“GREEN PROCUREMENT: A TOOL FOR IMPROVING

ORGANIZATION PERFORMANCE IN BEVERAGE

INDUSTRY OF PAKISTAN”

FINAL YEAR PROJECT

Supervisor: By:
Mr. Naeem Bhojani Haseeb Ahmed
(58214)
 INTRODUCTION

 Material consumption & energy levels are increased by economic growth, which adds to
environmental problems and resource exhaustion

 For organizations dealing with social, competitive and regulatory pressure, it is

substantial to balance out economic and environmental impacts.

 Green procurement is defined as purchasing of product and services that are

environmental friendly, selection of supplier & making sure aspects of requirements for
environment are part of the contract.
 INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement
 Due to rise in level of industrialization and consumption, we have seen increase in solid
waste generation in Pakistan.
 Per day generation of solid waste in Pakistan amounts to 54,888 tons.

 As per Coca Cola environmental report for the year 2015,

 The water waste of the company was 1.72 liters
 Solid waste was 11.67 grams per 1 litter of drink production

 Carbon footprints in the drinks is the another challenge faced by beverage companies
 INTRODUCTION

Research Objectives
 To find out the effect of reverse logistics on performance of organization in beverage
companies.
 To find out the impact of supplier assessment on organizational performance of beverage
companies.

Hypothesis
 H1: Performance of organization is significantly influenced by green procurement
practices
 H1A: Performance of organization is significantly influenced by reverse logistics.
 H1B: Performance of organization is significantly influenced by supplier assessment.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Population of Study
The management staff working in manufacturing department of beverage industry
specifically in Coca Cola Karachi, Pakistan.

Sampling Technique
Sampling technique used for this research was non-probability convenience sampling

Sample Size
The research was conducted on overall population of management staff working in
manufacturing department of Coca Cola. A total of 70 staff participated in survey for
research using self-administered questionnaires.
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Instrument for Survey

For collection of data, a five-point Likert scale structured/close-ended questionnaire was
administered through self-administered survey.

Development of instrument
The overall instrument contained 17 items ranging from 1-5.
 From 1 representing strongly disagree to 5 representing strongly agree.

Instrument had sections which contained:

 6 items each for independent variables reverse logistics & supplier assessment
 5 items for dependent variable organizational performance
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Statistical Analysis

Various statistical analysis tools were utilized in this research. These tools included:
 Descriptive analysis (the range of skewness and kurtosis should be between ±2.0 (George
& Mallery, 2010) to accomplish univariate normality)
 Reliability analysis (standardized cronbach’s alpha’s value should be above 0.7 to be
acceptable)
 Correlation analysis (correlation amongst the constructs should be between 0.20-0.90
(Bryman & Bell, 2003) for variables to be unique and distinguishing and have no issue of
multicollinearity)
 Multi- regression analysis.
 RESULTS

Descriptive Analysis
Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Reverse Logistics 3.31 .709 -.360 -.006
Supplier Assessment 3.40 .653 -.136 .737
Organization
3.42 .693 -.110 .412
Performance

 Highest value for skewness is -0.360 for reverse logistics and lowest value for skewness is
-0.110 for organization performance.
 Kurtosis column indicates that highest value is 0.737 is for supplier assessment and
lowest value is -0.006 for reverse logistics.
 RESULTS

Reliability Analysis
Standardized
Constructs Cronbach’s Alpha Mean Standard Deviation
Cronbach’s Alpha
Reverse Logistics .852 .852 3.31 .709
Supplier
.749 .748 3.40 .653
Assessment
Organization
.717 .719 3.42 .693
Performance

 Reverse logistics has the highest reliability (α=.852, M=2.23, SD=0.745)

 Organization performance has the lowest reliability (α=.719, M=2.22, SD=0.653).
 RESULTS

Correlation Analysis

Reverse Logistics

Assessment
Supplier

Performance
Organization
 The correlation analysis table exhibits that
co-relation with highest value is (0.766)
which exists between supplier assessment
& organization performance.

Reverse Logistics 1  Co-relation with lowest value is (0.553)

Supplier
which exists between reverse logistics and
.606** 1 organization performance.
Assessment
Organization
.553** .766** 1
Performance
 RESULTS

Hypothesis 1 (Overall model test)

Unstandardized Standard
T Sig
Variables Coefficient Coefficient
B Std. Error βeta
Reverse Logistics .138 .095 .141 1.450 .152
Supplier
.722 .103 .681 7.013 .000
Assessment
Note: Dependent Variable: Organization Performance, R2 = 0.600 Adjusted R2 = 0.588, P<.05, F (2, 67) = 50.225

 The regression analysis result for overall model exhibits that independent variables (i.e.
reverse logistics and supplier assessment) collectively describe 60% of variance in
organization performance (F (2, 67) = 50.225, p< 0.05).
 Even though the overall model of the study was well-fitted, only the supplier assessment
(B=0.681, p<0.05) had the significant effect.
 RESULTS

Hypothesis 1A: (Reverse logistics and Organization performance)

Standard
Unstandardized Coefficient T Sig
Coefficient
Variable
B Std. Error βeta

Reverse Logistics .541 .099 .553 5.478 .000

Note: Dependent Variable: Organization Performance, R2 = 0.306; Adjusted R2 = 0.296, P<.05, F (1, 68) = 30.003

The regression analysis result exhibits that reverse logistics describe 30.6% of variance
in organization performance (F (1, 68) = 30.003, p<0.05) which demonstrates that
performance of organization is significantly positively influenced by reverse logistics.
 RESULTS

Hypothesis 1B: (Supplier Assessment and organization performance)

Standard
Unstandardized Coefficient T Sig
Variable Coefficient
B Std Error βeta
Supplier
.813 .083 .766 9.838 .000
Assessment
Note: Dependent Variable: Organization Performance, R2 = 0.587; Adjusted R2 = 0.581, P<.05, F (1, 68) = 96.778

The regression analysis result exhibits that supplier assessment describe 58.7% of
variance in organization performance (F (1, 68) = 13.731, p<0.05) which demonstrates
that performance of organization is significantly positively influenced by supplier
assessment.
 CONCLUSION

Overall Hypothesis Result

 The overall hypothesis that performance of organization is significantly influenced by

green procurement practices (reverse logistics and supplier assessment) is
acknowledged.
 Independent variable supplier assessment has a significant effect on organization
performance while reverse logistics was non-significant.
 For organization performance improvement, all the parameters of green procurement
possess significant importance.
 CONCLUSION

Limitations of the Study

 Due to time and financial limitations, research was limited to one company (Coca-Cola
Pakistan) which was used as benchmark.
 Further research should be done on different industries of Karachi and then on different
industries of Pakistan.
 Similar research should be done on green supply chain management and economic
performance of service industry in Pakistan.
 RECOMMENDATION

 The more implementation of reverse logistics practices of recycling & remanufacture

with minimal adoption of reuse practices of reverse logistics guarantees resource
maximization.

 Policies should be created by government in the manufacturing industries for suppliers.

Emphasis should be given on green packaging. By the values of 4R1D, green packaging
can be achieved which is suitable packaging.

 These values are reduce, reuse, reclaim, recycle & degradable & during its product life
cycle, environment & human are save from pollution.
 REFERENCES

 Agarwal, G., & Vijayvargy, L. (2012). Green supplier assessment in environmentally responsive supply chains through analytical network process.
In Proceedings of the 2010 Int. Multi Conference of Engineers and computer scientists (Vol. 2).

 Anderson, & Claire. (2010). Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research. American journal of pharmaceutical education.

 Bryman, & Bell. (2003). Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

 Carter, & Rogers. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 Issue: 5.

 Chan. (2008). Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. International Journal of Production Research,46(14).

 Geffen, & Rothenberg. (2000). Suppliers and environmental innovation: the automotive paint process. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 166-186.

 George, & Mallery. (2010). PSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 17.0 Update. 10th Edition, Pearson, Boston.
 REFERENCES

 Gitau, G., & Shalle, J. (2014). AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF REVERSE LOGISTICS ADOPTION ON SUPPLY CHAIN PERFORMANCE IN THE
MANUFACTURING SECTOR IN KENYA:A CASE OF HEWLETT- PACKARD KENYA. European Journal of Business Management, 2(1), 161-173.

 Growi, V., & Kamarulzaman, N. H. (2014). Sustainability in Food Retail Industry through Reverse. International Journal of Supply Chain
Management. Vol. 3 No.2., 11-23.

 Hussein, I. M., & Shale, I. N. (2014). Effects of Sustainable Procurement Practices on Organizational Performance in Manufacturing Sector in
Kenya: A Case of Unilever Kenya Limited. European Journal of Business Management, 1 (11), 417-438.

 Kabergey, W. J., & Richu, S. (2015). Comparative analysis of greenhouse versus open-field small-scale tomato production in Nakuru-North District,
Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, Egerton University).

 Liao, Z., & Rittscher, J. (2007). A multi-objective supplier selection model under stochastic demand conditions. Int. J. Prod. Econ.2007, 105, 150–
159.

 Marron. (2013). Greener Public Purchasing as an Environmental Policy Instrument OECD. Journal on Budgeting, 71-105.
 REFERENCES

 Marshall, R. E., & Farahbakhsh, K. (2013). Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste
Management, 33(4), 988–1003.

 Min, & Galle. (2005). Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends and Implications. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 10-17.

 Muttimos, A. E. (2014). Relationship between reverse logistics practices and organizational performance of manufacturing firms in Kenya
(Doctoral dissertation).

 Rao, & Holt. (2005). Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 25, No. 9, 898–916.

 Routroy, & Pradhan. (2012). Framework for green procurement: a case study. International Journal of Procurement, Vol. 5, No. 3, 316–336.

 Russo, I., & Cardinali, S. (2012). Product Returns and Customer Value: A Footware Industry Case. Modelling Value, Contributions to Management,
79-97.

 Sekaran, & Bougie. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (5th ed.). Haddington: John Wiley & Sons.
 REFERENCES

 Song, H. (2017). Green procurement, stakeholder satisfaction and operational performance. International Journal of Logistics Management.

 Srivastava. (2013). Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews.

 Sroufe. (2003). Effects of environmental management systems on environmental management practices and operations. Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, 416–431.

 Stock, J., Speh, T., & Shear, H. (2006). Managing product returns for competitive advantage. MIT Sloan Management Review.

 Zhang, G., & Zhao, Z. (2012). Green Packaging Management of Logistics Enterprises. Physics Procedia, 24, 900–905.

 Zhu, Q. (2009). Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management