Journal of Cleaner Production 56 (2013) 86e93

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Reprint of Lean management and supply management: their role in

green practices and performanceq
Sara Hajmohammad a, Stephan Vachon a, *, Robert D. Klassen a, Iuri Gavronski b
a
Richard Ivey School of Business, Western University, London, Canada
b
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração, Brazil

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

Article history: Organizations are faced with increasing pressure to engage in sustainable development and to integrate
Received 30 August 2010 environmental and social dimensions into their traditional performance metrics. Prior research suggests
Received in revised form that lean management and supply management are potentially important determinants of environ-
21 June 2012
mental performance and can be seen as capabilities that ease the adoption of environmental practices. To
Accepted 13 July 2012
Available online 27 June 2013
help understand the roles of lean and supply management in regards to improving the firm’s environ-
mental performance, a conceptual model proposes that the magnitude of environmental practices me-
diates the relationship between lean and supply management with environmental performance. To test
Keywords:
Environmental performance
the model, plant-level survey data from a sample of Canadian manufacturing plants is used. The results
Environmental management indicate that supply management and lean activities provide means by which resources are invested in
Supply management environmental practices. The empirical analysis also confirms that the impact of lean management, and
Lean management to a lesser extent supply management, on environmental performance is mediated by environmental
practices.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is environmental practices mediate the impact of lean and supply

As manufacturing corporations develop know-how and capa-
bilities for cleaner production, research must continue in its quest
to better understand potential linkages between operations/supply
chain systems and environmental performance. This paper aims to
examine how two of these systems, namely lean management and
supply management, impact environmental performance. In
particular, a conceptual model is developed suggesting that lean
management and supply management can have an indirect effect
on environmental performance by supporting the development of
environmental practices which in turn impact performance d that
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.028.
q This article is a reprint of a previously published article. Due to an error, this
article has been published in the wrong issue. The article is reprinted here for the
reader’s convenience and for the continuity of the special issue. For citation pur-
poses, please use the original publication details: Hajmohammad, S., et al., Lean
management and supply management: their role in green practices and perfor-
mance, Journal of Cleaner Production, 39 (2012) pp. 312e320.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: shajmohammad.phd@ivey.ca (S. Hajmohammad), svachon@
ivey.ca (S. Vachon), rklassen@ivey.ca (R.D. Klassen), iuri@proxima.adm.br
(I. Gavronski).
management on environmental performance.
Several studies fall under the label of “lean and green” (Florida,
1996; King and Lenox, 2001) or “green supply chain” (Vachon and
Klassen, 2006a; Vachon and Mao, 2008), but only a few have
analyzed both issues simultaneously (Mollenkopf et al., 2010). For
instance, some studies have looked at the synergy existing between
lean management and environmental management practices
(Florida, 1996) while others concentrated more on the link between
lean management and environmental performance (King and
Lenox, 2001; Rothenberg et al., 2001).
Similarly, a segment of the literature has linked supply man-
agement activities with environmental management (Bowen et al.,
2001; Vachon, 2007) while another segment has focused on the
link between supply chain management and environmental per-
formance (Rao, 2002; Vachon and Klassen, 2006b). For instance,
Vachon and Klassen (2007) present empirical evidence indicating
that buyeresupplier integration is related to the type of environ-
mental investment made in the buyer’s plant. Building on evidence
from case studies in the United Kingdom and Japan, Hall (2000)
concludes that a buying organization’s understanding of its sup-
pliers’ operations and capabilities is key in developing a green
supply chain and that such understanding can only be achieved by a
sound supply management.

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.038
 S. Hajmohammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 56 (2013) 86e93
The literature appears to have parallel paths for the research that
have addressed the leanegreen and supplyegreen linkages: one
series of studies focuses on the fit between lean/supply management
and environmental practices and another examines the link with
environmental performance. Building on the fact that environ-
mental practices are generally linked to environmental performance
(Klassen and Whybark, 1999b; Melnyk et al., 2003), the question
becomes, is the link between lean/supply management and envi-
ronmental performance a direct relationship or is it a relationship
mediated by environmental practices. Despite a fair number of
studies on these topics, very few studies (if any) have simultaneously
addressed environmental management practices, operation/supply
chain systems, and environmental performance. Hence, this paper’s
main objective is to empirically assess the effect of lean and supply
management on the extent of environmental practices and envi-
ronmental performance in manufacturing organizations.
This paper contributes to the operations management literature
in three ways. First, a theoretical model is developed linking the
four constructs of interest for this study: lean management, supply
management, environmental practices, and environmental perfor-
mance. Another contribution is to empirically assess the mediating
effect of environmental practices on the relationship between lean
management, supply management and environmental perfor-
mance. Such a mediating effect has not been assessed in the liter-
ature and is important in clarifying the role of lean management
and supply management regarding environmental management or
performance: are lean management and supply management
directly linked to environmental performance? Finally, the paper
has a managerial contribution because its results can guide man-
agers in setting a suitable operating context for adopting and
implementing environmental practices within their organization.
There are five additional sections to this paper. First, the literature
streams on lean management, supply management, and environ-
mental management (practices and performance) are reviewed
leading to the development of the conceptual model and hypothe-
ses. Next, in Section 3, the survey methodology and construct
measurement are detailed. The results are presented in Section 4. In
Section 5, the results are contextualized and the research implica-
tions are discussed. A synthesis of the paper including the limita-
tions of the study makes up the concluding section.
2. Literature review and conceptual model
Drawing from lean management, supply management and
environmental management literatures, the four constructs of in-
terest as well as a series of hypotheses linking these constructs are
presented in this section. According to the research question and
objective of this paper, lean management as well as supply man-
agement can lead to improved environmental performance, but
their influence can be mediated by the level of a firm’s environ-
mental practices.
2.1. Environmental practices and environmental performance
An overview of the different environmental technologies
potentially adopted by manufacturing organizations can help to
better appreciate the notion of environmental practices. Environ-
mental technologies, widely defined to include managerial tech-
niques and procedures which control or eliminate the negative
impacts of products or services on the natural environment
(Shrivastava, 1995), have been classified in the literature into three
mutually exclusive categories of pollution prevention, pollution
control, and management systems (Klassen and Whybark, 1999a).
The profile of environmental investments can take the form of any
combinations of these three technologies; it is important to note
87
that the total investment (the level of resources invested) is inde-
pendent of its form (Klassen and Vachon, 2003; Klassen and
Whybark, 1999b; Vachon and Klassen, 2007). While all three cat-
egories aim at improving environmental performance, technologies
that address pollution at the source are generally recognized
generating other benefits such as cost reduction and the develop-
ment of valuable resources (Hart, 1995). This type of technology is
of interest for this paper and would generally be associated with
pollution prevention (structural investments to reduce pollution at
the source) and management systems (infrastructural investments)
(Klassen and Whybark, 1999a,b; Vachon and Klassen, 2007).
Therefore, we define environmental practices as the level of re-
sources invested in activities and know-how development that lead
to pollution reduction at the source. It includes efforts to imple-
ment environmental management systems (e.g., ISO 14001), reduce
waste, or recycle materials.
Environmental practices and organizational performance
(including environmental performance) have been theoretically
linked through the natural resource-based view (NRBV) of the firm
(Hart, 1995). The NRBV proposes that organizations, through proper
environmental management, can develop capabilities that are valu-
able, rare and difficult to replicate by competitors (Russo and Fouts,
1997). Therefore, according to the NRBV, a firm can gain competi-
tive advantage by pursuing environmental strategies such as pollu-
tion prevention or minimizing emissions, effluents and waste (Hart,
1995; Russo and Fouts, 1997). Within the NRBV framework, several
studies have provided empirical evidence to support the linkage
between investment in and adoption of environmental practices
within a firm or across its supply chain and its environmental per-
formance. For instance, manufacturing structural investments aim-
ing to reduce pollution at the source (Klassen and Whybark, 1999b),
facility-level resource conservation practices (Pullman et al., 2009)
and environmental proactivity (Russo and Fouts, 1997) were all
positively linked to environmental performance.
H1: The extent of environmental practices is positively associated
with environmental performance.
2.2. Lean management and the environment
The term lean production is associated with the Toyota Production
System where it is integrated with just-in-time tactics in order to
improve quality and delivery time. Many researchers argue that lean
management encompasses a set of inter-related, complementary
and mutually reinforcing operating practices d often referred to as
bundles d that aim at reducing or eliminating non-value-added
activities throughout a product’s entire value stream, within an or-
ganization and along its supply chain network (Narasimhan et al.,
2006; Shah and Ward, 2003, 2007; Vonderembse et al., 2006).
They also suggest that the implementation of these practices is
associated with higher operational performance, such as a reduction
in customer lead time, manufacturing cycle time or manufacturing
costs, and an improvement in labor productivity and quality (De
Treville and Antonakis, 2006; Hopp and Spearman, 2004; Sherrer-
Rathje et al., 2009; White et al., 1999).
Given that manufacturing operations through product design
and process technologies can critically influence environmental
performance (Hart, 1995), the relentless pursuit of waste minimi-
zation embedded in lean management practices (Womack and
Jones, 2003), opens doors for continued efforts in reducing the risk
for the environment (Florida, 1996). In fact, waste is the common
denominator for lean and green management (Porter and van der
Linde, 1995). The continuous effort through lean management to
reduce operational waste either from discarded materials,
88 S. Hajmohammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 56 (2013) 86e93
consumption of energy, or water usage translates into lower envi-
ronmental harm, thus enhancing environmental performance (King
and Lenox, 2001).
A recent review of just-in-time manufacturing studies indicates
a robust link (through meta-analysis) between set-up time reduc-
tion and manufacturing performance (i.e., cost and quality)
(Mackelprang and Nair, 2010): that is better use of resources per
unit produced and fewer defects leading to a reduction of waste
hence better environmental performance. King and Lenox (2001)
found that lower level of inventory was positively linked with
lower waste generation and lower emissions. Interestingly,
empirical evidences in the automotive industry do not indicate
such a correlation: Rothenberg et al. (2001) found that inventory
levels were not statistically linked to VOC emissions level. They
suggest that in some instances environmental performance and
lean management can be traded-off.
Despite these mixed results, the lean and green paradigm has
grown both in organizations and academia (Chapman and Green,
2010; Mollenkopf et al., 2010; Taubitz, 2010). Ultimately, some
scholars argue that going lean leads inadvertently to environmental
efficiency due to its core principle of “zero waste” (Florida, 1996;
Rothenberg et al., 2001).
H2a: The level of lean management activities is positively associ-
ated with environmental performance.
The lean and green literature has also suggested that lean and
green shared similar capabilities. In fact, lean management can
reduce the marginal costs of a firm’s environmental practices, either
by lowering their implementation costs or by providing new insights
into their actual value, which will in turn result in improved envi-
ronmental practices (King and Lenox, 2001; Simpson and Power,
2005). Building on the above discussion, a context marked by an
extensive application of lean management helps organizations to
develop capabilities in rethinking their processes with reduction of
transportation/movement, material used, and defects in mind. These
capabilities are transferable to environmental management. For
example, these capabilities can ease process and product redesign
which aims to reduce the likelihood of adverse environmental im-
pacts by the production processes (Klassen, 2000). As such, the ca-
pabilities developed through lean management can assist in initiating
green activities within the operations. In other words, lean manage-
ment is contributing to the adoption of environmental practices.
H2b: The level of lean management activities is positively associ-
ated with the extent of environmental practices.
Given hypotheses H2a and H2b, the question becomes to what
extent lean management contributes to environmental perfor-
mance directly. In fact, the link between lean management and
environmental performance can be the result of the increase in
environmental practices that is sparked by lean management.
H2c: The impact of the level of lean management activities on
environmental performance is mediated by the extent of environ-
mental practices.
2.3. Supply management and the environment
Inter-organizational activities between a buying organization
and its supplier are generally termed supply management. In fact,
from a tactical function in an organization, supply management has
attracted a lot of operations management researchers’ attention as it
has become more strategic over the last two decades (Krause et al.,
2007, 2009). The integration of environmental issues into supply
management has been the topic of numerous studies (Vachon and
Klassen, 2006a; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). For example, previous
studies have shown that development and deployment of supply
management capabilities d such as internal integration of the
manufacturing firm’s functions, collaborative approach with sup-
pliers, or detailed purchasing policies and procedures d facilitate
the implementation of green activities within the supply chain
(Bowen et al., 2001). Also, Klassen and Vachon (2003) found that two
types of supply chain activities, namely collaboration and evalua-
tion, are associated with the level and form of a plant’s investment in
environmental technologies. The joint collaborative activities be-
tween a plant and its suppliers drive great investment in environ-
mental technologies through knowledge sharing and introducing a
greater variety of options addressing particular environmental
challenges (Bonifant et al., 1995; Purdy and Safayeni, 2000).
We define supply management here as a series of interactions
with suppliers that pertain to supplier development (Krause et al.,
2000) and communication (Prahinski and Benton, 2004) such as
supplier evaluation, supplier award and recognition. It is important
to note that these interactions are not necessarily directed to
environmental issues. For instance, a certification process related to
a quality specification would be considered as part of supply
management. Thus, supply management helps buying organiza-
tions to achieve essentially two goals: (i) communicate their pri-
orities to suppliers and (ii) gain a better understanding of the
suppliers’ operations and capabilities.
From an environmental perspective, one outcome from supply
management is the adoption of environmental practices and tech-
nologies by the buying organizations. An organization can benefit
from more intense interaction with suppliers by identifying and
bringing in external know-how that is housed at the supplier plant
(Vachon and Klassen, 2006b). For example, such external know-
how can extend the capacity of a buying firm to effectively imple-
ment radical innovation beneficial for the environment (Florida,
1996; Geffen and Rothenberg, 2000). Also, an organization can
gain a better understanding of their suppliers’ existing capabilities
leading to potential avenues for synergy d without the synergy, the
environmental practices may have not been adopted.
The buying organization can also improve environmental per-
formance from supply management. By guiding suppliers to
improve manufacturing capabilities (for greater efficiency or qual-
ity), the buying organization reduces their own waste significantly.
Walmart’s packaging scorecard is a supplier evaluation tool gauging
suppliers’ efforts in reducing packaging. By reducing packaging, the
suppliers’ eco-efficiency increases and Walmart’s ecological foot-
print is reduced (e.g., energy efficiency in transportation) (Plambeck,
2007; Stundza, 2006). Similar to lean management, the linkage be-
tween supply management and environmental performance can be
partially or fully mediated by environmental management e hence
the following hypotheses:
H3a: The level of supply management activities is positively asso-
ciated with environmental performance.
H3b: The level of supply management activities is positively asso-
ciated with the extent of environmental practices.
H3c: The impact of the level of supply management activities on
environmental performance is mediated by the extent of environ-
mental practices.
2.4. Lean and supply management
The conceptual model presented in Fig. 1, includes a link from
lean management to supply management. While issues of supplier
 S. Hajmohammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 56 (2013) 86e93
+ survey research that relies on self-reported data d especially if the
Lean Management
+
+ inflate observed relationships between variables. To minimize
Environmental Environmental
+ Practices Performance
+ after the independent variables in the survey; which helps to
Supply Management
+
Direct effect
Indirect effect (mediation)
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
development and feedback are usually incorporated in a larger
view of lean management (Shah and Ward, 2007), it is generally
recognized that a dichotomy exists between internal and external
practices in manufacturing organizations (Bozarth et al., 2009;
Schroeder et al., 2002; Shah and Ward, 2007). A model having
lean management (essentially an internal set of practices) and
supply management as separate constructs is theoretically
(Simpson and Power, 2005) and empirically (Gavronski et al., 2012)
supported in the literature.
A recent study suggests a link from JIT production to JIT pur-
chasing (Inman et al., 2011). Also, boundary spanning activities
such as strategic supply management were found to be driven by
internal quality management implementation (Yeung, 2008).
Therefore, evidence from the literature suggests a link from the
internal operating practices (e.g., lean management) toward
external practices such as supply management.
H4: The level of lean management activities is positively associated
with the level of supply management activities.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection
Data from a sample of Canadian manufacturing plants was
collected through a mail survey conducted between September and
December 2007, following a procedure inspired by Dillman (2000).
The plant was chosen as the level analysis because it is generally
where many environmental issues are evaluated and operational
decisions are implemented. Using the National Pollutant Release
Inventory (NPRI) and the Canadian Scott’s Directory, a sample
frame of 503 randomly selected plants with more than 100 em-
ployees in the North American Industrial Classification
Systems (NAICS) codes 332e335.1 A total of 94 usable responses
were collected from that effort, leading to a response rate of
18.7%. Out of 94 plants, 22 have reported that they had more
than 250 employees. Unfortunately due to missing data in some
questionnaires, the sample was reduced to 85 for this study.
To minimize key-informant bias, each plant was contacted by
phone prior to sending the survey in order to identify the individual
most knowledgeable about the production, environmental and
supply practices and performance (Kumar et al.,1993). Furthermore,
although responses from multiple informants may have been
preferred, the informants chosen for this study were positioned to
make the assessment asked of them. In addition, the study was
tested for common method bias, which could pose problems for
1
These four industries are fabricated metal products (NAICS 332), machinery
manufacturing (NAICS 333), electronics (NAICS 334), and electric appliances (NAICS
335).
89
same person provides the data at the same time. One important
concern in such cases is that common method bias may artificially
common method variance, the dependent variables were placed
diminish, if not avoid, the effects of consistency artifacts (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). A Harman’s single factor test was also conducted
(Harman, 1967; Shah and Ward, 2007). If common method variance
existed, a single factor would emerge from a factor analysis of all
questionnaire measurement items, or one general factor that
accounted for most of the variance would result. The exploratory
factor analysis revealed four factors with eigenvalues greater than
1.0 that accounted for 66.8% of the total variance. The first factor only
accounted for 36.73% of the variance. These results suggested that
common method variance was not a serious problem in our study.
3.2. Survey questionnaire and measures
The survey instrument used for this research was part of the
Canadian segment of the Global Manufacturing Research Group
(international survey, fourth round). The survey included multiple
scale items for each of the constructs. Appendix 1 provides the
relevant survey questions for each construct of interest.
Lean management d as noted earlier, lean management com-
prises a set of operating practices that aims at reducing non-
value-added activities within the organization. Thus, our four-
item scale measures the extent to which firms deploy resources
(money, time and/or people) to (i) just-in-time manufacturing,
(ii) lead time reduction, (iii) set-up time reduction, and (iv) total
quality management.
Supply management d a five-item scale captures the degree of
activities that aim to improve supplier performance and to
develop their capabilities, such as suppliers’ evaluation, certifi-
cation, recognition and development programs as well as
auditing of suppliers’ facilities.
Environmental practices and performance d the extent of envi-
ronmental practices is assessed by using a four-item, seven-
point scale which captures the extent to which resources have
been invested in four programs related to environmental man-
agement over the previous 2 years: ISO 14001 certification,
pollution prevention, recycling of materials and waste reduc-
tion. Environmental performance is measured by a five-item,
seven-point scale, in terms of improvements in the amount of
air emissions, waste water generation, solid waste disposal,
consumption of hazardous/harmful/toxic materials, and energy
consumption.
Control variables d to avoid any unjustifiable influence of
alternative factors, other than those included in our model, on
the plant’s environmental performance, two control variables
are included while analyzing the model. First, there is a control
for plant size because the environmental performance gains or
failures observed may be explained by this factor, as opposed to
the mechanisms modeled. On one hand, larger firms may have
greater adverse environmental impacts and consequently be
under more external pressure to improve their environmental
performance; on the other hand, they might have larger resource
pools to invest in environmental technologies and consequently
higher levels of environmental improvement. In the study, plant
size is measured as the natural logarithm of the number of
employees (Grant et al., 2002; Vachon and Klassen, 2006a).
The second possible confounding effect relates to the impor-
tance senior management places on the environmental issues.
This top management importance conferred to environmental
90 S. Hajmohammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 56 (2013) 86e93

issues is an indicator of the willingness of the organization to Table 1

invest in environmental management and improve its envi- Construct measures assessment: reliability and convergent validity.

ronmental performance (Klassen, 2001). Top management Standardized Composite AVE

importance is measured as the relative importance of environ- loading reliability (%)
mental performance against five other performance goals (i.e., Supply management .92 69.4
manufacturing cost, quality, delivery speed and timeliness, Supplier development .837
manufacturing flexibility, new product design/innovation). programs
Suppliers evaluation .842
Suppliers’ facilities .826
4. Data analysis and results auditing activities
Suppliers recognition .826
The model examines whether the adoption of lean and supply Suppliers certification .834
management practices within an organization directly improves its process

environmental performance, or if the relationship is mediated by Lean management .88 70.6

the adoption of environmental practices. Because the sample size of Just-In-Time (JIT) .732
Manufacturing throughput .921
85 does not allow using structural equation modeling based on the
time reduction
covariance matrix, a path analysis using Partial Least Squares (PLS) Setup time reduction .857
and more specifically SmartPLS 2.0 (beta) (Ringle et al., 2005) was Total Quality Management
adopted to test the hypothesized relationships between the con- (TQM) (dropped)
structs. The general rule of thumb regarding an appropriate sample Environmental practices .86 66.6
size when using PLS is to multiply by ten the highest between (i) ISO 14001 certification .771
the greater number of formative indicators for a block (a construct Pollution prevention .872
Recycling of materials .802
in our model) and (ii) the greater number of paths leading to a
Waste reduction (dropped)
dependent variable (Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009; Chin and
Newsted, 1999). In this study, the highest number of paths lead- Environmental performance .88 65.6
Air emissions .832
ing to a dependent variable is five (i.e., environmental perfor-
Waste water generation .840
mance) meaning that a minimum sample size of 50 cases would be Solid wastes disposal .757
necessary. Consumption of hazardous/ .808
harmful/toxic materials
Energy consumption (dropped)
4.1. Assessment of construct measures

The PLS method tests the theoretical hypotheses and the

properties of the underlying measurement model at the same time.
Before testing the different hypotheses from the model, an
assessment of the constructs’ psychometric properties including
convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability was per-
formed. In the process, three items were dropped (one for lean
management, one for environmental practices, and one for envi-
ronmental performance) because of cross or low loadings. As
shown in Table 1, the remaining items indicate adequate conver-
gent validity as per their strong standardized loadings (individual
item reliabilities) which are all above .70 (Anderson and Gerbing,
1988; Fornell and Larker, 1981; Johnston et al., 2004). Another in-
dicator of convergent validity is that the average variance extracted
(AVE) is above 50% for each of the constructs, indicating that the
items share at least half of their variance with the construct (on
average).
Discriminant validity can be assessed by comparing the AVE of
each construct and the shared variance between each pairs of
constructs (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Morgan et al., 2007). In
PLS, if the square root of the average variance extracted is greater
than all of the inter-construct correlations, it is evidence of suffi-
cient discriminant validity. Looking at Tables 1 and 2, we note that
each construct has an AVE that is superior to all of the inter-
construct correlations.
In PLS, alternative ways of judging multiple-item consistency
other than the Cronbach’s alpha, are used. Composite reliability
(comparable to Cronbach’s a) assesses the inter-item consistency,
which should have a minimum value of .7. All of the scales
demonstrate acceptable performance on this basis (see Table 1).
to test their statistical significance. This procedure entails gener-
ating 500 sub-samples of cases randomly selected, with replace-
ment, from the original data. Path coefficients are then generated
for each randomly selected subsample. T-statistics are calculated
for all coefficients, based on their stability across the subsamples,
indicating which links were statistically significant. Table 3 shows
the path coefficients and the explained construct variances. The
variance explained for each of the endogenous variables is
adequate with 28% for environmental performance and 50% for the
environmental practices.
The results indicate a positive and significant path between
environmental practices and environmental performance which
supports H1 (b ¼ .292; p < .05). It is noteworthy that when esti-
mating the model, the direct paths from lean management and
supply management to environmental performance were not sig-
nificant, providing no evidence to support hypotheses H2a and H3a
of a direct impact on environmental performance.
Lean management was significantly linked to environmental
practices (b ¼ .449; p < .01) providing support to hypothesis H2b. In
order to test the possible mediating effect, in the study, the pro-
cedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) was adopted. First, an
assessment of the path between lean management and the medi-
ating variable (environmental practices) is needed: that path is
Table 2
Correlations.
Mean SD SM LM EPr EPe PS

Supply management 3.34 1.35 e

4.2. Estimation of the structural model Lean management 4.28 1.42 .31 e
Environmental practices 3.77 1.45 .42 .58 e
The PLS structural model was assessed by examining the path Env. Performance 4.77 .79 .30 .42 .49 e
coefficients (similar to the standardized beta weights in regression Plant size 214 208 .07 .17 .24 .09 e
Imp. of Env. issues 13.6 9.5 .06 .11 .36 .23 .13
analysis) and their statistical significance. Bootstrapping was used
 S. Hajmohammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 56 (2013) 86e93
Table 3
PLS structural model results.
Environmental practices / Environmental performance
Lean management / Environmental performance
Supply management / Environmental performance
Plant size / Environmental performance
Importance of environmental issues / Environmental performance
Lean management / Environmental practices
Supply management / Environmental practices
Plant size / Environmental practices
Importance of environmental issues / Environmental practices
Lean management / Supply management
Variance explained in the endogenous variables
Environmental performance
Environmental practices
Supply management
*p-value < .05; **p-value < .01.
positive and significant (p < .01). The second step is to assess the
direct path from lean management to environmental performance
when there is no path between lean management and environ-
mental practices (the suspected mediator) in the model: the path is
also positive and significant (p < .01). The result in Table 3 indicates
that the path between lean management and environmental per-
formance in the full model (with all the paths) is not significant:
when combined with the result of the first two steps, it can be
concluded that environmental practices are mediating the impact
of lean management on environmental performance. A Sobel test
was conducted to confirm this mediating effect (Holcomb et al.,
2009; Sobel, 1982). The Sobel test was significant (p < .05)
corroborating the mediating effect and providing support for H2c.
A similar procedure was applied to supply management. When
the direct path between supply management and environmental
performance was assessed without any path to environmental
practices, it was positive but marginally significant (p < .10). The
fact that the direct path becomes non-significant with the intro-
duction of environmental practices in the model indicates a
mediating effect. The Sobel test was marginally significant (p < .10)
supporting the hypothesis H3c albeit in a weak way.
It is also noteworthy that hypothesis H4 is supported as the
path from lean management to supply management was positive
and significant. Hence, finding support for the idea that supply
management activities can be a part of lean systems (Shah and
Ward, 2007). The importance of environmental issues for top
management was significantly linked to environmental practices
but not environmental performance. It suggests that the top
management support is associated with increased effort to
improve the environmental position of the plant but that such
support might not be effective as no direct impact on performance
is detected.
5. Discussion
Looking at the findings of this research, it becomes clear that
environmental practices are the main driver in reaching better
environmental performance as the direct links from lean manage-
ment and supply management were found to be non-significant.
Thus, consistent with the findings of Klassen and Whybark
(1999a) and Pullman et al. (2009), it can be concluded that any in-
vestment in environmental practices including management sys-
tems (software or infrastructural elements) or pollution prevention
(hardware or structural elements), is linked with the reduction in
hazardous pollutants and energy consumption.
91
Standardized coefficient t-Value
.292 2.07*
.212 1.49
.104 .99
.040 .52
.098 .88
.449 5.25**
.255 2.74**
.111 1.71
.286 3.70**
.311 2.98**
R2 ¼ .28
R2 ¼ .50
R2 ¼ .10
While empirical results in the literature either directly validate
the link between lean management and environmental perfor-
mance or between lean management and environmental practices,
an analysis comprising both linkages simultaneously allows a bet-
ter delineation of the expression “lean and green”. The literature is
rather straightforward about the similarities between lean man-
agement and environmental practices in terms of operational ca-
pabilities (Rothenberg et al., 2001; Simpson and Power, 2005) and
on the similarities in the performance outcome from both lean and
environmental management (Florida, 1996; King and Lenox, 2001):
however, no study, to our knowledge, has evaluated lean man-
agement, environmental management, and environmental perfor-
mance together.
The results indicate that the link between lean management, as
it concentrates on minimizing or eliminating various kinds of waste
within plants, and environmental performance is fully mediated by
environmental practices (i.e., activities related to environmental
management). Such a result suggests that the skills and know-how
gained when applying lean management principles are conducive
to the adoption of environmental practices and make those prac-
tices more effective as suggested by Simpson and Power (2005) and
Rothenberg et al. (2001). Such a result is important for interpreting
the true meaning of “lean and green”. For instance, the well-cited
work of King and Lenox (2001) has linked lower levels of in-
ventory (an indicator of lean management) to better environmental
performance e the results of this study suggest a skipped link in
their conclusion. Skills and know-how developed and applied in
inventory reduction had likely eased the adoption and imple-
mentation of environmental initiatives that then improved the
environmental performance.
Supply management, taking the form of control and monitoring
activities and formalization of the interactions with suppliers, was
positively linked to the extent of environmental practices. This
result is in contrast with other research in the literature where
supply chain integration (Vachon and Klassen, 2007) and supplier
evaluation (Klassen and Vachon, 2003) did not have an impact on
the extent of environmental investments. However, the link from
supply management to environmental practices supports Hall’s
(2000) claim that the starting point for environmental supply
chain is information exchange with suppliers and a good under-
standing of their operations. Therefore, one conclusion is that
supply management can ease the adoption of green technologies or
implementation of new green procedures as supplier’s know-how
becomes accessible to the buying organization (Klassen and
Vachon, 2003).
92 S. Hajmohammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 56 (2013) 86e93

The relationship between the supply management processes and (suppliers and customers) might offer new insights. Fourth, the
environmental performance was weaker than unexpected, as only study used a perceptual scale for environmental performance
marginal significance was found. This result differs from the one which should be validated by quantitative “hard” data like the in-
found for lean management which can be somewhat puzzling. The formation found in the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI).
fundamental distinctions between supply and lean management are Finally, in this study there was a focus on the environmental
twofold and can explain the difference in the result. First, there is a dimension of sustainability, whereas future studies could be
sharp contrast with know-how and capabilities emerging from lean extended to examine the effect of lean and supply management
management d those capabilities are essentially internal to the activities on the social performance of the firm and specifically on
plant. Second, the outcome from lean management is usually close their safety performance.
to the overall objective set by environmental management (e.g.,
reduce waste) (Chapman and Green, 2010). In other words, supply
management processes are not as close to environmental goals Appendix 1
making it insufficient to substantially affect the green performance. Survey items used in the multi-item scales.
For managers, the implications of the results are important.
Although environmental practices taking the form of manage- Supply management
In the last two years, to what extent has your plant invested resources (money,
ment systems (ISO 14001), pollution prevention, and recycling of
time and/or people) in programs in the following areas? (1 ¼ not at all,
material were positively linked with both lean and supply activ- 7 ¼ great extent)
ities; the implementation of lean management and supply man- SM1 Supplier development programs
agement does not directly impact environmental performance. SM2 Suppliers evaluation
Improved environmental performance necessitates the allocation SM3 Suppliers’ facilities auditing activities
of resources (investments, operating expenses) directly into SM4 Suppliers recognition
environmental management which can be implemented more SM5 Suppliers certification process
effectively with lean capabilities in place and interaction with the
Lean management
suppliers.
In the last two years, to what extent has your plant invested resources
(money, time and/or people) in programs in the following areas?
6. Conclusions, limitations and future research (1 ¼ not at all, 7 ¼ great extent)
LM1 Just-In-Time (JIT)
Research in three literature streams (i.e., lean management, LM2 Manufacturing throughput time reduction
supply management and environmental management) provided LM3 Setup time reduction
the theoretical foundation for a model linking lean and supply ac- LM4 Total Quality Management (TQM)
tivities to environmental performance. Earlier literature on envi- Environmental practices
ronmental management within lean and supply chain contexts In the last two years, to what extent has your plant invested resources (money,
indicated that environmental investment plays an important role. time and/or people) in programs in the following areas?
However, no comprehensive model has integrally examined both (1 ¼ not at all, 7 ¼ great extent)
the antecedents and the outcomes of environmental practices EI1 ISO 14001 certification
simultaneously. The hypothesized model suggests that supply EI2 Pollution prevention
management as well as lean activities provide means by which EI3 Recycling of materials
environmental actions can be encouraged leading then to improved EI4 Waste reduction
environmental performance. Thus, the primary focus was to Environmental performance
explore, first, the relationship between environmental perfor- In the last two years, to what extent has your plant’s environmental
mance and lean management, and, next, environmental perfor- performance changed in the following areas? (1 ¼ much worse,
7 ¼ much better)
mance and supply management. Furthermore, based on a sample of
EP1 Air emissions
Canadian manufacturing plants, this study provides the first
EP2 Waste water generation
empirical evidence, to the authors’ knowledge, that the extent of
EP3 Solid wastes disposal
environmental practices mediates the relationship between lean
EP4 Consumption of hazardous/harmful/toxic materials
management and environmental performance.
EP5 Energy consumption
On the practical level, the results indicate that a suitable route to
facilitate the implementation and adoption of environmental Plant size
Approximately, how many employees (full-time equivalent) work for
practices and to improve the plant’s environmental performance is
the plant?
by setting an adequate operating context based on lean and supply
management principles. Relative importance of environmental issues
Manufacturing plants have many different requirements placed on them.
Nevertheless, several limitations of this study are important to
For each of the following competitive goals, please indicate the
note. First, financial performance was not controlled for, which importance senior management places on each for your plant. Allocate
might influence the degree of organizational slack available for 100 points across the six performance goals below to indicate their
environmental investment (Klassen and Vachon, 2003). Second, relative importance.
while the sample size was reasonable compared to earlier research (i) Manufacturing cost, (ii) quality, (iii) delivery speed and timeliness,
(iv) manufacturing flexibility, (v) new product design/innovation,
in operations management (e.g. Klassen, 2001), the statistical po- (vi) environment/safety.
wer for the hypotheses, which was not supported by the study’s
outcomes, could have been increased by a larger sample. It is also
noteworthy that most of the manufacturing organizations in the
sample were of medium size which can hamper the generalizability
of the results. Third, the supply chain activities examined were only References
with suppliers, leaving an important set of supply chain actors e
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
the customers. Future study of these activities in both directions review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),
(upstream and downstream) and with both supply chain parties 411e423.
 S. Hajmohammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 56 (2013) 86e93
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderatoremediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173e1182.
Bonifant, B.C., Arnold, M.B., Long, F.J., 1995. Gaining competitive advantage through
environmental investments. Business Horizons 38 (4), 37e47.
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Faruk, A.C., 2001. The role of supply
management capabilities in green supply. Production and Operations Man-
agement 10 (2), 174e189.
Bozarth, C.C., Warsing, D.P., Flynn, B.B., Flynn, E.J., 2009. The impact of supply chain
complexity on manufacturing plant performance. Journal of Operations Man-
agement 27 (1), 78e93.
Braunscheidel, M.J., Suresh, N.C., 2009. The organizational antecedents of a firm’s
supply chain agility for risk mitigation. Journal of Operations Management 27
(2), 119e140.
Chapman, C.D., Green, N.B., 2010. Leaning toward green. Quality Progress 43 (3),
19e24.
Chin, W.W., Newsted, P.R., 1999. Structural equation modeling analysis with small
samples using partial least squares. In: Hoyle, R. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for
Small Sample Research. Sage Publications, pp. 307e341.
De Treville, S., Antonakis, J., 2006. Could lean production job design be intrinsically
motivating: contextual, configurational, and level-of-analysis issues. Journal of
Operations Management 24 (2), 99e123.
Dillman, D.A., 2000. Mail and Internet Survey: the Tailored Design Method, second
ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Florida, R., 1996. Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious
manufacturing. California Management Review 39 (1), 80e105.
Fornell, C., Larker, D., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1),
39e50.
Gavronski, I., Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S., Nascimento, L.F.M.d., 2012. A learning and
knowledge approach to sustainable operations. International Journal of Pro-
duction Economics.
Geffen, C.A., Rothenberg, S., 2000. Suppliers and environmental innovation: the
automotive paint process. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 20 (2), 166e186.
Grant, D.S., Jones, A.W., Bergensen, A.J., 2002. Organizational size and pollution: the
case of the U.S. chemical industry. American Sociological Review 67 (3), 389e
407.
Hall, J., 2000. Environmental supply chain dynamics. Journal of Cleaner Production
8 (6), 455e471.
Harman, H., 1967. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Illinois.
Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 20 (4), 986e1014.
Holcomb, T.R., Holmes, R.M., Connelly, B.L., 2009. Making the most of what you
have: managerial ability as a source of resource value creation. Strategic
Management Journal 30 (5), 457e485.
Hopp, W.J., Spearman, M.L., 2004. To pull or not to pull: what is the question?
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 6 (2), 133e148.
Inman, R.A., Sale, R.S., Green, K.W., Whitten, D., 2011. Agile manufacturing: relation
to JIT, operational performance, and firm performance. Journal of Operations
Management 29 (4), 343e355.
Johnston, D.A., McCutcheon, D.M., Stuart, F.I., Kerwood, H., 2004. Effects of supplier
trust on performance of cooperative supplier relationships. Journal of Opera-
tions Management 21 (1), 23e38.
King, A.A., Lenox, M.J., 2001. Lean and green? An empirical examination of the
relationship between lean production and environmental performance. Pro-
duction and Operations Management 10 (3), 244e256.
Klassen, R.D., 2000. Just-in-time manufacturing and pollution prevention generate
mutual benefits in the furniture industry. Interfaces 30 (3), 95e106.
Klassen, R.D., 2001. Plant-level environmental management orientation: the influ-
ence of management views and plant characteristics. Production and Opera-
tions Management 10 (3), 257e275.
Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S., 2003. Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain:
their impact on plant-level environmental investment. Production and Opera-
tions Management 12 (3), 336e352.
Klassen, R.D., Whybark, D.C., 1999. Environmental management in operations: the
selection of environmental technologies. Decision Sciences 30 (3), 601e631.
Klassen, R.D., Whybark, D.C., 1999. The impact of environmental technologies on
manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal 42 (6), 599e615.
Krause, D.R., Handfield, R.B., Tyler, B.B., 2007. The relationship between supplier
development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance
improvement. Journal of Operations Management 25 (2), 528e545.
Krause, D.R., Scannell, T.V., Calantone, R.J., 2000. A structural analysis of the effec-
tiveness of buying firms’ strategies to improve supplier performances. Decision
Sciences 31 (1), 33e55.
Krause, D.R., Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2009. Special topic forum on sustainable
supply chain management: introduction and reflections on the role of pur-
chasing management. Journal of Supply Chain Management 45 (4), 18e25.
Kumar, N., Stern, L.W., Anderson, J.A., 1993. Conducting inter-organizational
research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal 36 (6),
1633e1651.
Mackelprang, A.W., Nair, A., 2010. Relationship between just-in-time manufacturing
practices and performance: a meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations
Management 28 (4), 283e302.
93
Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R., 2003. Assessing the impact of environ-
mental management systems on corporate and environmental performance.
Journal of Operations Management 21 (2), 329e351.
Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L., Ueltschy, M., 2010. Green, lean, and global
supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Man-
agement 40 (1/2), 14e41.
Morgan, N.A., Kaleka, A., Gooner, R.A., 2007. Focal supplier opportunism in super-
market retailer category management. Journal of Operations Management 25
(2), 512e527.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M.L., Kim, S.W., 2006. Disentangling leanness and agility: an
empirical investigation. Journal of Operations Management 24 (5), 440e457.
Plambeck, E., 2007. The greening of Wal-Mart’s supply chain. Supply Chain Man-
agement Review 11 (5), 18e25.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879e903.
Porter, M.E., van der Linde, C., 1995. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate.
Harvard Business Review 73 (5), 120e133.
Prahinski, C., Benton, W.C., 2004. Supplier evaluations: communication strategies to
improve supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management 22 (1), 39e62.
Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J., Carter, C.R., 2009. Food for thought: social versus
environmental sustainability practices and performance outcomes. Journal of
Supply Chain Management 45 (4), 38e54.
Purdy, L., Safayeni, F., 2000. Strategies for supplier evaluation: a framework for
potential advantages and limitations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man-
agement 47 (4), 435e443.
Rao, P., 2002. Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia. In-
ternational Journal of Operations and Production Management 22 (6), 632e
655.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Will, A.I.H.W.S.D., 2005. SmartPLS Release: 2.0 (Beta).
SmartPLS, Hamburg (Germany).
Rothenberg, S., Pil, F.K., Maxwell, J., 2001. Lean, green, and the quest for superior
environmental performance. Production and Operations Management 10 (3),
228e243.
Russo, M.V., Fouts, P.A., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environ-
mental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal 40 (3),
534e559.
Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A., Junttila, M.A., 2002. A resource-based view of
manufacturing strategy and the relationship to manufacturing performance.
Strategic Management Journal 23 (2), 105e117.
Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2003. Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and
performance. Journal of Operations Management 21 (2), 129e149.
Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2007. Defining and developing measures of lean production.
Journal of Operations Management 25 (4), 785e805.
Sherrer-Rathje, M., Boyle, T.A., Deflorin, P., 2009. Lean, take two! Reflections from
the second attempt at lean implementation. Business Horizon 52 (1), 79e88.
Shrivastava, P., 1995. Environmental technologies and competitive advantage.
Strategic Management Journal 16 (3), 183e200.
Simpson, D.F., Power, D.J., 2005. Use the supply relationship to develop lean and
green suppliers. Supply Chain Management 10 (1), 60.
Sobel, M.E., 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In: Leinhardt, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology. American
Sociological Association, Washington, DC.
Stundza, T., 2006. Wal-Mart goes green big time. Purchasing 135 (16), 46e48.
Taubitz, M.A., 2010. Lean, Green and Safe: Integrating Safety into Lean, Green and
Sustainable Movement. Professional Safety 55 (5), 39e46.
Vachon, S., 2007. Green supply chain practices and the selection of environmental
technologies. International Journal of Production Research 45 (18/19), 4357e
4379.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending green practices across the supply chain:
the impact of upstream and downstream integration. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 26 (7), 795e821.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Green project partnership in the supply chain: the
case of the package printing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (6e7),
661e671.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2007. Supply chain management and environmental
technologies: the role of integration. International Journal of Production
Research 45 (2), 401e423.
Vachon, S., Mao, Z., 2008. Linking supply chain strength to sustainable develop-
ment: a country-level analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15), 1552e
1560.
Vonderembse, M., Uppal, M., Huang, S.H., Dismukes, J.P., 2006. Designing supply
chains: towards theory development. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics 100 (2), 223e238.
White, R.E., Pearson, J.N., Wilson, J.R., 1999. JIT manufacturing: a survey of imple-
mentation in small and large US manufacturers. Management Science 45 (1), 1e
15.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., 2003. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in
Your Organization. Free Press.
Yeung, A.C.L., 2008. Strategic supply management, quality initiatives, and organi-
zational performance. Journal of Operations Management 26 (4), 490e502.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operational practices and perfor-
mance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in
Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management 22 (3),
265e289.