et al., 2019). Companies can use digitalisation to Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 852-868.
enhance product innovation, for example, to consider product Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. and Reno, R.R. (1991), Multiple
life cycle and green eco-system in product design and material Regression: testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage, New
usage. When designing and using digital traceability across the York, NY.
supply chain, companies and their upstream and downstream Alexander, A., Blome, C., Schleper, M.C. and Roscoe, S.
actors are recommended to restructure their operational (2022), “Managing the ‘new normal’: the future of
processes to improve operations and logistics efficiency and operations and supply chain management in unprecedented
optimise the use of energy and resources. By doing so, a times”, International Journal of Operations & Production
company and its supply chain can potentially improve Management, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 1061-1076.
Anastasiadis, F., Manikas, I., Apostolidou, I. and Wahbeh, S.
economic and environmental sustainability in practice.
Proactive companies who embark on the strategy of making (2022), “The role of traceability in end-to-end circular Agri-
systemic changes, might shape their organisational culture and food supply chains”, Industrial Marketing Management,
inter-firm arrangements to redefine, reconceptualise and Vol. 104, pp. 196-211.
Annosi, M.C., Brunetta, F., Bimbo, F. and Kostoula, M.
restructure supply chain innovation to make the systematic
(2021), “Digitalization within food supply chains to prevent
transformation for sustainability practice.
food waste. Drivers, barriers and collaboration practices”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 93, pp. 208-220.
6. Conclusion Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating
This study reports on an empirical study as to what extent SOI nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing
can influence sustainability performance, considering digital Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
traceability and SCL for the food supply chain. From the study Astill, J., Dara, R.A., Campbell, M., Farber, J.M., Fraser, E.
and recommendations, it is shown how digital traceability and D., Sharif, S. and Yada, R.Y. (2019), “Transparency in food
SOI can leverage sustainability performance and make supply chains: a review of enabling technology solutions”,
substantial theoretical and implementation contributions in the Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 91, pp. 240-247.
food chain. Aung, M.M. and Chang, Y.S. (2014), “Traceability in a food
Similar to other empirical studies, this research has its supply chain: safety and quality perspectives”, Food Control,
limitations. Data is collected only from China’s major cities and Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 172-184.
that could be limiting in terms of geographic implications. Bag, S. and Rahman, M.S. (2023), “The role of capabilities in
Besides, given that the findings and conclusion are justified shaping sustainable supply chain flexibility and enhancing
based on the survey research in the food sector, it may not be circular economy-target performance: an empirical study”,
generalisable due to industrial features, similar to published Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 28
research in specific sectors of the supply chain (Ingenbleek and No. 1, pp. 162-178.
Krampe, 2023). Bahn, R.A., Yehya, A.A.K. and Zurayk, R. (2021),
Drawing on the limitations, this study provides future “Digitalization for sustainable Agri-food systems: potential,
research opportunities in sustainable food SCM. Further status, and risks for the MENA region”, Sustainability,
investigation could be elaborated to a broader sampling scale in Vol. 13 No. 6, p. 3223.
China and outside China, to test the consistency and Barling, D., Sharpe, R. and Lang, T. (2009), “Traceability and
generalisation of the module. Besides, the research could ethical concerns in the UK wheat-bread chain: from food
further test and develop the framework built in this study to safety to provenance to transparency”, International Journal of
address the study’s implication in different industries and Agricultural Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 261-278.
sectors, drawing on the generalisability of survey research. Belhadi, A., Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A. and Mani, V.
Finally, the discussions and recommendations in this study are (2022), “Analyzing the mediating role of organizational
concluded based on survey and statistical findings. In-depth ambidexterity and digital business transformation on
case studies could be developed to enrich the insights of the industry 4.0 capabilities and sustainable supply chain
three aspects of innovation in SOI and the transforming process performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International
to sustainability performance. Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 696-711.
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Beske, P., Land, A. and Seuring, S. (2014), “Sustainable Chauhan, C., Kaur, P., Arrawatia, R., Ractham, P. and Dhir,
supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities A. (2022), “Supply chain collaboration and sustainable
in the food industry: a critical analysis of the literature”, development goals (SDGs): teamwork makes achieving
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 152, SDGs dream work”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 147,
pp. 131-143. pp. 290-307.
Bessant, J., Kaplinsky, R. and Lamming, R. (2003), “Putting Chen, Y.-S. (2008), “The driver of green innovation and green
supply chain learning into practice”, International Journal of image–green core competence”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 531-543.
pp. 167-184. Corallo, A., Latino, M.E., Menegoli, M. and Pontrandolfo, P.
Bhandal, R., Meriton, R., Kavanagh, R.E. and Brown, A. (2020), “A systematic literature review to explore traceability
(2022), “The application of digital twin technology in and lifecycle relationship”, International Journal of Production
operations and supply chain management: a bibliometric Research, Vol. 58 No. 15, pp. 4789-4807.
review”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Côte, R., Booth, A. and Louis, B. (2006), “Eco-efficiency and
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 182-206. SMEs in Nova Scotia, Canada”, Journal of Cleaner
Bienhaus, F. and Haddud, A. (2018), “Procurement 4.0: Production, Vol. 14 Nos 6/7, pp. 542-550.
factors influencing the digitisation of procurement and Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B., Petersen, K.J. and Fugate, B.
supply chains”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24 (2019), “Investigating green supply chain management
No. 4, pp. 965-984. practices and performance: the moderating roles of supply
Bosona, T. and Gebresenbet, G. (2013), “Food traceability as chain ecocentricity and traceability”, International Journal of
an integral part of logistics management in food and Operations & Production Management, Vol. 39 No. 5,
agricultural supply chain”, Food Control, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 767-786.
pp. 32-48. De, D., Chowdhury, S., Dey, P.K. and Ghosh, S.K. (2020),
Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral “Impact of lean and sustainability oriented innovation on
and written materials”, in Triandis, H. C. and Berry, J.W. E. sustainability performance of small and medium sized
(Eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Allyn Bacon, enterprises: a data envelopment analysis-based framework”,
Boston, MA, pp, pp. 389-444. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 219,
Büyüközkan, G. and Göçer, F. (2018), “Digital supply chain: pp. 416-430.
literature review and a proposed framework for future Demirel, P. and Kesidou, E. (2019), “Sustainability-oriented
research”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 97, pp. 157-177. capabilities for eco-innovation: meeting the regulatory,
Büyüközkan, G. and Karabulut, Y. (2018), “Sustainability technology, and market demands”, Business Strategy and the
performance evaluation: literature review and future Environment, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 847-857.
directions”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 217, Dey, P.K., Malesios, C., De, D., Chowdhury, S. and
pp. 253-267. Abdelaziz, F.B. (2020), “The impact of lean management
Casino, F., Kanakaris, V., Dasaklis, T.K., Moschuris, S., practices and sustainably-oriented innovation on
Stachtiaris, S., Pagoni, M. and Rachaniotis, N.P. (2021), sustainability performance of small and medium-sized
“Blockchain-based food supply chain traceability: a case enterprises: empirical evidence from the UK”, British Journal
study in the dairy sector”, International Journal of Production of Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 141-161.
Research, Vol. 59 No. 19, pp. 5758-5770. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Cricelli, L., Esposito, E. and revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality
Strazzullo, S. (2022), “The future of sustainable supply in organisational fields”, American Sociological Review,
chains: a novel tertiary-systematic methodology”, Supply Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-160.
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, Elkington, J. (1998), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom
pp. 762-784. Line of 21st Century Business, New Society Publishers,
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Del Vecchio, P., Oropallo, E. Gabriola Island.
and Secundo, G. (2021), “Blockchain technology for Engelseth, P. (2009), “Food product traceability and supply
bridging trust, traceability and transparency in circular network integration”, Journal of Business & Industrial
supply chain”, Information & Management, Vol. 59 No. 7, Marketing, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6, pp. 421-430.
p. 103508. Epelbaum, F.M.B. and Martinez, M.G. (2014), “The
Chang, C.-H. (2011), “The influence of corporate technological evolution of food traceability systems and their
environmental ethics on competitive advantage: the impact on firm sustainable performance: a RBV approach”,
mediation role of green innovation”, Journal of Business International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 150,
Ethics, Vol. 104 No. 3, pp. 361-370. pp. 215-224.
Chang, A., Tseng, C.H. and Chu, M.Y. (2013), “Value European Commission (2022), “EDGAR - Emissions
creation from a food traceability system based on a database for global atmospheric research”, available at:
hierarchical model of consumer personality traits”, British https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edgar_food#data_download
Food Journal, Vol. 115 No. 9, pp. 1361-1380. (accessed 17 November 2022).
Chauhan, C., Dhir, A., Akram, M.U. and Salo, J. (2021), FAO (2022), “Hunger and food insecurity”, available at: www.
“Food loss and waste in food supply chains: a systematic fao.org/hunger/en/ (accessed 17 November 2022).
literature review and framework development approach”, Flint, D.J., Larsson, E. and Gammelgaard, B. (2008),
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 295, p. 126438. “Exploring processes for customer value insights, supply
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

chain learning and innovation: an international study”, factors”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 29
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 257-281. No. 4, pp. 935-954.
Friedman, N. and Ormiston, J. (2022), “Blockchain as a Hew, J.-J., Wong, L.-W., Tan, G.W.-H., Ooi, K.-B. and Lin,
sustainability-oriented innovation?: opportunities for and B. (2020), “The blockchain-based halal traceability systems:
resistance to blockchain technology as a driver of a hype or reality?”, Supply Chain Management: An
sustainability in global food supply chains”, Technological International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 863-879.
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 175, p. 121403. Hillman, A.J. and Keim, G.D. (2001), “Shareholder value,
Gallo, A., Accorsi, R., Goh, A., Hsiao, H. and Manzini, R. stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the
(2021), “A traceability-support system to control safety and bottom line?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2,
sustainability indicators in food distribution”, Food Control, pp. 125-139.
Vol. 124, p. 107866. Huo, B., Haq, M.Z.U. and Gu, M. (2021), “The impact of
García-Sanchez, I.M., Gallego-Álvarez, I. and Zafra-G omez, J. information sharing on supply chain learning and flexibility
L. (2021), “Do independent, female and specialist directors performance”, International Journal of Production Research,
promote eco-innovation and eco-design in Agri-food firms?”, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 1411-1434.
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 2, Hussain, Z. (2022), “Environmental and economic-oriented
pp. 1136-1152. transport efficiency: the role of climate change mitigation
Garcia-Torres, S., Albareda, L., Rey-Garcia, M. and Seuring, technology”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
S. (2019), “Traceability for sustainability – literature review Vol. 29 No. 19, pp. 29165-29182.
and conceptual framework”, Supply Chain Management: An Hussain, N., Rigoni, U. and Orij, R.P. (2018), “Corporate
International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 85-106. governance and sustainability performance: analysis of triple
Giannetti, B., Agostinho, F., Eras, J.C., Yang, Z. and Almeida, bottom line performance”, Journal of Business Ethics,
C. (2020), “Cleaner production for achieving the sustainable Vol. 149 No. 2, pp. 411-432.
development goals”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 271, IEA (2022), “How the energy crisis is exacerbating the food
p. 122127. crisis”, available at: www.iea.org/commentaries/how-the-
Gillani, F., Chatha, K.A., Jajja, M.S.S. and Farooq, S. (2020), energy-crisis-is-exacerbating-the-food-crisis (accessed 17
“Implementation of digital manufacturing technologies: November 2022).
antecedents and consequences”, International Journal of Ingenbleek, P.T. and Krampe, C. (2023), “Sustainability in the
Production Economics, Vol. 229, p. 107748. supply chain–understanding suppliers’ resource allocation
Gloet, M. and Samson, D. (2022), “Knowledge and for sustainability issues”, Supply Chain Management: An
innovation management to support supply chain innovation International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 28-42.
and sustainability practices”, Information Systems Inigo, E.A. and Albareda, L. (2019), “Sustainability oriented
Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 3-18. innovation dynamics: levels of dynamic capabilities and their
Gong, Y., Jia, F., Brown, S. and Koh, L. (2018), “Supply chain path-dependent and self-reinforcing logics”, Technological
learning of sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: a Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 139, pp. 334-351.
resource orchestration perspective”, International Journal of Inigo, E.A., Ritala, P. and Albareda, L. (2020), “Networking
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, for sustainability: alliance capabilities and sustainability-
pp. 1061-1090. oriented innovation”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Gosling, J., Jia, F., Gong, Y. and Brown, S. (2016), “The role Vol. 89, pp. 550-565.
of supply chain leadership in the learning of sustainable Irfan, I., Sumbal, M.S.U.K., Khurshid, F. and Chan, F.T.
practice: toward an integrated framework”, Journal of Cleaner (2022), “Toward a resilient supply chain model: critical role
Production, Vol. 137, pp. 1458-1469. of knowledge management and dynamic capabilities”,
Gruchmann, T., Seuring, S. and Petljak, K. (2019), “Assessing Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 122 No. 5,
the role of dynamic capabilities in local food distribution: a pp. 1153-1182.
theory-elaboration study”, Supply Chain Management: An Jum’a, L., Zimon, D., Ikram, M. and Madzík, P. (2022),
International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 767-783. “Towards a sustainability paradigm; the nexus between lean
Hallikas, J., Immonen, M. and Brax, S. (2021), “Digitalizing green practices, sustainability-oriented innovation and triple
procurement: the impact of data analytics on supply chain bottom line”, International Journal of Production Economics,
performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International Vol. 245, p. 108393.
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 629-646. Kamath, R. (2018), “Food traceability on blockchain:
Hansen, E.G., Grosse-Dunker, F. and Reichwald, R. (2009), Walmart’s pork and mango pilots with IBM”, The Journal of
“Sustainability innovation cube—a framework to evaluate the British Blockchain Association, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 47-53.
sustainability-oriented innovations”, International Journal of Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A. and Gawankar, S.A. (2020),
Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 683-713. “Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven
Hansen, E.G., Wicki, S. and Schaltegger, S. (2022), agriculture supply chain: a review for research and
“Sustainability-oriented technology exploration: managerial applications”, International Journal of Production Economics,
values, ambidextrous design, and separation drift”, Vol. 219, pp. 179-194.
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 26 Keskin, D., Wever, R. and Brezet, H. (2020), “Product
No. 5, p. 2240004. innovation processes in sustainability-oriented ventures: a
Hastig, G.M. and Sodhi, M.S. (2020), “Blockchain for supply study of effectuation and causation”, Journal of Cleaner
chain traceability: business requirements and critical success Production, Vol. 263, p. 121210.
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Khan, H. and Wisner, J.D. (2019), “Supply chain integration, Manuj, I., Omar, A. and Pohlen, T.L. (2014), “Inter-
learning, and agility: effects on performance”, Operations and organisational learning in supply chains: a focus on logistics
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, service providers and their customers”, Journal of Business
Vol. 219, pp. 14-23. Logistics, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 103-120.
Khurana, S., Haleem, A. and Mannan, B. (2019), Martin-Rios, C., Hofmann, A. and Mackenzie, N. (2020),
“Determinants for integration of sustainability with “Sustainability-oriented innovations in food waste
innovation for Indian manufacturing enterprises: empirical management technology”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 1,
evidence in MSMEs”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 229, p. 210.
pp. 374-386. Melander, L. (2017), “Achieving sustainable development by
Kitsis, A.M. and Chen, I.J. (2019), “Do motives matter? collaborating in green product innovation”, Business Strategy
Examining the relationships between motives, SSCM and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1095-1109.
practices and TBL performance”, Supply Chain MOFCOM (2016), “Regular press conference of the ministry
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, of commerce (November 2, 2016)”, available at: http://
pp. 325-341. english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/pressconferenceinyears/2016/
Klewitz, J. and Hansen, E.G. (2014), “Sustainability-oriented 201611/20161101685399.shtml (accessed 2 November
innovation of SMEs: a systematic review”, Journal of Cleaner 2016).
Production, Vol. 65, pp. 57-75. MOFCOM (2019), “Regular press conference of the ministry
Joshi, S., Singh, K.R. and Sharma, M. (2023), “Sustainable of commerce (March 28, 2019)”, available at: http://english.
Agri-food supply chain practices: few empirical evidences mofcom.gov.cn/article/newsrelease/press/201906/201906028
from a developing economy”, Global Business Review, Vol. 24 71312.shtml (accessed 28 March 2019).
No. 3, pp. 451-474. Nakandala, D., Yang, R., Lau, H. and Weerabahu, S. (2023),
Lambrechts, F., Taillieu, T., Grieten, S. and Poisquet, J. “Industry 4.0 technology capabilities, resilience and
(2012), “In-depth joint supply chain learning: towards a incremental innovation in Australian manufacturing firms: a
framework”, Supply Chain Management: An International serial mediation model”, Supply Chain Management: An
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 627-637.
International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 760-772.
Le, T.T. and Ikram, M. (2022), “Do sustainability innovation
Nambisan, S., Wright, M. and Feldman, M. (2019), “The
and firm competitiveness help improve firm performance?
digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship:
Evidence from the SME sector in Vietnam”, Sustainable
progress, challenges and key themes”, Research Policy,
Production and Consumption, Vol. 29, pp. 588-599.
Vol. 48 No. 8, p. 103773.
Leon-Bravo, V., Caniato, F. and Caridi, M. (2021),
Neutzling, D.M., Land, A., Seuring, S. and do Nascimento, L.
“Sustainability assessment in the food supply chain: study of
F.M. (2018), “Linking sustainability-oriented innovation to
a certified product in Italy”, Production Planning & Control,
supply chain relationship integration”, Journal of Cleaner
Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 567-584.
Production, Vol. 172, pp. 3448-3458.
Lezoche, M., Hernandez, J.E., Díaz, M.M.E.A., Panetto, H.
Ojha, D., Acharya, C. and Cooper, D. (2018),
and Kacprzyk, J. (2020), “Agri-food 4.0: a survey of the
“Transformational leadership and supply chain
supply chains and technologies for the future agriculture”,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 117, p. 103187. ambidexterity: mediating role of supply chain organizational
Li, F. (2020), “Leading digital transformation: three emerging learning and moderating role of uncertainty”, International
approaches for managing the transition”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 197no, pp. 215-231.
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 40 Oyedijo, A., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Mubarik, M.S., Khan, S.A. and
No. 6, pp. 809-817. Utulu, K. (2023), “Multi-tier sustainable supply chain
Loke, S.-P., Downe, A.G., Sambasivan, M. and Khalid, K. management: a case study of a global food retailer”, Supply
(2012), “A structural approach to integrating total quality Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1,
management and knowledge management with supply chain doi: 10.1108/SCM-05-2022-0205.
learning”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Paolucci, E., Pessot, E. and Ricci, R. (2021), “The interplay
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 776-800. between digital transformation and governance mechanisms
Lu, G., Ding, X., Peng, D.X. and Chuang, H.H.C. (2018), in supply chains: evidence from the Italian automotive
“Addressing endogeneity in operations management industry”, International Journal of Operations & Production
research: recent developments, common problems, and Management, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 1119-1144.
directions for future research”, Journal of Operations Parast, M.M. (2020), “A learning perspective of supply chain
Management, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 53-64. quality management: empirical evidence from US supply
Lu, H., Mangla, S.K., Hernandez, J.E., Elgueta, S., Zhao, G., chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Liu, S. and Hunter, L. (2021), “Key operational and Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 17-34.
institutional factors for improving food safety: a case study Park, A. and Li, H. (2021), “The effect of blockchain
from Chile”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 32 No. 14, technology on supply chain sustainability performances”,
pp. 1248-1264. Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 4, p. 1726.
Malik, M., Ghaderi, H. and Andargoli, A. (2021), “A resource Parmentola, A., Petrillo, A., Tutore, I. and De Felice, F.
orchestration view of supply chain traceability and (2022), “Is blockchain able to enhance environmental
transparency bundles for competitive advantage”, Business sustainability? A systematic review and research agenda from
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 3866-3881. the perspective of sustainable development goals (SDGs)”,
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 31 No. 1, current issues and the road ahead”, Technological Forecasting
pp. 194-217. and Social Change, Vol. 179, p. 121653.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, Trischler, J., Johnson, M. and Kristensson, P. (2020), “A
N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral service ecosystem perspective on the diffusion of
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended sustainability-oriented user innovations”, Journal of Business
remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, Research, Vol. 116, pp. 552-560.
pp. 879-903. Tsai, K.-H., Liao, Y.-C. and Hsu, T.T. (2015), “Does the use
Pougnet, S., Martin-Rios, C. and Pasamar, S. (2022), “Keg of knowledge integration mechanisms enhance product
wine technology as a service innovation for sustainability in innovativeness?”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 46,
the foodservice industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 214-223.
Vol. 360, p. 132145. United Nations (2021), “Food systems account for over one-
Pournader, M., Shi, Y., Seuring, S. and Koh, S.L. (2020), third of global greenhouse gas emissions”, available at:
“Blockchain applications in supply chains, transport and https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086822 (accessed 17
logistics: a systematic review of the literature”, International November 2022).
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 7, pp. 2063-2081. United Nations (2022), “The food systems summit”, available
Ringsberg, H. (2014), “Perspectives on food traceability: a at: www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit?_gl¼1 5qk0h0 _
systematic literature review”, Supply Chain Management: An ga Njc2ODQ5NDQ2LjE2NjMxMDEzOTg. _ga_TK9BQ
International Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6, pp. 558-576. L5X7Z MTY2ODcwMjc1MC4xLjAuMTY2ODcwMjc1M
Roome, N. and Wijen, F. (2006), “Stakeholder power and C4wLjAuMA (accessed 17 November 2022).
organisational learning in corporate environmental Upadhyay, A., Mukhuty, S., Kumar, V. and Kazancoglu, Y.
management”, Organization Studies, Vol. 27 No. 2, (2021), “Blockchain technology and the circular economy:
pp. 235-263. implications for sustainability and social responsibility”,
Saak, A.E. (2016), “Traceability and reputation in supply Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 293, p. 126130.
chains”, International Journal of Production Economics, Wang, J. and Dai, J. (2018), “Sustainable supply chain
management practices and performance”, Industrial
Vol. 177, pp. 149-162.
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 2-21.
Saurabh, S. and Dey, K. (2021), “Blockchain technology
Wang, Y., Yuan, Z. and Tang, Y. (2021), “Enhancing food
adoption, architecture, and sustainable Agri-food supply
security and environmental sustainability: a critical review of
chains”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 284, p. 124731.
food loss and waste management”, Resources, Environment
Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., Simeone, L. and Schiuma, G.
and Sustainability, Vol. 4, p. 100023.
(2020), “Creativity and stakeholders’ engagement in open
Wohlrab, R., Knauss, E., Steghöfer, J.-P., Maro, S., Anjorin,
innovation: design for knowledge translation in technology-
A. and Pelliccione, P. (2020), “Collaborative traceability
intensive enterprises”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 119,
management: a multiple case study from the perspectives of
pp. 272-282.
organisation, process, and culture”, Requirements Engineering,
Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 21-45.
a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain
Wong, C.Y., Wong, C.W. and Boon-Itt, S. (2020), “Effects of
management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, green supply chain integration and green innovation on
pp. 1699-1710. environmental and cost performance”, International Journal
Severo, E.A., de Guimarães, J.C.F. and Dorion, E.C.H. of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 15, pp. 4589-4609.
(2018), “Cleaner production, social responsibility and eco- Wu, G.C. (2017), “Effects of socially responsible supplier
innovation: generations’ perception for a sustainable future”, development and sustainability-oriented innovation on
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 186, pp. 91-103. sustainable development: empirical evidence from SMEs”,
Shou, Y., Zhao, X., Dai, J. and Xu, D. (2021), “Matching Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
traceability and supply chain coordination: achieving Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 661-675.
operational innovation for superior performance”, Yang, Q., Li, S. and Qiao, J. (2023), “How does supply chain
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation learning influence supply chain innovation performance? A
Review, Vol. 145, p. 102181. survey based on strategy-structure-capabilities-performance
Sodhi, M.S. and Tang, C.S. (2019), “Research opportunities perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Research and
in supply chain transparency”, Production and Operations Applications, doi: 10.1080/13675567.2023.2192913.
Management, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 2946-2959. Yang, L., Zhang, R. and Chen, W. (2008), “Study on
Stranieri, S., Orsi, L. and Banterle, A. (2017), “Traceability knowledge sharing mechanism of supply chain based on
and risks: an extended transaction cost perspective”, Supply dynamic capabilities”, in 2008 IEEE International Conference
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, IEEE,
pp. 145-159. Vol. 2, pp. 2391-2396.
Sunny, J., Undralla, N. and Pillai, V.M. (2020), “Supply chain Zhao, Q., Pan, Y. and Xia, X. (2021), “Internet can do help in
transparency through blockchain-based traceability: an the reduction of pesticide use by farmers: evidence from rural
overview with demonstration”, Computers & Industrial China”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 28
Engineering, Vol. 150, p. 106895. No. 2, pp. 2063-2073.
Testa, S., Nielsen, K.R., Vallentin, S. and Ciccullo, F. (2022), Zhou, X. and Xu, Z. (2022), “Traceability in food supply
“Sustainability-oriented innovation in the Agri-food system: chains: a systematic literature review and future research
 Supply chain learning Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Xiongyong Zhou, Haiyan Lu and Sachin Kumar Mangla

directions”, International Food and Agribusiness Management traceability: evidence from Chinese food producers”,
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 173-196. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 255,
Zhou, X., Pullman, M. and Xu, Z. (2022a), “The impact of food p. 108659.
supply chain traceability on sustainability performance”, Zhu, Q., Zou, F. and Zhang, P. (2019), “The role of
Operations Management Research, Vol. 15 No. 1-2, pp. 93-115. innovation for performance improvement through
Zhou, X., Zhu, Q. and Xu, Z. (2022b), “The mediating role of corporate social responsibility practices among small and
supply chain quality management for traceability and medium-sized suppliers in China”, Corporate Social
performance improvement: evidence among Chinese food Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26
firms”, International Journal of Production Economics, No. 2, pp. 341-350.
Vol. 254, p. 108630.
Zhou, X., Zhu, Q. and Xu, Z. (2023), “The role of contractual Corresponding author
and relational governance for the success of digital Haiyan Lu can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0309-0566.htm

EJM
58,1 Interactive effects of
organizational resources on
sustainable product design
66 practices: a resource
Received 6 April 2022
Revised 20 November 2022
orchestration perspective
25 April 2023
26 June 2023 Babu John-Mariadoss
Accepted 27 September 2023 Area of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas, USA
Nadia Pomirleanu
Department of Marketing and International Business, University of Nevada,
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Pavan R. Chennamaneni
Department of Marketing, University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, Whitewater,
Wisconsin, USA
Rajani Ganesh Pillai
Department of Management and Marketing, North Dakota State University,
Fargo, North Dakota, USA, and
Suhaiza Zailani
Department of Decision Science, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the interactive effects of a firm’s strategic
sustainability orientation (SSO) and customer relationship capital (CRC) on sustainable product design
practices (SPDP).
Design/methodology/approach – The authors examine the interactive effects of two firm
resources, namely, SSO and CRC, as they relate to SPDP, using survey data from 132 manufacturers in
Malaysia.
Findings – The findings show that the effect of SSO on SPDP is stronger when CRC is low, than otherwise.
The authors also find that the interactive effects of the firm-level resources stated above are stronger when
customer pressures (CPs) are higher than when they are low.
Research limitations/implications – The authors contribute to the literature by studying the effects of
firm-level strategic resources and their interactions as they relate to SPDP. An important limitation of this
research is the usage of single-source data and single-period data.
Practical implications – Managerially, this research provides new insights into how organizations
should respond to CPs while understanding the counterintuitive but disabling effects of customer relationship
assets.
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 58 No. 1, 2024
pp. 66-91
© Emerald Publishing Limited The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Dr Tarig Eltayeb, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/EJM-04-2022-0253 University, for providing their dissertation dataset to test their hypotheses.
Social implications – The findings are important to society because most of the environmental impact Resource
arising from the production, consumption and disposal of products is a direct consequence of decisions made
at the product design stage and an unintended consequence of the marketing decision-making processes that orchestration
underlie marketing strategy formulation that fails to recognize ecosystems impact as a standard decision perspective
influence.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to study the effects of
firm-level strategic resources and their interactions as they relate to SPDP.
Keywords Sustainable product design practices, Strategic sustainability orientation, 67
Customer relationship capital, Resource orchestration
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Product design is the most fundamental characteristic of one of four Ps of the marketing mix –
the “Product” (Bloch, 1995), and is a source of firms’ competitive advantage (Gemser et al.,
2006; Noble and Kumar, 2010). As product design has currently been gaining importance in
the academic and practitioner discourse, academic interest in the role of sustainable product
design (henceforth, SPD) has also been steadily increasing since the late 90s across several
disciplines, including marketing (Fuller and Ottman, 2004; Paparoidamis and Tran, 2019),
supply chain management (Linton et al., 2007), operations management (Sarkis et al., 2010),
production engineering (Vinodh and Rathod, 2010) and materials engineering (Howarth and
Hadfield, 2006).
As more firms have incorporated sustainability practices in their mission, policies and
management practices (Delaney and Woodhead, 2007), sustainable product development
has moved beyond a buzzword in business practice to a topic of interest (Selinšek et al.,
2021). The importance of SPD has grown over time (Dangelico et al., 2017), due to its focus
on reducing the impact of a product on the environment during its life cycle (Gagnon et al.,
2012), leading to research suggesting that firms can improve profitability by designing
products in an environmentally responsible manner (Iveson et al., 2022). SPD contributes to
the quest for sustainability and the environment, because much of the environmental effects
from producing, consuming and disposing (of products) is a direct consequence of design-
stage decisions (Zabkar et al., 2018). While SPD refers to identification and integration of
environmental aspects of a product into product development (Zailani et al., 2012;
Paparoidamis and Tran, 2019), SPD practices (SPDP) are a firm’s implementation of
practices aimed at designing and manufacturing products that minimize environmental
impact over a product’s life cycle (Fiksel, 2009; Lenox and Ehrenfeld, 1997).
Recent SPD research has used the resource-based view (RBV) to explain the effect of
firm-level resources such as supplier-focused relationship resources (Paulraj, 2011) and
human resources (Sarkis et al., 2010) on SPDP (Yunus and Michalisin, 2016). Yet, research
has not examined the effects of firm resources focused on organizational culture and
customer relationship assets, and their interactions as they enable implementation of
SPDP. As organizations are systems of independent resources, the right usage of
resources and their optimal configuration is a significant issue of managerial concern (i.e.
Barney, 1991; Sirmon et al., 2011; Teece et al., 1997), because it helps to ensure
economically, socially and environmentally sustainable products. By considering both
organizational culture and customer relationship variables in the design process, for
example, companies can better understand the needs and expectations of their target
markets and develop products that are more likely to be accepted and adopted (Bloch,
1995). Thus, the purpose of this study is to address this gap by investigating the
interactive effects of a firm’s sustainability orientation (an organizational cultural
EJM resource) and customer relationship capital (CRC) (a stakeholder-level resource) on SPDP,
58,1 and the influence of customer pressures (CPs) (a stakeholder factor) on the above
relationships. We build our framework on RBV and its extension, resource orchestration
theory (ROT), which suggests that the combination of organizational resources leads to
competitive advantage (Chadwick et al., 2015; Sirmon et al., 2011).
Addressing this research gap is important to marketing researchers and practitioners for
68 several reasons:

a strategic orientation is a firm-level strategic resource (Carroll, 1991; Hult, 2011)
culturally determined within the organization (Claudy et al., 2016), which reflects an
organizational culture encouraging sustainability-focused behaviors by its constituents
(Banerjee, 2002). Organizational culture is a complex phenomenon comprising multiple
layers such as values, norms, artifacts and behaviors (Homburg and Pflesser, 2000), an
understanding of the exact nature of the relationship between firm-level sustainability
orientations and SPDP will be helpful to product design practitioners trying to
implement these practices, and to researchers studying the antecedents of these
practices;

further, since customers comprise a firm’s primary stakeholders, the effects of
customer-specific resources and influences (e.g. CRC and CPs) on design initiatives
are critical to the understanding of implementing SPDP in a firm; and

moreover, studying interactions among the focal firm resources (namely,
sustainability orientations and CRC) is important because such examination will
enable the identification of resource deployments that align well with a firm’s
environment better than its rivals (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000).

For example, a certain combination of resources may prove to be ineffective due to possible
interactive effects, leading to suboptimal results. Therefore, our findings will benefit
practitioners because an optimal combination of resource deployments can provide benefits
for firms’ resource investments in terms of economies of scope (Danneels, 2007).
The specific objectives of this research are to:

examine the interactive effects of strategic sustainability orientation (SSO) and CRC
as they relate to SPDP; and

explore further how external pressures exerted by customers influence the
interactive effects stated above.

We investigate these relationships through a survey of 132 manufacturing firms in an

emerging market, Malaysia. Our findings show that the effect of SSO on SPDP is stronger
when CRC is low, than otherwise. Finally, the interactive effects of the firm-level resources
stated above are stronger when CPs are higher than when they are lower.
Our results shed light on the intricacies of how multiple internal and external factors may
influence sustainable practices in firms. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the authors
contribute to the literature by being the first to study the effects of firm-level strategic
resources reflecting organizational culture and relational resources and their interactions as
they relate to SPDP. Our research contributes to the marketing literature by studying the
influences of CPs on relationships involving these resources. In the next sections, we present
our conceptual framework and then our hypotheses. After explaining our methodology and
measures, we present our results, discuss the results and their practical implications and
finally conclude by summarizing the potential for further research.
Conceptual background Resource
Sustainable product design. Environmental choices made at the design-stage help define the orchestration
product’s function, process or service and selection of inputs, supplies and chemicals to be
used (Zailani et al., 2012; Simms and Trott, 2022). For example, firms may use life-cycle
perspective
assessment techniques (Iveson et al., 2022) to minimize a product’s environmental impact, by
acquiring suitable raw materials to manufacture, package and use, without compromising
key product functions, performance, cost, quality and/or technical and legal aspects
(Johansson, 2002). This allows firms assess the energy consumed and waste generated while
69
manufacturing the products, which also helps their determine energy consumption,
serviceability and durability during their lifetime (WBCSD, 2006). Specifically, SPD results
in the design of products whose influence on the manufacturing and distribution systems
minimize the environmental and social impacts, with the least environmental damage
during their use and disposal (Howarth and Hadfield, 2006). Thus, SPDPs refer to firms
incorporating “environmental concerns into its product development” (Lenox and Ehrenfeld,
1997, p. 189), which ultimately results in the development of product offerings that minimize
the impact of the environment (Hwang et al., 2013), benefiting both the customer and the
firm (Fuller and Ottman, 2004). In addition to minimizing environmental impact, SPDP can
also help firms maintain desirable attributes, including the look-and-feel and functionality of
the product (Dangelico et al., 2017; Hwang et al., 2013). Based on past research (Fiksel, 2009;
Lenox and Ehrenfeld, 1997) and the preceding discussion, we define SPDP as a firm’s
implementation of practices aimed at designing and manufacturing products that minimize
environmental impact over a product’s life cycle.
Research suggests that a firm’s SPDP can complement the efforts of the circular economy
(European Commission, 2014), which focuses on reducing global sustainability pressures.
The circular economy approach differs from the linear business model of take-make-use-
dispose (Bakker et al., 2014) or a cradle-to-grave approach (Jain et al., 2018), and follows a
cradle-to-cradle approach (McDonough and Braungart, 2002), with an aim to eliminate waste
from product lifecycles with a focus on natural system design (Burke et al., 2021). Due to its
product orientation and focus on the product’s life cycle, SPDP can help in the alignment of
the circular economy with sustainability goals, although life cycle assessment is used to
quantify sustainability under a cradle-to-grave approach (Thakker and Bakshi, 2021).
Therefore, recent research has emphasized integrating CE principles into SPD (Burke et al.,
2021) and focused on developing methods for designing life cycle circular networks
(Thakker and Bakshi, 2021) and product design strategies required to move to a circular
economy model (Bocken et al., 2016).
Past research suggests that firm SPDP can be affected by institutional pressures such as
government regulation (King and Lenox, 2000), industry self-regulation and self-organized
attempts at collective action (Olson, 1965). Furthermore, the importance of SPDP will be
keenly felt specifically in emerging economies, where developed economies are alleged to
dump their toxic wastes (Brigden et al., 2005). Mimicking developed economies, firms in
emerging economies that promote foreign direct investment would initiate actions such as
product design facilitating elimination or reduction of hazardous materials (Zsidisin and
Siferd, 2001), reuse of a product or its parts without any further treatment (Sarkis, 1998),
disassembly, separation and reprocessing (Lin et al., 2001). While institutional pressures
influence the environmental behaviors of firms (Lee, 2008), coercive, normative and mimetic
forces within institutions (e.g. an industry) can also drive firms to adopt specific strategic
orientations (Clemens and Douglas, 2006). Such strategic behavior of organizations can be
influenced through imposition (Scott, 1987) via regulations by institutions that constrain
and direct firm behavior (Oliver, 1991). Recent research has also shown that firm-level
EJM factors such as the commitment of top management, corporate environmental support
58,1 strategies and incentives for environmental performance drive firms’ SPD (Katsikeas et al.,
2016). The literature suggests that a firm’s orientation, i.e. the managerial recognition of
specific issues facing the firm reflecting the organizational culture, beliefs and propensity
regarding a specific issue are important resources that can be used to create competitive
advantages (Mariadoss et al., 2016). Therefore, it is worth examining firm strategic
70 orientations regarding sustainability in the context of SPDP.
Firm orientations refer to the “managerial perceptions, predispositions, tendencies,
motivations, proclivities and desires” (Mariadoss et al., 2016, p. 3407) that help integrate of
important concerns of the firm into its activities. Past research has conceptualized firm
orientations as ley intangible resources that guide the firm’s strategic practices (Ge and
Ding, 2005). Firm orientations have been discussed from a structural perspective, which
involves a firm’s way of doing business, i.e. relational proclivity (Johnson and Sohi, 2001),
and a strategic perspective, which involves adopting a specific business culture/concept, i.e.
market orientation (Narver and Slater, 1990). In this research, we focus on one specific firm
orientation, namely, SSO (Mariadoss et al., 2016).
SSO. Research drawing from the natural-RBV of the firm suggests that firms with a
sustainability orientation are more likely to achieve competitive advantage (Claudy et al.,
2016). Past research proposes sustainability orientation as a firm-level strategic construct
(Mariadoss et al., 2016) and a firm resource (Claudy et al., 2016) that drives firms to focus on
and commit to sustainability-related activities (Carroll, 1991). A sustainability orientation
enables integration of sustainability concerns into a firm’s strategic orientation
(Linnenluecke et al., 2009), inculcate sustainability issues in its strategic direction (Danso
et al., 2019) and identify and use entrepreneurial opportunities responsibly (DiVito and
Bohnsack, 2017). Based on the preceding discussion and on Roxas and Coetzer (2012, p. 464),
we define strategic SSO as the “overall proactive strategic stance of firms toward the
integration of environmental [and social] concerns and practices into their strategic, tactical,
and operational activities.” In addition to studying SSO, a firm’s internal resource reflecting
its culture, we also examine its combined effect with a relational resource held by firms at
the stakeholder level, namely, CRC, as related to SPDP.
CRC. According to Barney’s (1991) RBV, relationships between a firm and its customers
comprise a firm’s organizational capital, which can be considered a resource (Hall, 1992),
more specifically, “boundary resources” to the firm (Gouthier and Schmid, 2003, p. 126).
Customer relationships are viewed as a firm’s social (Chisholm and Nielsen, 2009), and
intellectual capital (Van Buren, 1999). Irrespective of the labeling, there is agreement that
CRC is a strategic resource that organizations can develop and leverage within the firm and
in the marketplace (Srivastava et al., 2001). In addition to studying CRC, we also focus on
CPs, another stakeholder level variable that could influence the relationships among SSO,
CRC and SPDP.
CPs. CPs, defined as the requests and requirements of end consumers and B2B customers
of a firm toward engaging in sustainability practices (Gualandris and Kalchschmidt, 2014),
have been shown to be a major driver of a firm’s decision to have an environmental plan
(Henriques and Sadorsky, 1996), to engage in environmentally friendly practices (Lee, 2009;
Zhu et al., 2005) and to adopt green practices (Lai et al., 2011; Zailani et al., 2012). Recent
research cites CPs as the most influential stakeholder in the product design stage of circular
product design (Wang et al., 2022).
Theoretical perspectives. According to the RBV, the comparative differences between
businesses and the competitive advantage of firms in the marketplace can be explained by
the heterogeneity of resources across firms (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1995). Resources
include personnel, capital, knowledge and information technology, and could either be Resource
tangible or intangible (e.g. knowledge and intellectual property) (Barney, 1991). A firm’s orchestration
task is to determine how to best exploit its resources (Mahoney and Pandian, 1992) and
convert them into capabilities that can be deployed advantageously. While examining the
perspective
resources and capabilities that enable a firm to generate a sustainable competitive
advantage, the RBV states that all resources and/or their combinations cannot result in
competitive advantage: only valuable, rare and inimitable resources can provide it (Barney,
1991; Ray et al., 2005). Competitive advantage arises through the creation of firm 71
capabilities, bringing resources together and embedding capabilities in routines and
practices so that they cannot be traded or copied (Dierickx and Cool, 1989).
Past research has discussed the RBV from a stakeholder’s perspective to provide the logic
for the effects of organizational resources on SPD (Sarkis et al., 2010). Stakeholders, defined as
“any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s
objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46), include both internal (e.g. employees) and external
stakeholders (e.g. customers). The literature on production (Perron et al., 2006) and operations
management (Sarkis et al., 2010) suggests that firms involved in the implementation of SPDP
may face significant challenges in the form of organizational culture and change management
barriers. We extend this argument by adding that such barriers may be posed not only by
internal stakeholders such as employees (Liu et al., 2012), but cultural and change-related
challenges may also come from external stakeholders such as customers (intermediate, e.g. B2B
customers and end-users and B2C consumers) of the sustainable products marketed by the
firm. Thus, the key objective that firms need to achieve while implementing SPDP is “buy-in”
from internal customers (firm employees) and external customers (B2B and B2C customers).
Effect of SSOs. A firm’s strategic orientation toward sustainability can influence the
acquisition of resources and guide resource allocation toward sustainability-focused
activities of the firm (Fombrun and Ginsberg, 1990). Through a strategic orientation, the
urgency underpinning a firm’s strategic intent is shared across multiple managerial levels,
making it aware of opportunities that can provide advantage (Mariadoss et al., 2014). Thus,
sustainability orientations can drive managerial action (Mariadoss et al., 2014) and attention
(Nadkarni and Barr, 2008), and guide strategy formulation toward sustainability-focused
activities, driving sustainability performance (Johnson and Sohi, 2001).
Past research suggests that a firm’s SSOs can help overcome organizational cultural
barriers while implementing SPDP. According to Deshpande and Webster (1989, p. 4),
organizational culture is “the pattern of shared values and beliefs that help individuals
understand organizational functioning and thus provide them norms for behavior in the
organization.” Furthermore, like a firm’s market, entrepreneurial or learning orientation
(Ozkaya et al., 2015), sustainability orientation has been forwarded as a resource that is
culturally determined within the organization (Claudy et al., 2016), manifesting itself in the
firm’s organizational culture (Banerjee, 2002). Thus, we consider a firm’s sustainability
orientation as a vital cultural resource possessed by the firm, reflecting an underlying
organizational culture that encourages sustainability-focused behaviors by its constituents.
Firms with a sustainability orientation develop capabilities which help them use
resources more competitively and efficiently (Claudy et al., 2016), and develop products
which take into consideration, the future well-being of a society (Kang and James, 2007).
Implementation of SPD strategies and practices require complete buy-in from both internal
and external customers. As firms draw from their resource of sustainability-oriented firm
culture, they can better implement aggressive execution of a sustainability strategy with
their internal customers and provide enhanced signaling of sustainability intentions toward
external customers, ultimately achieving buy-in from both internal and external customers.
EJM Recent research shows evidence of the effect of a firm’s environmental orientation on eco-
58,1 innovation practices (Aboelmaged, 2018). Based on the preceding discussion, we expect that
a firm’s SSO will be positively related to its SPDP.
Effect of CRC. Past research has established that CRC comprises a firm’s relational asset,
which is also a boundary resource to the firm (Hall, 1992; Gouthier and Schmid, 2003). We
draw on the relational view of interorganizational competitive advantage (Dyer and Singh,
72 1998) and strategic management theory that focuses on collaborative advantage (Kanter,
1994) to forward the relationship between a firm’s CRC and the implementation of its SPDP.
Such practices involve designing products with optimal use and disposal, with the least
environmental damage, highlighting the importance of customers’ buy-in (Howarth and
Hadfield, 2006). Therefore, CRC can provide the firm with the needed links with customers
to predict changes in customer preferences (Hunt, 2000), in both B2B and B2C settings. From
a B2B perspective, a relational approach to managing supply chain relationships also views
CRC as a key asset (Day, 2000; Webster, 1992), which firms can draw on to improve
communications and optimize buyer–supplier relationships (Sweeney, 2005). In a B2C
setting, possessing a large store of CRC will enhance the firm’s ability to understand
customers’ evolving needs and values, and respond by creating products that best match
customers’ expectations (Day, 2011; Lamberti and Paladino, 2013).
As firms continuously assess how consumers perceive the performance of various
sustainability issues the firm is engaged in, the quality of its customer relationships will
motivate firms to create and maintain their reputation as being sustainable by being more
innovation-oriented and designing sustainable products (Varadarajan, 2017). Strong customer
relationships result in increased knowledge transfer between buyers and suppliers, supporting
organizational activities that enhance sustainable practices (Laari et al., 2016). Thus, high levels
of CRC can ensure a high level of buy-in for the implementation of a company’s SPDP, resulting
in a positive effect of a firm’s CRC on its SPDP.
ROT. While the RBV serves as the theoretical framework to examine the implications of
resources SSO on SPDP, the ROT, developed as a theoretical extension of RBV, forwards
that the combination of resources leads to competitive advantage for firms (Chadwick et al.,
2015; Sirmon et al., 2011). According to ROT, resources trigger desired firm outcomes when
they are bundled and leveraged in a proper way (Sirmon et al., 2011), integrating, mobilizing
and structuring them effectively to provide greater alignment and coordination for that
particular firm outcome (Miao et al., 2017). We draw from this research (Wales et al., 2013)
suggesting that resource orchestration is key to leveraging existing resources, to argue that
the combination of SSO and CRC results in interconnected assets (Teece et al., 1997), leading
to causal ambiguity, where competitors cannot exactly isolate the source of a firm’s
competitive advantage (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990). An examination of such interactions will
enable the identification of resource deployments that align well with their market
conditions better than their competitors (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000).
A specific resource combination can be rare, specific to the firm and difficult to imitate, as the
reconfiguration and recombination of resources is a path-dependent process (Aragon-Correa and
Sharma, 2003), resulting in routines and practices that are nonreplicable or inimitable (Teece et al.,
1997). Furthermore, research suggests that a unique set of blended resources can secure higher
rents for the firm (Dyer and Singh, 1998), as firms obtain economies of scope benefits for their
investments in their resources from an optimal combination of resource deployments (Danneels,
2007). Thus, ROT allows for the examination of the exact resource deployment configuration
which will help identify the optimal combined resources that are rare, valuable, inimitable and
nonsubstitutable. ROT has been used to understand management of resources across a firm’s
breadth, depth and life cycle (Sirmon et al., 2011). Given that ROT has already been applied in the
fields of intrapreneurship (Asiaei et al., 2020), entrepreneurship (Miao et al., 2017; Wales et al., Resource
2013), product recalls (Ketchen et al., 2014) and e-commerce adoption (Cui and Pan, 2015) to show orchestration
how strategic orientations can mobilize resources to achieve firm outcomes, we apply the theory
to explain how a combination of firm resources, namely, SSO and CRC affects SPDP. Overall, it
perspective
follows that organizational culture-related resources such as strategic sustainable orientation
could be combined with relational resources such as CRC to achieve internal and external
customer buy-in to overcome cultural and change-related barriers faced while implementing
SPDP.
73

Hypotheses development
We draw upon ROT to propose interactions between sustainable strategic orientation and
CRC resources of firms, as related to design of sustainable products and services. Figure 1
shows our conceptual framework.
Interaction between firm resources. While the RBV provides the logic for the effect of
SSO and CRC on SPDP, the ROT (Sirmon et al., 2007) helps us understand how additional
firm resources interact with SSO to enhance such effects. High levels of CRC are
characterized by environments reflecting high communication and shared cultural values,
norms and behaviors between the customer firm and the focal firm, automatically ensuring
the presence of a customer buy-in for the far-reaching behavioral changes that SPDs require
of the customers. Similar to the marketing orientation, strategic sustainable orientation is an
instance of organizational culture comprising values, norms and behaviors (Homburg and
Pflesser, 2000). Thus, high CRC guarantees an adequate level of customer buy-in for SPD by
mimicking the positive cultural environments created by increasing the firm’s sustainability
orientation. Therefore, additional increments of SSO will only result in marginal benefits in
customer buy-in levels, because a certain level of buy-in is already guaranteed by existing
goodwill and communication processes. Eventually, this results in the weaker impact of SSO

Figure 1.
Conceptual
framework
EJM on SPD, reducing the impact of each additional unit of the firm’s sustainability orientation in
58,1 realizing SPDP. In summary, when CRC is high, high levels of collaboration and shared
beliefs between the firm and its customers create a conducive environment for customer
buy-in, so the effectiveness of a firm’s SSO is greatly diminished.
When CRC is low, customer buy-in for SPD is not already in place. Thus, as customer
buy-in is lacking, the sustainability agenda of the firm runs the risk of being downgraded or
74 being viewed as done for self-serving or marketing purposes, losing support for the firm’s
sustainability goals from its internal customers (employees) and external stakeholders
(customers). In such situations, incremental increases in aggressive action and swift
engagement and enhanced signaling toward internal and external customers (brought about
by increased levels of sustainability orientation) will have a stronger effect in achieving buy-
in, and ultimately higher levels of SPDP. In other words, the return for each additional unit
of increase in sustainability orientation is higher when CRC is low, rather than when it is
high. Therefore, the benefits of a SSO in terms of customer buy-in for SPD, and eventually
SPDP will be strongly realized under conditions where CRC is low, rather than when it is
high. Therefore, we formally state:

H1. The positive effect of a firm’s SSO on its SPDP is moderated by the firm’s CRC, such
that the effect of SSO orientation on SPDP is stronger (weaker) when CRC is lower
(higher).
Customer pressures. Past research (Tang and Zhou, 2012) suggests that an increase in
environmental awareness is accompanied by an increase in customers’ demand for organic
food, energy-efficient appliances, organic fabric, recycled goods, nontoxic cleaners and many
such products with improved environmental qualities. Customers are important groups of
stakeholders for firms to improve their environmental performance (Ehrgott et al., 2013).
High CPs indicate customers’ expectations for stronger and specific actions from firm on SPD
solutions. High CPs situations also indicate more specific and nuanced needs, preferences and
demands regarding sustainability solutions (Crittenden et al., 2011), highlighting the importance
of customer buy-ins at high levels of customer pressure. As the role of customer buy-ins becomes
more crucial at higher levels of pressure, high levels of CRC will help achieve the required levels
of customer buy-in, largely reducing the need for sustainability orientations to provide the
necessary buy-ins for the implementation of SPDP. Furthermore, high levels of CRC can alleviate
the friction that can occur at the junction of increased customer demands and aggressive strategy
implementation (due to increased levels of sustainability orientations). Thus, in the high buy-in
environment created by high levels of customer pressure, the attenuating effects of CRC on the
SSO–SPD relationship becomes more pronounced. Similarly, as idealized customer expectations
are created due to increased CPs, the absence of CRC creates a very low buy-in environment,
where there will be even higher bang-for-the buck for incremental levels of sustainability
orientations toward achieving customer buy-ins, and hence, SPDP. However, at lower levels of
CPs, the importance of customer buy-ins are not that high, relatively; hence, the impact of
sustainability orientations on achieving customer buy-ins under low CRC is not so highly
pronounced (but nevertheless present, as in H3). Thus, we state as follows:

H2. A firm’s CPs will be positively related to its SPDP.

H3. CPs influence the moderating effect of CRC on the effect of SSO on SPDP, such that
the reduction in the impact of SSO on SPDP at high levels of CRC is more
pronounced when CPs are high.
Methodology Resource
We tested our hypotheses using data from Malaysian manufacturing firms (ElTayeb et al., orchestration
2010). Our sampling frame comprised ISO 14001 environmental management system
certified firms as past research suggests that such companies are more likely to adopt and
perspective
implement sustainable product practices (Zhu et al., 2007). In Malaysia, environmental
concerns have become vital to the country’s vision to be a developed economy by 2020, as
evident in its various regulations and projects related to clean air, sewage and effluent
assessment (Rao, 2004). The sampling frame was created by collating a list of firms from 75
membership directories from the Standards and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia,
and the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers, which contain a broad range of medium-
sized and large firms in the economy. A questionnaire was designed to collect data on the
focal variables. To ensure the applicability of items in the current context, the questionnaire
was validated by five ISO 14001 lead assessors, six environmental management system
consultants and three academics. The survey was mailed to 551 firms in Malaysia, and 132
usable responses were returned, with response rates of 24%. We chose this context because
sustainable products are increasingly manufactured and consumed across the globe, yet
most of the empirical evidence is based on data from developed countries. Additional sample
information is presented in Table A2 in the supplementary material.

Measures
The data was collected using multi-item scales adopted/adapted from existing research. We
created a multi-item reflective measure (six items, a ¼ 0.89) of SSO by adapting ElTayeb
et al.’s (2010) social responsibility scale. To measure CRC, we created a nine-item reflective
scale (a ¼ 0.945) by adapting items from Sin et al.’s (2005) relationship marketing
orientation scale to a consumer context. We assessed CP using a multi-item reflective scale
(seven items, a ¼ 0.90), adapted from Darnall (2006), Carter and Carter (1998) and Carter and
Ellram (1998). Finally, we measured SPDP by creating a multi-item reflective scale (nine
items, a ¼ 0.941), adapted from ElTayeb and Zailani (2014). The items used in the survey
are presented in Table A1 in the supplementary material. All items used a five-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

Construct validity
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis on the items using a varimax rotation because we
expected correlations among the variables. With no a priori specifications of the number of
factors, based on the number of eigenvalues greater than 1 and the scree plot, the analysis
indicated that four factors were extracted. After dropping items that had low loadings (<0.4) or
high cross-loadings, we retained 31. Individual-item reliability was assessed by examining the
loadings of the measures on their respective constructs. As reported in Table A1, all constructs
exhibited high composite reliability, indicating internal consistency (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Hulland, 1999). Moreover, the average variances extracted by all variables are greater than 0.50
(Smith and Barclay, 1997), and all item loadings are significant all constructs (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988), indicating convergent validity. All descriptive statistics for the constructs are
presented in Table 1. We verified that the squared correlation between any two constructs was
less than their individual average variance extracted, providing evidence of discriminant
validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hulland, 1999). We further used the heterotrait/monotrait
ratio (HTMT) (Henseler et al., 2015) to investigate discriminant validity. As reported in Table 2,
the HTMT criterion provides evidence of discriminant validity between the constructs. Thus,
we show that the psychometric properties of the constructs are sufficiently strong to go ahead
with our analysis.
EJM Common method variance
58,1 Because we gathered survey data from a single respondent in each firm at a single point in
time, we ensured that common method variance (henceforth, CMV) did not bias our findings.
Past studies show that the use of control variables and the inclusion of several theoretically-
driven interaction terms alleviate most CMV concerns; more specifically, interaction effects
cannot be artifacts of common method bias, but can be deflated by CMV (Malhotra et al.,
76 2017; Podsakoff et al., 2003; Siemsen et al., 2010). We further examined the potential CMV
using Harmon’s one-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). An unrotated principal components
analysis on all variables measured in the survey revealed four factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1.0, which together accounted for 65% of the total variance, and the first
(largest) factor did not account for most of the variance (32.4%), suggesting that CMV is not
a threat. Following Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) and Malhotra et al.’s (2017) partial
correlation techniques, we recalculated the correlations among the variables with the
correction correlation (r ¼ 0.12) and checked the significance by calculating the t-values
associated with the corrected correlations. All original correlations remained significant;
thus, CMV is not a concern.

Analysis and results

The following model using ordinary least square estimation was used to test our hypotheses:

SPDP ¼ b0 þ b1 CP þ b2 SSO þ b3 CRC þ b4 ðCP * SSOÞ þ b5 ðCP * CRCÞ

(1)
þ b6 ðSSO * CRCÞ þ b7 ðCP * SSO * CRCÞ þ Xc

where Xc represents the set of dummy variables that control for industry type, age,
size, product type, number of suppliers, supplier origin and country of ownership. All

Mean SD CP SSO CRC SPDP

Customer pressures (CP) 3.75 0.70 0.59

Table 1. Strategic sustainability orientation (SSO) 4.29 0.50 0.12 0.59
Customer relationship capital (CRC) 4.03 0.54 0.17 0.46** 0.65
Descriptive statistics:
Sustainable product design practices (SPDP) 3.47 0.81 0.36** 0.40** 0.39** 0.64
correlations, mean
and standard Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (two tailed); the average variance extracted (AVE) of
deviation the corresponding construct is printed in bold on the diagonal

CP SSO CRC SPDP

CP 0.77 0.21 0.22 0.39

SSO 0.12 0.77 0.5 0.44
CRC 0.17 0.46 0.80 0.42
SPDP 0.36 0.40 0.39 0.80

Table 2. Notes: Sqrt of AVE are on the diagonal, in italics; correlations between constructs are below the diagonal,
bolded; HTMT ratios are above the diagonal, not bolded; HTMT criterion measures the average
Fornell and Larcker correlations of the indicators across constructs; levels of discriminant validity are < 0.90 (Henseler et al.,
criterion and HTMT 2015). If the HTMT value is below 0.90, discriminant validity has been established between two reflective
ratio constructs
independent variables are factor scores (saved from the preceding exploratory factor Resource
analysis) that have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. Given the three-way orchestration
interaction effect between CP, SSO and CRC, we have also included the two un-hypothesized
moderating effects between CP and CRC, and between SSO and CRC for model
perspective
completeness. We used a tiered model estimation approach, which shows that the full model
is superior to the lower-order models. Table 3 and Table A3 (in the supplementary material)
list the parameter estimates for various models for comparison.
Model 1 only contains the main effects and controls, and Model 2 includes two-way 77
interactions between SSO and CRC. Model 3 adds the interaction between CP and SSO,
Model 4 adds the interaction between CR and CRC, and Model 5 includes the full model
shown in equation (1). The F-test for R2 improvement was significant for Model 5. We use
Model 5 to test our hypotheses. The impact of SSO on a firm’s SPD is positive and
significant b ¼ 0.204, p < 0.05) at the mean levels of the other variables. Similarly, the
impact of CRC is found to be positive b ¼ 0.276, p < 0.01) and significant at the mean levels
of the other variables. Since the two-way interaction between SSO and CRC is negative and
significant b ¼ 0.16, p < 0.01), we can conclude that the impact of SSO is stronger when
CRC is low than when it is high, supporting H1. We also find that the impact of CPs is
positive b ¼ 0.322, p < 0.001) and significant, providing support for H2. Next, we find that
the three-way interaction between CPs, SSO and CRC is negative and significant b ¼ 0.077,
p < 0.05), indicating that the two-way attenuating effect of CRC stated in H1 is amplified at
higher levels of customer pressure, supporting H3.
Figures 2 (a, b and c) depict the moderating effect of CRC on the relationship between
SSO and SPDP, and how this moderating effect is amplified as customer pressure increases.
Figure 2 (a) depicts the effect of SSO on SPDP at various levels of CRC, while CPs are at
low levels. The slope of the effect of SSO on SPDP is steeper when CRC is low versus when it
is high, as hypothesized in H1.
Figure 2 (b) depicts the relationship between SSO and SPDP at various levels of CRC,
while CPs are at medium levels. We can see that the reduction in slopes under low CRC
versus high CRC becomes stronger as CPs increase from low in Figure 2 (a) to medium in
Figure 2 (b).
Figure 2(c) depicts the effect of SSO on SPDP at various levels of CRC, while CPs are
high. We can see that the reduction in slopes under low CRC versus high CRC becomes
strongest compared to Figure 2(a) and Figure 2(b). Specifically, Figure 2(c) shows a negative
slope for the relationship between SSO and SPDP at high levels of CRC and high levels of
customer pressure. Since we only hypothesize a reduction in the effect of SSO and have not
hypothesized a negative relationship, we conduct a post hoc analysis to investigate if this
slope is significant

Floodlight analysis
In general, floodlight analysis is recommended for analyses that incorporate continuous
moderating variables that lack natural meaningful values for high and low levels.
Considering a range of 1.5 to þ1.5 and increments of 0.01, for both CRC and CPs, we
created 90,602 unique pairs for which we computed the net effect of SSO on SPDP and its
level of significance. Figure 3 illustrates this by depicting the impact of SSO on the Z-axis,
the value of CPs on the X-axis and the value of CRC on the Y-axis. Yellow and blue
indicates a significant and insignificant effect of SSO, respectively. Consistent with H1,
as we can see from the top-right corner of the figure to the bottom-right corner of the
figure, the impact of SSO orientation decreases as CRC increases. As we move from right
to left (CPs go from low to high), we can see that this reduction in the impact of SSO
 78
58,1
EJM

Table 3.
Resultsa b
c
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Customer pressure (CP) 0.277 (0.081)*** 0.268 (0.081)*** 0.246 (0.084)** 0.266 (0.086)** 0.322 (0.091)***
Strategic sustainability orientation (SSO) 0.275 (0.088)** 0.238 (0.091)** 0.236 (0.091)** 0.22 (0.092)** 0.204 (0.092)*
Customer relationship capital (CRC) 0.233 (0.091)* 0.218 (0.091)** 0.229 (0.092)* 0.254 (0.094)** 0.276 (0.094)**
SSO * CRC 0.074 0.051 0.095 (0.056)* 0.121 (0.060)* 0.16 (0.063)**
CP * SSO 0.071 0.076 0.037 0.081 0.068 0.099
CP * CRC 0.082 0.068 0.041 0.071
CP * SSO * CRC 0.077
(0.043)*
R-square 0.418 0.428 0.433 0.44 0.455‡
Adjusted R-square 0.337 0.343 0.342 0.345 0.357
F (sig.) 5.155*** 5.023*** 4.786*** 4.630*** 4.639***
Largest VIF 2.249 2.27 2.276 2.289 3.993
Condition number 14.498 14.603 14.68 14.963 15.231

Notes: aStandard errors are given in parentheses and are approximated to three decimal places; bOne-tailed significances are noted as follows: ***significance at
0.001 level; **significance at 0.01 level, *significance at 0.05 level; ‡denotes that the F test for difference in R2 between the model under consideration and the
immediate lower order model is significant at the 0.05 level. cAll models included controls for industry type, age of firm, size of the firm, major product type,
number of suppliers, input source and ownership. However, in the interest of brevity, we only include the coefficients of the focal variables. We include the full set
of results, including control variables in the Supplementary Materials (Table A3)
 Impact of Strategic Sustainability Orientation (SSO) on
Sustainable Product Design Practices at low levels of Customer Resource
0.4
Pressures (CP) and varying Customer Relationship Capital (CRC)
orchestration
perspective
Sustainable Product Design Practices
0.2

–0.2

–0.4

–0.6 79
–0.8
CRC_Low
–1
CRC_Medium
–1.2
CRC_High
–1.4
SSO_Low SSO_Medium SSO_High

(a)
Impact of Strategic Sustainability Orientation (SSO) on Sustainable
Product Design Practices at medium levels of Customer Pressures
(CP) and varying Customer Relationship Capital (CRC)
0.8

0.6
Sustainable Product Design Practices

0.4

0.2

–0.2

–0.4
CRC_Low
–0.6
CRC_Medium
–0.8
CRC_High
–1

–1.2
SSO_Low SSO_Medium SSO_High

(b)
Impact of Strategic Sustainability Orientation (SSO) on
Sustainable Product Design Practices at high levels of Customer
Pressures (CP) and varying Customer Relationship Capital (CRC)
1.4
Sustainable Product Design Practices

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
–0.2
CRC_Low
–0.4
CRC_Medium
Figures 2.
–0.6
CRC_High
(a), (b) and (c):
–0.8
–1
graphical
SSO_Low SSO_Medium SSO_High representation of the
(c) three-way interaction
effects
Source: Authors’ own work

becomes steeper, as stipulated in H3. Finally, the yellow (significant) and blue
(insignificant) color scheme shows that the effect decreases and becomes insignificant at
certain values of CRC (as low as 0.17 standard deviations above mean when CPs are very
high, and as high as 0.6 standard deviations above the mean when CPs are very low) but
are never significantly negative.
EJM
58,1

80

Figure 3.
Floodlight analysis –
graphical
representation of the
three-way interaction
effects

Discussion
Although product design had intermittently been the subject of academic examination within
the marketing literature (Bloch, 2011; Dahl, 2011), valid measures, dimensions and scale for the
construct were not established until much later (Homburg et al., 2015; Jindal et al, 2016; Moon
et al, 2015). In line with the research findings on the effect of product design on firm success
(Candi, 2010; Hertenstein et al, 2005), practitioners are acknowledging the significance of product
design (Homburg et al., 2015) by using product design both as a functional (Moon et al., 2013)
and a strategic tool (Verganti, 2008) in the marketing of the product. Academic researchers and
practitioners have suggested that strong design capabilities can improve product value (Ho
et al., 2011); specifically, product design has been shown to result in competitive advantage
(Gemser et al., 2006). While research in engineering (Langdon et al., 2003), design studies (Nusem
et al., 2017), operations and production management (Beltagui, 2018) and strategic management
(Fernandez-Mesa et al., 2013) discusses the importance of product design, recent research on
SPD suggests that firms can improve profitability by designing products in an environmentally
responsible manner (Tang and Zhou, 2012; Iveson et al., 2022).
While past research shows that SPD can be impacted by factors such as corporate
support strategies, top management commitment and incentives for environmental
performance (Katsikeas et al., 2016), relationship resources (Paulraj, 2011) and human
resources (Sarkis et al., 2010), research has not investigated the complex effects of
organizational culture and customer relationship assets as they relate to SPDP. In this
research, we focused on the interactive effects of resources internal to the firm such as SSOs
and CRC on SPDP and explored whether an external driver such as CPs can influence the
above interactive effects.
 Our research finds that developing a firm’s SSO can enable the implementation of SPDP Resource
in a firm. Considering that nowadays consumers are demanding to know a firm’s stand orchestration
on sustainability, displaying a mindset toward sustainability becomes a must for
organizations. Sustainability orientations are an intrinsic part of the cultural fabric of an
perspective
organization, and they are a powerful and transparent strategy to assure customers that the
firm is behaving in a responsible manner. Our results also show that by itself, CRC plays a
role in an organization’s implementation of design practices. Thus, in developing internal
capabilities directed at solving product design issues and achieving competitive advantage, 81
companies must not only incorporate sustainability issues, but also use its relationship
capital in that endeavor. However, our findings suggest that a balance must be achieved. As
any new product design or redesign is associated with high risk, organizations must take
steps to minimize this risk at every step. Therefore, in using multiple resources, a clear
understanding of how one resource could be a benefit or an impediment to the other’s effect
on SPD is important.
Our results are in line with the existing literature that emphasizes how both a culture that
fosters sustainable innovation and input from multiple sources are necessary to overcome
barriers in designing products that are sustainable (Fuller and Ottman, 2004; Kennedy et al.,
2020). First, our results show that possessing a high stock of relationship capital with
customers while also adopting a sustainability orientation makes it harder to reap rewards
from adopting a sustainable orientation. In other words, when a firm deploys its relationship
capital, it may not need to leverage its sustainability orientation in terms of fostering SPD. If
a company has a robust sustainability culture, it may be more effective to rely heavily on
customer relationships to address nonessential SPD issues. On the other hand, taking a more
measured approach to using relationship capital could encourage a higher degree of SPDP.
Our results show that the interaction between SSO and CRC becomes stronger under
higher levels of customer pressure. Customers can react aggressively when demanding
products featuring certain environmental and sustainable features and might even
permanently boycott products if they do not meet sustainability standards. However, CPs
hinder an organization’s ability to effectively reap all the benefits associated with having a
strong sustainability orientation. When CPs are weak, they do not hinder the effects of
sustainability orientation on SPD. We highlight the organizational conundrum in finding the
right balance of engaging with customers’ desires and customers’ demands, while also
developing a strong sustainability culture, and identifying the conditions for a balance.

Theoretical and managerial implications

Our research contributes to the literature in the following ways: first, our findings add to the
larger organizational culture literature, emphasizing the benefits of developing a sustainability
mindset throughout a firm. SSO is culturally determined within the firm (Claudy et al., 2016),
reflecting an underlying culture that encourages sustainability-focused behaviors (Banerjee,
2002). We highlight the importance of a firm’s sustainability orientations; being internal to the
firm, they have lower visibility than those related to external stakeholders. While past research
has studied the effects of sustainability orientation on sustainable supply chain management
(Mariadoss et al., 2016), we do not know whether it will have an effect on SPDP. Therefore, we
contribute to this literature stream by highlighting the role and need for firms to develop
systems and processes that create a pervasive culture of sustainability orientation among its
leaders and all employees, if and when the desired goal is to increase SPDP. In this regard, our
findings complement recent research (Talay et al., 2022) which illuminated sustainable product
development issues stemming from supply chain issues, and the asymmetric relationships
among partners in supply chains.
EJM Second, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to investigate the
58,1 interactions between two different types of firm resources, as they relate to SPDP. While
past research has examined the effect of various firm resources (Katsikeas et al., 2016;
Paulraj, 2011; Sarkis et al., 2010) on SPD, examining the combined effect of SSO (an
organizational cultural resource) and CRC (a relational resource) as they affect SPDP
provides novel insights that have hitherto not been studied.
82 Third, we extend the literature by improving overall understanding of how organizational
cultural resources and relational assets combine to implement SPDP within a firm, in an
emerging market context. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to
examine the effects of resources originating from organizational culture and customer
relationships in an SPD context. Our approach highlights sustainability orientation as a vital
cultural resource in organization, influencing behaviors that focus on SPD. Similarly, we
argued that customer relational capital is an organization’s relational resource that can be
directed to activities that enhance SPDP. Although past research has studied the effects of
sustainability orientation in a sustainability context (Mariadoss et al., 2016), the effects of
sustainability orientation or customer relational capital on SPDP have not yet been established.
Therefore, we add to the literature on SPD by integrating cultural and relational resources in
the SPDP context.
Fourth, we contribute to the literature by investigating the three-way interaction between
the two firm resources and an external driver of sustainability – CPs – as they relate to SPD.
Our findings show that external pressures and demands for creating sustainable solutions
actually amplify the negative influence of customer relational capital on the relationship
between SSO and SPDP. Past research on SPD has not examined such interaction effects.
Thus, our results offer novel insights regarding interdependencies within the modern and
complex sustainability ecosystem, deepening our understanding of implementation of
SPDP.
Managerially, the results of our research provide new insights into how organizations
should respond to CPs while understanding customer relationship assets may be a liability.
The moderating effect of CRC on the main effect of SSO on SPD suggests that managers
should carefully balance increasing levels of sustainability orientation in the presence of
strong relationship capital with their customers. On the other hand, efforts to inculcate a
strong sustainability culture in the firm would yield excellent benefits only when
relationship capital with customers is not that strong. Our results for the influence of CPs on
the interaction between firm resources suggest that under high customer pressure,
managers will find it to be an uphill battle to further increase sustainable design practices
and are better off using their limited resources elsewhere.
Overall, our findings provide a basis for identifying more creative ways in which SPDP
can be implemented, and how firms can efficiently respond to pressing environmental
issues. Since the effect of sustainability orientation and CRC is nuanced, i.e. based on the
levels of external pressures faced by the firm, managers should monitor the levels of
pressures emanating from their customers (may be unique in certain product categories and
industries, and relevant for diversity, equity and inclusivity efforts), while making decisions
about fostering sustainability orientations in their organizations through strategic
initiatives and incentivizing sustainability thinking and behaviors in their teams. Managers
must also monitor the direction of sustainability orientation within the firm and the
expectation arising from CPs converge or diverge toward sustainable product solutions.
Competing directions may create marketplace confusion for new solutions and must be
carefully managed through training and development of its product design teams.
Limitations and future research Resource
Our study has some limitations, which, in turn, provide future research opportunities. First, orchestration
our analysis used single-source data; future research could use secondary data in
conjunction with multi-period data collected from multiple sources. Furthermore, to mitigate
perspective
a skewed focus on the ecological and environmental side, the SPD construct could be
expanded to include the social aspects as well [1]. Second, given the testing of three-way
interactions, our sample size was not necessarily ideal; future research should replicate our
findings using a larger sample size. Although our research uncovered interesting effects
83
among our focal variables, further investigation is warranted. Future research should
address the issue of organizational and international culture in the development of SPD and
use longitudinal data to understand what types of CPs need to be addressed first. Related
questions, such as (i) whether CPs and sustainability orientation are related, (ii) do CRC
originating from different customer types exert differential CPs and (iii) if environmental
variables (e.g. certification regimes, national context) influence firm SPDP are also worthy of
further investigation [2]. Finally, SPD is a practical issue, bridging the gap between the theoretical
knowledge and practical implementation, an area which needs further empirical work (Watz and
Hallstedt, 2022), specifically on issues such as inclusivity of sustainable product development, i.e.
for elderly or categories of consumers traditionally excluded from design efforts.

Notes
1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.
2. We thank the Associate Editor for the suggestions.

References
Aboelmaged, M. (2018), “Direct and indirect effects of eco-innovation, environmental orientation and
supplier collaboration on hotel performance: an empirical study”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 184, pp. 537-549, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.192.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423, doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Aragon-Correa, J.A. and Sharma, S. (2003), “A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate
environmental strategy”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 71-88, doi: 10.5465/
amr.2003.8925233.
Asiaei, K., Barani, O., Bontis, N. and Arabahmadi, M. (2020), “Unpacking the black box: How
intrapreneurship intervenes in the intellectual capital-performance relationship”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 809-834, doi: 10.1108/JIC-06-2019-0147.
Bakker, C., Wang, F., Huisman, J. and Den Hollander, M. (2014), “Products that go round: exploring
product life extension through design”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 69, pp. 10-16, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.028.
Banerjee, S.B. (2002), “Corporate environmentalism: the construct and its measurement”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 177-191, doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00135-1.
Barney, J. (1991), “Special theory forum the resource-based model of the firm: origins, implications, and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 97-98, doi: 10.1177/014920639101700107.
Beltagui, A. (2018), “A design-thinking perspective on capability development: the case of new product
development for a service business model”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1041-1060, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-11-2016-0661.
EJM Bloch, P.H. (1995), “Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 16-29.
58,1
Bloch, P.H. (2011), “Product design and marketing: reflections after fifteen years”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 378-380, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00805.x.
Bocken, N.M., De Pauw, I., Bakker, C. and Van Der Grinten, B. (2016), “Product design and business
model strategies for a circular economy”, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 308-320, doi: 10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124.
84
Brigden, K., Labunska, I., Santillo, D. and Allsopp, M. (2005), “Recycling of electronic wastes in China
and India: workplace and environmental contamination”, Greenpeace Research Laboratories
Technical Note 09/2005, p. 56.
Burke, H., Zhang, A. and Wang, J.X. (2021), “Integrating product design and supply chain management
for a circular economy”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1080/
09537287.2021.1983063.
Candi, M. (2010), “Benefits of aesthetic design as an element of new service development”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1047-1064, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00770.x.
Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of
organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 39-48, doi: 10.1016/0007-6813
(91)90005-G.
Carter, C.R. and Carter, J.R. (1998), “Interorganizational determinants of environmental purchasing:
initial evidence from the consumer products industries”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 659-684, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01358.x.
Carter, C.R. and Ellram, L.M. (1998), “Reverse logistics: a review of the literature and framework for
future investigation”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 1, p. 85.
Chadwick, C., Super, J.F. and Kwon, K. (2015), “Resource orchestration in practice: CEO emphasis on
SHRM, commitment-based HR systems, and firm performance”, Strategic.
Chisholm, A.M. and Nielsen, K. (2009), “Social capital and the resource-based view of the firm”, International
Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 7-32, doi: 10.2753/IMO0020-8825390201.
Claudy, M.C., Peterson, M. and Pagell, M. (2016), “The roles of sustainability orientation and market
knowledge competence in new product development success”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 33 No. S1, pp. 72-85, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12343.
Clemens, B. and Douglas, T.J. (2006), “Does coercion drive firms to adopt ‘voluntary ‘green initiatives?
relationships among coercion, superior firm resources, and voluntary green initiatives”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 483-491, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.09.016.
Crittenden, V.L., Crittenden, W.F., Ferrell, L.K., Ferrell, O.C. and Pinney, C.C. (2011), “Market-oriented
sustainability: a conceptual framework and propositions”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 71-85, doi: 10.1007/s11747-010-0217-2.
Cui, M. and Pan, S.L. (2015), “Developing focal capabilities for e-commerce adoption: a resource orchestration
perspective”, Information and Management, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 200-209, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2014.08.006.
Dahl, D.W. (2011), “Clarity in defining product design: inspiring research opportunities for the design
process”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 425-427, doi: 10.1111/
j.1540-5885.2011.00816.x.
Dangelico, R.M., Pujari, D. and Pontrandolfo, P. (2017), “Green product innovation in manufacturing
firms: a sustainability-oriented dynamic capability perspective”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 490-506, doi: 10.1002/bse.1932.
Danneels, E. (2007), “The process of technological competence leveraging”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 511-533, doi: 10.1002/smj.598.
Danso, A., Adomako, S., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Owusu-Agyei, S. and Konadu, R. (2019),
“Environmental sustainability orientation, competitive strategy and financial performance”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 885-895, doi: 10.1002/bse.2291.
Darnall, N. (2006), “Why firms mandate ISO 14001 certification”, Business and Society, Vol. 45 No. 3, Resource
pp. 354-381, doi: 10.1177/0007650306289387.
orchestration
Day, G.S. (2000), “Managing market relationships”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 24-30, doi: 10.1177/0092070300281003. perspective
Day, G.S. (2011), “Closing the marketing capabilities gap”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4,
pp. 183-195, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.75.4.183.
Delaney, K. and Woodhead, A. (2007), “MORST gateways to science, sustainability and the future”,
Report for New Zealand Ministry of Research, Science and Technology.
85
Deshpande, R. and Webster, F.E. Jr (1989), “Organizational culture and marketing: defining the research
agenda”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 3-15, doi: 10.1177/002224298905300102.
Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989), “Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage”,
Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 1504-1511, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504.
DiVito, L. and Bohnsack, R. (2017), “Entrepreneurial orientation and its effect on sustainability decision
tradeoffs: the case of sustainable fashion firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 569-587, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.05.002.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), “The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 660-679, doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.1255632.
Ehrgott, M., Reimann, F., Kaufmann, L. and Carter, C.R. (2013), “Environmental development of
emerging economy suppliers: antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 131-147, doi: 10.1111/jbl.12015.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-1121, doi: 10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/
11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E.
ElTayeb, T.K. and Zailani, S. (2014), “Going green through green supply chain initiatives toward
environmental sustainability”, Operations and Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 93-110, doi: 10.31387/oscm040019.
ElTayeb, T.K., Zailani, S. and Jayaraman, K. (2010), “The examination on the drivers for green purchasing
adoption among EMS 14001 certified companies in Malaysia”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 206-225, doi: 10.1108/17410381011014378.
European Commission (2014), Moving towards a Circular Economy, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/circular-economy/ (accessed October 2014).
Fernandez-Mesa, A.I., Alegre-Vidal, J., Chiva-Gomez, R. and Gutierrez-Gracia, A. (2013), “Design
management capability and product innovation in SMEs”, Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 3,
pp. 547-565, doi: 10.1108/00251741311309652.
Fiksel, J. (2009), Design for Environment: A Guide to Sustainable Product Development, McGraw-Hill
Professional, New York, NY.
Fombrun, C.J. and Ginsberg, A. (1990), “Shifting gears: enabling change in corporate aggressiveness”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 297-308, doi: 10.1002/smj.4250110405.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50, doi:
10.1177/002224378101800104.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston.
Fuller, D.A. and Ottman, J.A. (2004), “Moderating unintended pollution: the role of sustainable product
design”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 11, pp. 1231-1238, doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(02)
00446-0.
Gagnon, B., Leduc, R. and Savard, L. (2012), “From a conventional to a sustainable engineering design
process: different shades of sustainability”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 49-74, doi: 10.1080/09544828.2010.516246.
EJM Ge, G.L. and Ding, D.Z. (2005), “Market orientation, competitive strategy and firm performance: an
empirical study of Chinese firms”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 3/4, pp. 115-142, doi:
58,1 10.1300/J042v18n03_06.
Gemser, G., Jacobs, D. and Ten Cate, R. (2006), “Design and competitive advantage in technology-driven
sectors: the role of usability and aesthetics in Dutch IT companies”, Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 561-580, doi: 10.1080/09537320601019719.
86 Gouthier, M. and Schmid, S. (2003), “Customers and customer relationships in service firms: the
perspective of the resource-based view”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 119-143, doi:
10.1177/1470593103003001007.
Gualandris, J. and Kalchschmidt, M. (2014), “Customer pressure and innovativeness: their role in
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 92-103, doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2014.03.001.
Hall, R. (1992), “The strategic analysis of intangible resources”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 135-144, doi: 10.1002/smj.4250130205.
Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (1996), “The determinants of an environmentally responsive firm: an
empirical approach”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 381-395, doi: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0026.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Hertenstein, J.H., Platt, M.B. and Veryzer, R.W. (2005), “The impact of industrial design effectiveness on
corporate financial performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 3-21, doi: 10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00100.x.
Ho, Y.C., Fang, H.C. and Lin, J.F. (2011), “Technological and design capabilities: is
ambidexterity possible?”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 208-225, doi: 10.1108/
00251741111109124.
Homburg, C. and Pflesser, C. (2000), “A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture:
measurement issues and performance outcomes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 449-462, doi: 10.1509/jmkr.37.4.449.18786.
Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M. and Kuehnl, C. (2015), “New product design: concept, measurement, and
consequences”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 41-56, doi: 10.1509/jm.14.0199.
Howarth, G. and Hadfield, M. (2006), “A sustainable product design model”, Materials and Design,
Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 1128-1133, doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2005.03.016.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four
recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)
1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7.
Hult, G.T.M. (2011), “Market-focused sustainability: market orientation plus!”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1007/s11747-010-0223-4.
Hunt, S.D. (2000), A General Theory of Competition, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hwang, S.-N., Chen, C., Chen, Y., Lee, H.-S. and Shen, P.-D. (2013), “Sustainable design performance
evaluation with applications in the automobile industry: focusing on inefficiency by undesirable
factors”, Omega, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 553-558, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2012.07.002.
Iveson, A., Hultman, M. and Davvetas, V. (2022), “The product life cycle revisited: an integrative review
and research agenda”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 467-499, doi: 10.1108/
EJM-08-2020-0594.
Jain, S., Jain, N.K. and Metri, B. (2018), “Strategic framework towards measuring a circular supply chain
management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 3238-3252, doi:
10.1108/BIJ-11-2017-0304.
Jindal, R.P., Sarangee, K.R., Echambadi, R. and Lee, S. (2016), “Designed to succeed: dimensions of Resource
product design and their impact on market share”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 72-89,
doi: 10.1509/jm.15.0036.
orchestration
Johansson, G. (2002), “Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development: a review of
perspective
state of the art”, Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 98-107, doi: 10.1108/
09566160210417868.
Johnson, J.L. and Sohi, R.S. (2001), “The influence of firm predispositions on interfirm relationship
formation in business markets”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, 87
pp. 299-318, doi: 10.1016/S0167-8116(01)00042-8.
Kang, G.D. and James, J. (2007), “Revisiting the concept of a societal orientation: conceptualization and
delineation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 301-318, doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9208-0.
Kanter, R.M. (1994), “Collaborative advantage”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 96-108.
Katsikeas, C.S., Leonidou, C.N. and Zeriti, A. (2016), “Eco-friendly product development strategy:
antecedents, outcomes, and contingent effects”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 660-684, doi: 10.1007/s11747-015-0470-5.
Kennedy, A.-M., McGouran, C. and Kemper, J.A. (2020), “Alternative paradigms for sustainability: a
relational worldview”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 825-855, doi: 10.1108/
EJM-01-2018-0043.
Ketchen, D.J., Jr, Wowak, K.D. and Craighead, C.W. (2014), “Resource gaps and resource orchestration
shortfalls in supply chain management: the case of product recalls”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 6-15.
King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2000), “Industry self-regulation without sanctions: the chemical
industry’s responsible care program”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4,
pp. 698-716.
Laari, S., Töyli, J., Solakivi, T. and Ojala, L. (2016), “Firm performance and customer-driven green
supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 1960-1970, doi: 10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.06.150.
Lai, K.H., Lun, V.Y.H., Wong, C.W.Y. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2011), “Green shipping practices in the
shipping industry: conceptualization, adoption, and implications”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 631-638, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.004.
Lamberti, L. and Paladino, A. (2013), “Moving forward with service dominant logic: exploring the
strategic orientations of a service-centred view of the firm”, International Journal of Business
Science and Applied Management (IJBSAM), Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Langdon, P., Keates, S. and Clarkson, P.J. (2003), “Developing cognitive capability scales for
inclusive product design”, in Folkeson, A., Gralen, K., Norell, M. and Sellgren, U. (Eds), DS
31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design,
Stockholm, pp. 111-112.
Lee, K.H. (2009), “Why and how to adopt green management into business organizations?: the case
study of Korean SMEs in manufacturing industry”, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 7,
pp. 1101-1121, doi: 10.1108/00251740910978322.
Lee, S. (2008), “Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain
initiatives”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 185-198, doi:
10.1108/13598540810871235.
Lenox, M. and Ehrenfeld, J. (1997), “Organizing for effective environmental design”, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 187-196, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199709)6:4<187::
AID-BSE113>3.0.CO;2-R.
Lin, B., Jones, C.A. and Hsieh, C. (2001), “Environmental practices and assessment: a process
perspective”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 71-80, doi: 10.1108/
02635570110384348.
EJM 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, doi: 10.1037/0021-
58,1 9010.86.1.114.
Linnenluecke, M.K., Russell, S.V. and Griffiths, A. (2009), “Subcultures and sustainability practices: the
impact on understanding corporate sustainability”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 432-452, doi: 10.1002/bse.609.
88 Linton, J.D., Klassen, R. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), “Sustainable supply chains: an introduction”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1075-1082, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.012.
Liu, X., Yang, J., Qu, S., Wang, L., Shishime, T. and Bao, C. (2012), “Sustainable production: practices
and determinant factors of green supply chain management of Chinese companies”, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1002/bse.705.
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002), Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, North
Point Press, New York, NY.
Mahoney, J.T. and Pandian, J.R. (1992), “The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 363-380, doi: 10.1002/smj.4250130505.
Malhotra, N.K., Schaller, T.K. and Patil, A. (2017), “Common method variance in advertising research:
when to be concerned and how to control for it”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 193-212, doi: 10.1080/00913367.2016.1252287.
Mariadoss, B.J., Chi, T., Tansuhaj, P. and Pomirleanu, N. (2016), “Influences of firm orientations on
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 9,
pp. 3406-3414, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.003.
Mariadoss, B.J., Johnson, J.L. and Martin, K.D. (2014), “Strategic intent and performance: the role of
resource allocation decisions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 11, pp. 2393-2402, doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.006.
Miao, C., Coombs, J.E., Qian, S. and Sirmon, D.G. (2017), “The mediating role of entrepreneurial
orientation: a meta-analysis of resource orchestration and cultural contingencies”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 77, pp. 68-80, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.016.
Moon, H., Miller, D.R. and Kim, S.H. (2013), “Product design innovation and customer value: Cross-
cultural research in the United States and Korea”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 31-43.
Moon, H., Park, J. and Kim, S. (2015), “The importance of an innovative product design on customer
behavior: development and validation of a scale”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 224-232, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12172.
Nadkarni, S. and Barr, P.S. (2008), “Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: an
integrated view”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 13, pp. 1395-1427, doi: 10.1002/smj.717.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35, doi: 10.1177/002224299005400403.
Noble, C.H. and Kumar, M. (2010), “Exploring the appeal of product design: a grounded, value-based
model of key design elements and relationships”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 640-657, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00742.x.
Nusem, E., Wrigley, C. and Matthews, J. (2017), “Developing design capability in nonprofit
organizations”, Design Issues, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 61-75, doi: 10.1162/DESI_a_00426.
Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, The Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 145-179, doi: 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002.
Olson, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ozkaya, H.E., Droge, C., Hult, G.T., M., Calantone, R. and Ozkaya, E. (2015), “Market orientation,
knowledge competence, and innovation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 309-318, doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.10.004.
Paparoidamis, N.G. and Tran, H.T.T. (2019), “Making the world a better place by making better Resource
products: eco-friendly consumer innovativeness and the adoption innovations”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1546-1584, doi: 10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0888.
orchestration
Paulraj, A. (2011), “Understanding the relationships between internal resources and capabilities,
perspective
sustainable supply management and organizational sustainability”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 19-37, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.2010.03212.x.
Perron, G.M., Côte, R.P. and Duffy, J.F. (2006), “Improving environmental awareness training in business”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 6/7, pp. 551-562, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.07.006. 89
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Rao, P. (2004), “Greening production: a South-east Asian experience”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 289-320, doi: 10.1108/01443570410519042.
Ray, G., Muhanna, W.A. and Barney, J.B. (2005), “Information technology and the performance of the
customer service process: a resource-based analysis”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 625-652,
doi: 10.2307/25148703.
Reed, R. and DeFillippi, R.J. (1990), “Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable
competitive advantage”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 88-102, doi:
10.5465/amr.1990.4308277.
Roxas, B. and Coetzer, A. (2012), “Institutional environment, managerial attitudes and environmental
sustainability orientation of small firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 111 No. 4, pp. 461-476,
doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1211-z.
Sarkis, J. (1998), “Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 159-174.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P. and Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010), “Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of
environmental practices: the mediating effect of training”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 163-176, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001.
Scott, W.R. (1987), “The adolescence of institutional theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 493-511, doi: 10.2307/2392880.
Selinšek, A., Rocco, S. and Milfelner, B. (2021), “Design orientation as a source of sustainable company
performance”, International Journal of Sustainable Economy, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 87-106.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A. and Oliveira, P. (2010), “Common method bias in regression models with linear,
quadratic, and interaction effects”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 456-476,
doi: 10.1177/1094428109351241.
Simms, C. and Trott, P. (2022), “Packaging-integrated-products: capturing new opportunities in the
front end of product development”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 2391-2418,
doi: 10.1108/EJM-07-2021-0516.
Sin, L.Y.M., Tse, A.C.B., Yau, O.H.M., Chow, R.P.M., Lee, J.S.Y. and Lau, L.B.Y. (2005), “Relationship
marketing orientation: scale development and cross-cultural validation”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 185-194, doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00493-9.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D. (2007), “Managing firm resources in dynamic environments
to create value: looking inside the black box”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 273-292, doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.23466005.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. and Gilbert, B.A. (2011), “Resource orchestration to create
competitive advantage: breadth, depth, and life cycle effects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37
No. 5, pp. 1390-1412, doi: 10.1177/0149206310385695.
Smith, J.B. and Barclay, D.W. (1997), “The effects of organizational differences and trust on the
effectiveness of selling partner relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 3-21, doi:
10.1177/002224299706100102.
EJM Srivastava, R.K., Fahey, L. and Christensen, H.K. (2001), “The resource-based view and marketing: the
role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27
58,1 No. 6, pp. 777-802, doi: 10.1177/014920630102700610.
Sweeney, E. (2005), “SCM’s vital role in B2B”, Marketing Institute of Ireland Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 7-10.
Talay, C., Oxborrow, L. and Goworek, H. (2022), “The impact of asymmetric supply chain relationships
on sustainable product development in the fashion and textiles industry”, Journal of Business
90 Research, Vol. 152, pp. 326-335, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.034.
Tang, C.S. and Zhou, S. (2012), “Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable
operations”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 223 No. 3, pp. 585-594, doi: 10.1016/j.
ejor.2012.07.030.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)
18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.
Thakker, V. and Bakshi, B.R. (2021), “Toward sustainable circular economies: a computational
framework for assessment and design”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 295, p. 126353, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126353.
Van Buren, M.E. (1999), “A yardstick for knowledge management”, Training and Development, Vol. 53
No. 5, pp. 71-78.
Varadarajan, R. (2017), “Innovating for sustainability: a framework for sustainable innovations and a
model of sustainable innovations orientation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 14-36, doi: 10.1007/s11747-015-0461-6.
Verganti, R. (2008), “Design, meanings, and radical innovation: a metamodel and a research agenda *”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 436-456, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
5885.2008.00313.x.
Vinodh, S. and Rathod, G. (2010), “Integration of ECQFD and LCA for sustainable product design”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 833-842, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.024.
Wales, W.J., Gupta, V.K. and Mousa, F.T. (2013), “Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: an
assessment and suggestions for future research”, International Small Business Journal:
Researching Entrepreneurship, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 357-383, doi: 10.1177/026624261141826.
Wang, J.X., Burke, H. and Zhang, A. (2022), “Overcoming barriers to circular product design”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 243, p. 108346, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108346.
Watz, M. and Hallstedt, S.I. (2022), “Towards sustainable product development–insights from testing and
evaluating a profile model for management of sustainability integration into design requirements”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 346, p. 131000, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131000.
Wbcsd, W. (2006), Facts and Trends: Water. DEVELOPMENT, WBCF S, Geneva.
Webster, F.E. Jr. (1992), “The changing role of marketing in the corporation”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1177/002224299205600402.
Wernerfelt, B. (1995), “The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 171-174, doi: 10.1002/smj.4250160303.
Yunus, E.N. and Michalisin, M.D. (2016), “Sustained competitive advantage through green supply chain
management practices: a natural-resource-based view approach”, International Journal of
Services and Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 135-154.
Zabkar, V., Koklic, M.K., McDonald, S. and Abosag, I. (2018), “Guest editorial: in search of sustainable
and responsible consumption”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Nos 3/4, pp. 470-475, doi:
10.1108/EJM-04-2018-891.
Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G. and Premkumar, R. (2012), “Sustainable supply chain
management (SSCM) in Malaysia: a survey”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 330-340, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.008.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices Resource
and performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 449-468, doi: 10.1108/01443570510593148. orchestration
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2007), “Green supply chain management: pressures, practices and perspective
performance within the Chinese automobile industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15
Nos 11/12, pp. 1041-1052, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.021.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Siferd, S.P. (2001), “Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory
development”, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 61-73, 91
doi: 10.1016/S0969-7012(00)00007-1.

Supplementary materials
The supplementary materials for this article can be found online.

Corresponding author
Babu John-Mariadoss can be contacted at: [email protected]

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