Week 3 501

Circular supply chain practices and corporate sustainability

performance: do ethical supply chain leadership

and environmental orientation make a difference?

Yaw Agyabeng-Mensah School of Management and Marketing, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Charles Baah Asia Pacific College of Business and Law, Charles Darwin University,

Darwin, Australia

Ebenezer Afum University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, and

Caleb Amankwaa Kumi Department of Supply Chain and Information Systems,

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

Abstract

Purpose – This study draws insight from the leader-member exchange theory to examine the link between supply chain ethical leadership and circular supply chain practices. This study further draws on the contingent theory to explore the interactive effect of environmental orientation and circular supply chain practices on corporate sustainability performance. Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a quantitative research approach where partial least square structural equation modelling (SMART PLS) is used to analyse survey data gathered from 122 managers of small and medium enterprises in Ghana. Findings – This study reports that there is a significant positive relationship between ethical supply chain leadership and circular supply chain practices. The findings further reveal that internal environmental orientation and external environmental orientation moderate the relationship between circular supply chain practices and corporate sustainability performance. Originality/value – This study sheds light on ethical supply chain leadership’s influence on circular supply chain practices. The study also offers an empirical argument to explain contradictory relationships between circular supply chain practices and corporate sustainability performance by applying the contingency roles of internal and external environmental orientation.

KeywordsEthical leadership, Supply chainmanagement, Circular economy, Sustainability performance, And

environmental orientation

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Since the United Nations (UN) promulgated 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, green subsidies, green tax regimes, environmental regulations across countries and provision of funding for sustainability projects have been introduced.Meanwhile, sevenyears on, child labour, unfair andunethical treatment of employees and society, and increasingdestruction of nature and biodiversity fester across supply chains (Zaid et al., 2018; Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2022a, b).

Circular supply chain practices

213

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-038X.htm

Received 11 August 2022 Revised 20 October 2022

22 December 2022 Accepted 3 January 2023

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Vol. 34 No. 2, 2023 pp. 213-233

© Emerald Publishing Limited 1741-038X

DOI 10.1108/JMTM-08-2022-0296

Thus, it is conspicuous that supply chains need social and environmental transformation to contribute vibrantly towards achieving the UN’s 17 SDGs by 2030.

Sharing similar objectives with a sustainable supply chain, Circular supply chain (CSC) has been touted as an effective approach for manufacturing Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to contribute towards UN’s SDGs (de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2020; Bassi and Dias, 2020). CSC involves integrating circular thinking into supply chains to achieve zero waste (Agyabeng- Mensah et al., 2022a, b). SMEs constitute about 99% of firms globally (Lessidrenska, 2019; Zhu et al., 2022), contribute about 50–60% of global pollution (Dey et al., 2020) and 64% of air pollution in Europe (Cheffi et al., 2023).

In Ghana, SMEs represent approximately 90% of firms and employ over 80% of the working population (Quaye and Mensah, 2019; Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2022a, b). CSC practices can help manufacturing SMEs in Ghana reduce resource consumption, achieve workplace safety and meet environmental regulations (Baah et al., 2022; Afum et al., 2022a, b). The transition to CSC requiresmanufacturing SMEs to commit high initial financial resources (Kazancoglu et al., 2021) and substantially transform supply chain strategies, processes and practices (Jabbour et al., 2020; Bjørnbet et al., 2021).

The role of leadership in achieving effective CSC transition is vital (Cheffi et al., 2023), especially for manufacturing SMEs in Ghana due to limited human and financial resources and resistance to change (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2020). Manufacturing SMEs rely on a leadership team with the right mentality to develop strategies, acquire and use valuable resources and guide their supply chain partners towards CSC transition (Cheffi et al., 2023). Supply chain leadership, which involves the ability of a firm to influence behaviours, actions and performance of supply chain partners (Akhtar et al., 2017; Ojha et al., 2018), plays an integral role in supply chain sustainability practices (Mokhtar et al., 2019). Govindan andHasanagic (2018) indicate that the absence of supply chain leadership and enthusiasm sabotages CSC practices. To promote enthusiasm toward circular practices across supply chain, focal firms take a leadership role in influencing the behaviour of supply chain partners (Ojha et al., 2018; Shin and Park, 2021).

Leadership-member exchange theory (LMXT) indicates that behaviour of firms that act as leaders in supply chains can influence behaviour of supply chain partners (Shin and Park, 2021). Thus, ethical behaviour of leaders in supply chains can promote ethical values across supply chains. Kitsis and Chen (2020) argue that supply chain sustainability practices are more ethically driven than financial benefits. Therefore, supply chain ethical leadership can drive CSC practices.

Supply chain ethical leadership (SCEL) is when the behaviour and conduct of a focal firm drive environmental, the economic practices across supply chains (Wang and Feng, 2022). Ethical firms commit investment to develop sustainability capabilities across supply chains (Chen andChen, 2019;Wang andFeng, 2022). Supply chain partners respond to the commitment of supply chain leaders by adopting their norms and values and establishing strong intrinsic relationships to exchange complementary and strategic relational resources with them (Wang et al., 2022). Therefore, as a focal firm assumes a leadership position to commit to and promote ethical practices across supply chains, supply chain partners, regarded as followers are likely to embrace these practices and commit their resources to sustainability implementation.

In supply chain, there is growing research on the roles of leadership in sustainability practices (Wang and Feng, 2022; Mokhtar et al., 2019; Jia et al., 2019; Feng et al., 2022). Within this growing field of study, empirical research focuses on the impact of supply chain leadership on green supply chain integration (Wang and Feng, 2022; Wang et al., 2022), supply chain learning and multi-tier supply chain structure (Jia et al., 2019), reverse supply chain performance (Mokhtar et al., 2019) and sustainability performance (Burawat, 2019). Meanwhile, little emphasis has been placed on CSC practices though circular economy practices have been widely promoted across supply chains.

JMTM 34,2

214

Also, there is a general perception that CSC practices may enhance a firm’s environmental performance (Del Giudice et al., 2020). However, there is an ongoing debate about the ability of CSC practices to achieve all three dimensions of sustainability performance. Results from previous research focused on relationship between CSC practices and sustainability performance allow for conclusions in their own right, but are conflicting when assessed from a more holistic perspective. For instance, Kamble et al. (2021) and Jabbour et al. (2020) found that circular economy (CE) practices have a significant positive relationship with Corporate sustainability performance (CSP). Meanwhile, Edwin Cheng et al. (2021) reported no direct relationship between CSC practices and sustainability performance. Mixed results from previous studies arise from the neglect of environmental orientation as both internal and external business environmental factors can interact with CSC practices to enhance CSP.

Contingency theory (CT) claims that the interaction of firms with their external and internal environment can affect their practices and performance (Chavez et al., 2021). Interaction with internal and external environments can make firms develop capabilities and obtain resources to support the implementation of CSC practices (Farooque et al., 2022). Environmental orientation (EO) is a capability that plays a significant role in sustainability practices to achieve desired performance (Niemann et al., 2022; Zhang and Teng, 2022). EO promotes pro-environmental behaviours and encourages development of environmental protection strategies to enhance performance (Yu and Huo, 2019; Chavez et al., 2021).

Prior studies in sustainability have long explored EO as a driver of environmental marketing (Keszey, 2020), green business strategy (Yasir et al., 2020), green supply chain integration (Zhou et al., 2020), green innovation capability (Gabler et al., 2015) andgreen supplier development (Chan and Ma, 2021). However, studies on moderating effect of EO in CSCM literature are scarce. Motivated to bridge research gaps, this study examines relationships between SCEL, CSC practices, EO and CSP. Hence, this study seeks to address the following research questions.

RQ1. Does SCEL positively relate to CSC practices?

RQ2. Do internal EO and external EO moderate the positive relationship between CSC practices and CSP?

By addressing research questions, this study extends our knowledge and practice in Circular supply chain management (CSCM). First, this study provides a novel approach to achieving CSP by confirming that combining SCEL, EO and CSC practices can lead to improved CSP. Second, this study empirically confirms SCEL as a driver of CSC practices, which contributes to CSCM literature. Third, this study advances CSCM literature by establishing internal EO and external EO as moderators of the relationship between CSC practices and CSP. Fourth, this study contributes to theory development through a novel combination of LMXT and CT to explain contributions of SCEL, EO and CSC practices toward CSP.

Finally, this study’s findings are also important for managers to obtain a better understanding of how SCEL can drive CSC practices and how internal and external EO can shape CSC practices to achieve CSP. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: section 2 presents literature and develops a framework and hypotheses. Section 3 presents research method, whilst in section 4, the results are presented. Section 5 presents the discussion, and section 6 presents the conclusion.

2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development 2.1 Leader-member exchange theory (LMXT) and contingent theory This study employs LMXT and CT as theoretical frameworks to provide an explanation for our proposed model (see Figure 1). LMXT is used to explain relationship between SCEL and CSC practices, whiles CT drives the moderating effect of EO and CSC practices on CSP.

Circular supply chain practices

215

LMXT was first introduced in organisational behaviour management literature to understand leadership-followership relationships at employee level but has begun to appear in supply chain environment (Shin and Park, 2021).

LMXT posits that leaders’ relationships with their subordinates affect subordinates’ decisions, responsibilities, access to resources and performance (Goodwin et al., 2009). A leaders-member relationship between a focal firm and supply chain partners affects the behaviour of the supply chainmembers by adopting the values of the focal firm. For instance, sustainability vision of a focal firm affects the behaviour of supply chain members (Ahi and Searcy, 2013). Ethical leadership can impact the behaviours of supply chain members to proactively adopt and promote sustainability (Blome et al., 2017).

Meanwhile, LXMT fails to explain contingent factors that influence relationship between CSC practices and performance. In this regard, this study draws on CT. CT indicates that firms represent open systems and are exposed to external and internal conditions that affect their practices and performance (Chavez et al., 2021). CT posits that the open nature of firms facilitates their interaction with factors in external (e.g. suppliers, competition, economy, technological changes, regulation) and internal environments (e.g. firm strategy, leadership styles, structure), which can affect their performance (Eriksson et al., 2020). EO, which stems from internal and external stakeholders, can strengthen the implementation of environmental strategies to achieve improved performance (Chavez et al., 2021; Niemann et al., 2022).

EO is the degree to which a firm identifies the significance of environmental issues to its operations and the degree to which the firm is committed to natural environment (Banerjee et al., 2003). Internal and external EO are internal and external conditions that play a significant role in implementing supply chain sustainability practices and performance (Chavez et al., 2021; Niemann et al., 2022; Roxas and Coetzer, 2012).

Internal EO refers to the degree to which the standards and values of firms concerning environmental protection reflect the expectations of internal stakeholders such as employees and managers (Banerjee et al., 2003). External EO is the degree to which managers identify that external stakeholders such as media, customers, suppliers, end users and NGOs, expect their firm to observe environmental standards (Banerjee et al., 2003). Some scholars claim that the level of internal and external EO provides varying effects on both environmental and financial performance (Chavez et al., 2021; Niemann et al., 2022).

2.2 Supply chain ethical leadership and circular supply chain practices Transitioning to CSC is often regarded as a daunting task because of the complexity of circular economy principles (Zhu et al., 2022) and the systemic change concomitant with adopting circular business models (De Angelis, 2022). CSC becomes more challenging for SMEs owing to resource shortages, lack of requisite expertise and dedication to circular issues and absence of visionary leadership (Khan et al., 2022). Ethical leadership supports SMEs’ circular economy practices (Saha et al., 2020; Cheffi et al., 2023) and drives sustainability practices across supply chains (Mokhtar et al., 2019). LMXT claims that a

Figure 1. Theoretical model

JMTM 34,2

216

leading firm in supply chain can influence behaviour of supply chainmembers (Mokhtar et al., 2019). A good leader-member relationship between a focal firm and supply chain partners motivates suppliers and customers to align their interest with supply chain leaders (Kurucz et al., 2017). Supply chainmembers demonstrate commitment toward ethical practices when a leading firm is ethical (Blome et al., 2017). Ethical leadership drives decision of firms to adopt practices to fulfil environmental, social and ethical responsibilities to stakeholders (Saha et al., 2020). Organizational ethics makes firms voluntarily engage in and commit to promoting sustainability practices in a supply chain because they find it just right to do it (Paulraj et al., 2017; Chan et al., 2012). Ethical leaders create mutual coordination and support across a supply chain network (Gupta et al., 2019; Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2022a, b). Supply chain leadership ethics promote information exchange between a firm and its customers and suppliers to innovate and implement sustainability practices (Mokhtar et al., 2019).

A focal firm with a high level of SCEL tends to commit to practising business ethics by prioritising sustainability practices (Gosling et al., 2016) and providing partners with knowledge that might help improve their circular capacity to meet sustainability demands of end consumers, government regulations and other stakeholders (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2022a,b). To ensure that supply chains become circular, a focal firmwith a high level of SCEL will collaborate with customers and suppliers to promote circular procurement and develop circular products (Wang and Feng, 2022).

Empirically, Cheffi et al. (2023) reported that ethical leadership positively impact circular economy practices of SMEs in United Arab Emirates. Ogaga et al. (2023) report that ethical leadership has a positive impact on sustainability practices of SMEs in Nigeria. Nguyen et al. (2021) reveal that ethical leadership positively impact corporate social responsibility among SMEs in Vietnam. Blome et al. (2017) claim that ethical leadership promotes green supplier championing and discourages greenwashing among firms in Germany. Eide et al. (2020) establish that intellectual leadership drives sustainability strategy among Norwegian manufacturing firms. Feng et al. (2022) claim that leader sustainability orientation has a positive impact on green customer and supplier integration through entrepreneurial orientation and organisational learning capability in Chinese firms. Wang and Feng (2022) report that SCEL can promote green supply chain integration through a green image and perceived institutional force in Chinese manufacturing firms. Based on LMXT and literature, this study proposes that.

H1. SCEL has a positive relationship with CSC practices.

2.3 Moderating effects of internal and external environmental orientation Sustainable supply chain management and circular economy have been studied as separate concepts (Hussain and Malik, 2020). Recently, there has been an increasing interest in understanding the overlap and the potential positive synergies between these concepts (Genovese et al., 2017). Sustainable supply chain practices emphasise simultaneous achievement of economic growth, environmental protection and social development across supply chains (Elkington, 1997). Circular economy practices focus on achieving balanced environmental, social and economic goals (Dey et al., 2020). This indicates that circular economy practices and sustainable supply chain practices are closely linked, and with integration of these practices, the concept of CSC practices is developed (Mastos et al., 2021).

Against this backdrop, CSP, which covers a balanced assessment of economic, social and environmental outcomes of firms’ internal factors - practices, strategies, employees, financial resources etc, and external factors has taken a crucial position in measuring effectiveness of CSC practices (Genovese et al., 2017; Lahane and Kant, 2021). In literature, studies report that CSC practices have a significant positive effect (Le et al., 2022; Le, 2022; Kamble et al., 2021; Jabbour et al., 2020) but an insignificant effect on CSP (Edwin Cheng et al., 2021).

Circular supply chain practices

217

The relationship between CSC practices and CSP can be influenced by contingent factors (Del Giudice et al., 2020). These factors can account for the inconsistent relationships between CSC practices and CSP (Niemann et al., 2022; Donkor et al., 2021).

CSC practices are associated with high environmental, social and economic risks (Lahane andKant, 2021), which emanate from internal and external barriers such as strong perception towards low economic returns, lack of communication of information to customers about CSC practices and inadequate support from top management (Yadav et al., 2020).

EO promotes environmental strategies within a firm and across its supply chain (Afum et al., 2022a, b; Chavez et al., 2021; Yu and Huo, 2019; Chan et al., 2012). EO drives sustainable supply chain practices (Mariadoss et al., 2016; Salvador and Burciaga, 2020) and their relationships with performance (Zhang and Walton, 2017). EO urges firms to seek information and understanding of environmental demands of stakeholders (Peng and Wei, 2015) and pursue appropriate corporate environmentalism (Bendjenna et al., 2012).

EO stems from two different sources (i.e. internal vs external), and thus, consists of two dimensions: internal EO and external EO (Banerjee et al., 2003). Internal and external EO are regarded as key input sources for developing a firm’s strategic decisions (Gabler et al., 2015) to adopt responsible strategies to enhance performance (Yasir et al., 2020). Meanwhile, the respective effects of internal EO and external EO on supply chain sustainability practices and firm performance may vary (Chan et al., 2012; Niemann et al., 2022).

CT argues that internal EO plays an integral role in facilitating effort of firms to adopt environmental initiatives to achieve sustainability goals (Niemann et al., 2022). Internal EO forms part of the core corporate beliefs and values, which often come from pro-environmental ideology of leaders and employees of the firm (Salvador and Burciaga, 2020). Firms with low levels of internal EO face several legitimacy problems; thus, firms build stronger environmental values and beliefs to reduce environmental impact (Yasir et al., 2020).

High internal EO make employees and managers develop collective consciousness of the need to adopt environmentally responsible practices, and ultimately seek approaches to reduce environmental effects of their operations (Banerjee et al., 2003). Internal EO leads to eco-friendly innovations and adoption of green supply chain practices, which in turn increase environmental and financial performance (Chan et al., 2012; Aboelmaged, 2018). In this regard, this study claims that internal EO can help a firm leverage CSC practices to become successful at achieving CSP.

Concerning external EO, firms are faced with diverse expectations emanating from their external stakeholders to tackle environmental issues to reduce the impact of their operations on the natural environment (Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2022a, b). External EO forces firms to improve their environmental performance due to the demands of different stakeholders (Yu and Huo, 2019). In response to external pressure from stakeholders, firms usually introduce sustainability practices into a supply chain to reduce environmental impact of their operations (Baah et al., 2022).

Managers who identify a high need to respond to environmental requirements of stakeholders to engage in sustainability practices are likely to influence the effective use of resources and materials (Kang and He, 2018). Effective use of resources means, less resource waste, less environmental pollution, reduced health problems for employees and other stakeholders and less cost of production, which are signs of enhanced CSP (Afum et al., 2022a, b).

CSC practices are associatedwith high risk and external uncertainties (Lahane et al., 2020). Networking and cooperation are associated with firms that have high external EO and are faced with high risk and uncertainty (Dickel et al., 2018). Firms with high external EO usually engage in networking and cooperation across and beyond their supply chains to obtain external environmental information to adapt their operations and products and share information with members in their network to minimize perceived economic, environmental

JMTM 34,2

218

and social risks (Dickel et al., 2018; Niemann et al., 2022; Lahane et al., 2020). This is an indication that firms that have high EO can leverage CSC practices to advance CSP. Based on the above argument, we hypothesize that.

H2. Internal EO moderates the positive relationship between CSC practices and CSP.

H3. External EO moderates the positive relationship between CSC practices and CSP.

3. Methodology 3.1 Measures The questionnaire used in this study consisted of five reflective constructs adapted from previous studies. The reflective approach is used to operationalise the constructs because the items are manifestations of the constructs and are expected to co-vary (Jarvis et al., 2003; Jahed et al., 2022). A panel of practitioners and academic experts in SSCMwas used to review the questionnaire’s content for clarity and understanding. A pilot test was conducted using six supply chain/logistics executives from manufacturing firms in Ghana (Jahed et al., 2022). The questionnaire items were modified in accordance with the feedback received from the pilot test. All items of constructs are measured using a five-point Likert scale where 1 5 “strongly disagree” and 5 5 “strongly agree”.

SCEL is measured with four items adapted from Ilyas et al. (2020). CSC practices are measured with six items adapted from Witjes and Lozano (2016). CSP is also measured using four items adapted from Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020) and Shang et al. (2020). Internal EO and external EO are individually measured with four items adapted from Banerjee et al. (2003) and Zhou et al. (2020). Finally, firm age, firm size and firm’s previous financial performance are used as control variables in the model. Firm size and firm age are measured using the number of employees and number of years in operation respectively. Firm’s previous financial performance is measured using net profit. These variables are controlled because they can influence the circular/sustainability capabilities of SMEs in Ghana to advance performance (Agyabeng-Mensah and Tang, 2021; Agyabeng-Mensah et al., 2022a, b). The constructs and their measurement items are summarized in Table 1.

3.2 Sampling and data collection This study employs the quantitative research approach where a simple random sampling technique was used to sample 341 manufacturing SMEs from a total of 3,485 from the database of Ghana Enterprise Agency. Manufacturing SMEs founded in 2007 or later; were not part of any company group; employing a maximum of 250 full-time employees and producing physical products were selected for this study. The respondents includemanagers that had knowledge of SSCM. In an attempt to avoid the occurrence of potential social desirability and common method biases, it was ensured that the items used to measure the constructs were precise and clear for easy understanding. Also, the anonymity and voluntary participation of the respondents were ensured (Carter et al., 2020).

152 SMEs agreed to take part in this study, where questionnaires were later sent to them. 132 questionnaires were received from the respondents. In the end, 10 questionnaires affected by missing data were removed, leaving 122 valid responses for data analysis and representing a valid response rate of 35.78%. This study deployed a modified version of Dillman’s (2007) total design method. In particular, a series of reminder telephone calls were made to the respondents after receiving early responses in the first four weeks of sending out questionnaires to respondents. Data collection was done within a period of eight weeks. The details of the responding firms and respondents are shown in Table 2.

Circular supply chain practices

219

3.3 Data analysis This study uses Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) for data analysis and hypothesis testing. PLS-SEM is adoptedmainly due to the causal-predictive and reflective nature of the research model tested in this study (Latan et al., 2017; Henseler, 2018).

Construct Items Authors

Supply chain ethical leadership

1. Our firm’s mission statement promotes acceptable environmental, social and economic values and practices across supply chains

Ilyas et al. (2020)

2. Our firm’s strategies support fair and balanced decisions across the supply chain 3. Our firm’s goals support responsible environmental, social and economic values and practices across the supply chain 4. Our firm’s policies promote responsible environmental, social and economic values and practices across the supply chain

Circular supply chain practices

1. Our firm exchanges information with suppliers on circular economy

Witjes and Lozano (2016)

2. Our firm’s manufacturing processes consider circular economy practices 3. Our firm designs products for circular economy 4. Our firm considers circular economy in sourcing materials 5. Our firm collaborates with suppliers on circular economy 6. Our firm exchanges information with customers on circularity

Corporate sustainability performance

1. Our firm has improved environmental performance (i.e. reduced air and water pollution and solid waste)

Agyabeng-Mensah et al. (2020), Shang et al. (2020)

2. Our firm’s market performance has increased 3. Our firm has improved social performance (i.e. employee and community health and safety) 4. Our firm has increased profitability (.i.e. net profit and return on investment)

External environmental orientation

1. Our firm considers its responsibility toward customers, stockholders and employees more important than its responsibility toward environmental preservation

Banerjee et al. (2003), Zhou et al., (2020)

2. Our firm has a responsibility to preserve the environment 3. In our firm, environmental preservation is largely an issue of maintaining a good public image 4. Our firm strives for an image of environmental responsibility

Internal environmental orientation

1. Our firm makes a concerted effort to ensure that every employee understands the importance of environmental protection

Banerjee et al. (2003), Chan et al. (2012)

2. Our firm has clear policy statements urging environmental awareness in every area of our operations 3. Our firm’s members highly value environmental protection 4. Environmental protection is a central corporate value of our firm

Table 1. Summary of measurement items

JMTM 34,2

220

The analysis was conducted using weighting scheme (path) and setting a maximum number of iterations to 1,000. Subsequently, the bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa bootstrapping is used with a 5% significance (two-tailed) and a resample number of 10,000. The results are firstly used to assess the measurement model and further used to evaluate the structural model and the hypotheses.

3.3.1 Preliminary tests. Before, conducting the main analysis, the data were subjected to a series of tests and checks to ensure sample adequacy and identify the occurrence of a potential bias thatmay arise fromusing survey strategy. This helps tomeet general reporting requirements, ensure valid and reliable analysis and findings and suit partial least squares – path modelling (PLS-PM) method (Latan et al., 2017).

First, the minimum sample size required for this study is calculated using G*power software. The results of the calculation suggested that the sample size used in this study isway more than the minimum sample size of 100 cases required for this study, where power5 0.80, effect size 5 0.50 and significance value 5 0.05. The data for all constructs were normally distributed because skewness and kurtosis were within ±3 and ±10 respectively (Kline, 2011). The sampling adequacy was further confirmed with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy measure of 0.885.

Second, nonresponse bias was examined by comparing wave 1 (early respondents 5 63) with wave 2 (late respondents5 59) using an independent sample t-test. The results showed insignificant differences between wave 1 and wave 2 at a significance level of t < 0.05, which indicates that non-response bias does not affect the validity of our results. Third, in addition to the priori measures put in place during survey design and data collection period to avert the occurrence of common method bias, a commonmethod bias test was conducted using the variance inflation factor (VIF; Kock, 2017). VIF value of 1.33 obtained after the test is <3.3, which suggests that common method bias does not affect our findings.

4. Results 4.1 Measurement model Validity and reliability of the model were evaluated using Cronbach Alpha (Cα), Dijkstra- Henseler’s rho (ρA), Composite reliability (Cr), Average variance extracted (AVE) and

Characteristics Frequency

Firm industry Food and beverages 20 Rubber and plastics 15 Textiles 19 Furniture 17 Stationery 16 Pharmaceuticals 17 Agrochemicals 8 Shoes 10

Firm size (full-time employees) <10 74 10–20 49 Above 20 9

Firm age (years) <5 41 5–10 75 Above 10 6

Table 2. Demographic

properties

Circular supply chain practices

221

Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT). As shown in Table 3, the minimum values obtained for Cα > 0.74, Cr > 0.77 and AVE > 0.53 meet the minimum thresholds since Cα > 0.70, Cr > 0.70 and AVE > 0.5 (Franke and Sarstedt, 2019). HTMT ratios (see Table 4) confirm the discriminant validity of the constructs since they <85 (Franke and Sarstedt, 2019).

4.2 Structural model The structural model is assessed using a coefficient of determination (R2), PLSpredict and VIF. R2 values indicate that SCEL explains 22.9% of CSC practices while CSC practices explain 17.4%of CSP. VIF values obtained for each of the exogenous constructs in themodel are <3.3. This indicates that there is no vertical or lateral collinearity between the exogenous and endogenous constructs (Kock, 2017). PLSpredict values are >0, which shows that themodel has good predictive relevance.

4.3 Direct effect The bootstrapping approach obtains the beta coefficient (β) and significance values at a 95% confidence interval (CI). The findings reveal that the path coefficient between SCEL and CSC practices is significant (R25 0.223, β5 0.48, t5 8.78, p5 0.00), supportingH1. The results are displayed in Figure 2 and Table 5. Though not hypothesized, the results showed that CSC practices positively relate with CSP (β 5 0.42, t 5 7.07, p 5 0.00). Finally, the results (see Table 5) revealed that all the control variables do not have a significant effect on CSP. This is an indication that firm age, firm size and financial performance in previous years do not necessarily affect the implementation of CSC practices to enhance CSP.

4.4 Moderating effect The moderation effect of internal EO and external EO on the positive relationship between CSC practices and CSP was achieved through bootstrapping analysis. The path that

Construct Loadings Reliability and validity

CSP 0.84 Cα 5 0.83 0.78 ρA 5 0.84 0.79 Cr 5 0.89 0.82 AVE 5 0.66

CSC practices 0.68 Cα 5 0.83 ρA 5 0.85 Cr 5 0.88 AVE 5 0.55

0.79 0.79 0.73 0.67 0.77

External EO 0.60 Cα 5 0.71 0.77 ρA 5 0.72 0.67 Cr 5 0.77 0.66 AVE 5 0.55

SCEL 0.85 Cα 5 0.87 0.87 ρA 5 0.87 0.86 Cr 5 0.90 0.84 AVE 5 0.66

Internal EO 0.70 Cα 5 0.74 0.90 ρA 5 0.85 0.80 Cr 5 0.82 0.60 AVE 5 0.53

Table 3. Factor loadings, validity and reliability

JMTM 34,2

222

demonstrated a p-value less than 0.05 were considered to have a significant effect, and also, a coefficient greater than zero (0) suggests a positive effect. Adding internal EO and external EO in model 1 and model 2 produced improvements in R2 of CSP. The interaction effect of internal EO 3 CSC practices resulted in a positive change in R2 from 0.174 to 0.222. This confirms that internal EO has a positive moderating effect between CSC practices and CSP (β5 0.20, t5 3.87, p5 0.00). Thus, internal EO strengthens the positive relationship between CSC practices and CSP, which supports hypothesis 2.

Also, the interaction effect of external EO3 CSC practices resulted in a positive change in R2 from 0.174 to 0.270. This proves that external EO positively moderates the relationship between CSC practices and CSP (β5 0.13, t5 2.02, p5 0.04), which supported hypothesis 3. The results prove that the presence of internal EO and external EO will result in a stronger relationship between CSC practices and CSP. Meanwhile, external EO provides a relatively stronger effect on the relationship between CSC practices and CSP than internal EO. A summary of the moderation effect results is shown in Table 6 and Figures 3 and 4.

5. Discussions This study explores the roles of SCEL, CSC practices and internal EO and external EO in CSP. Consistent with our hypothesized relationship, the result indicates that SCEL has a positive effect on CSC practices. This result proves that ethical behaviour drives the implementation of CSC practices across supply chains of manufacturing SMEs. This proves that as focal

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5

1. CSC practices 2. CSP 0.48 3. SCEL 0.19 0.10 4. External EO 0.27 0.28 0.70 5. Internal EO 0.19 0.29 0.19 0.21

Table 4. Heterotrait-

monotrait ratio

Figure 2. Model 1

Circular supply chain practices

223

firms demonstrate ethical behaviour through their practices, their supply chain members commit to ethical practices through resource exchange and information sharing. This confirms the key assumption of LMXT in the context of a circular supply chain. Our finding is not surprising because it is consistent with prior studies (Feng et al., 2022; Blome et al., 2017; Wang and Feng, 2022; Eide et al., 2020), which find that ethical leadership positively relates to environmental supply chain practices. However, none of the studies focuses on CSC practices and SMEs. Thus this finding establishes SCEL as an antecedent of CSC practices in the context of SMEs.

This study’s results further reveal that CSC practices have a positive effect on CSP. These results are consistent with prior studies (Jabbour et al., 2020; Kamble et al., 2021; Le et al., 2022; Le, 2022), which found a positive relationship between circular economy practices and sustainability performance. On the contrary, our findings are inconsistent with Edwin Cheng et al. (2021), which found an insignificant relationship between CSC practices and CSP. Unlike this study, none of the prior studies tests for a moderator effect of EO between CSC practices and CSP.

The results further reveal that both internal EO and external EO provide significant positive moderating effects between CSC practices and CSP. This proves that the degree to which manufacturing SMEs in Ghana identify the relevance of environmentalism to their operations and their commitment to protecting the natural environment promotes CSC practices to achieve enhanced CSP. This underscores the contingency role of EO in CSC practices to advance CSP. Our finding is similar to the result of Zhang andWalton (2017), who report a positive moderating effect of eco-innovation and EO on business performance. However, the finding does not support the results of Ardito et al. (2021), who report a negative and insignificant moderating effect of digital orientation and EO on innovation performance, and Chavez et al. (2021), who report a negative insignificant moderating effect of EO and external information exchange with suppliers on environmental performance.

Besides, the findings reveal that the interaction effects of external EO and CSC practices generate better CSP than the interactive effect of internal EO and CSC practices on CSP. This finding is similar to Niemann et al. (2022). Still, they studied the interactive effects of organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship and internal and external EO on environmental and financial performances rather than CSC practices on CSP.

Path structure β coefficient S.D T statistics p values Conclusion

H1. SCEL → CSC practices 0.48 0.05 8.78 0.00 Supported CSC practices → CSP 0.42 0.06 7.07 0.00 Supported

Control variables Firm size → CSP 0.11 0.06 1.09 0.77 Not supported Firm age → CSP 0.03 0.07 0.96 0.13 Not supported Financial performance → CSP 0.09 0.05 0.78 0.99 Not supported

Path structure β coefficient Standard deviation T statistics p values Conclusion

H2.CSC practices 3 internal EO → CSP

0.22 0.06 3.70 0.00 Supported

H3. CSC practices 3 external EO → CSP

0.26 0.04 6.03 0.00 Supported

Table 5. Direct effect

Table 6. Moderating effects

JMTM 34,2

224

Finally, our findings confirm the central focus of LMXT and CT. This is because implementing CSC practices across manufacturing supply chains requires focal firms to demonstrate ethical behaviours to influence the behaviour of supply chain members to engage in CSC practices. Thus, a leader-member relationship between a focal firm and its supply chain members can promote CSC practices among SMEs, which is consistent with LMXT. Furthermore, this study’s findings confirm the assumptions of CT in that being aware of internal and external

Figure 3. Model 2

Figure 4. Model 3

Circular supply chain practices

225

stakeholder expectations strengthens SMEs’ efforts toward CSC practice to achieve balanced environmental, social and financial goals.

6. Conclusion and implications This study examines the relationships between SCEL, CSC practices, internal EO, external EO and CSP through the theoretical lenses of LMXT and CT. Using sample data from manufacturing SMEs’ supply chainmanagers, the study’s findings confirm that SCEL drives CSC practices in SMEs. Also, the findings prove that EO interacts with CSC practices to enhance CSP. Further analysis of the findings reveals that SMEswith high external EO create more sustainability benefits than SMEs with high internal EO. Ultimately, this study establishes that SCEL, CSC practices, and EO improve CSP. The findings of this study contribute to theory as well as practice, which has been highlighted in the next subsection.

6.1 Theoretical contribution This study contributes to literature in several ways. First, this study empirically confirms that SCEL has a positive effect on CSC practices. This suggests that ethical behaviour of a focal firm drives the behaviour of its supply chain members to support CSC practices across supply chains of manufacturing SMEs. In so doing, this study highlights the positive role of ethical leadership in practising circularity across supply chains of manufacturing SMEs and establishes SCEL as an antecedent of CSC practices. This finding is crucial because there is paucity of studies in CSCM literature that examine the causal relationship between SCEL and CSC practices despite the growing relevance of ethical leadership in the area of circular economy and supply chain.

Second, this study proposes that EO plays a crucial role in the relationship between CSC practices and CSP in manufacturing SMEs by establishing internal and external EO as moderators of the relationship between CSC practices and CSP. On this basis, this study uses EO to explain inconsistent findings between CSC practices and CSP. Thus, our findings extend CSCM literature by confirming a positive moderating effect of EO between CSC practices and CSP.

Third, by examining EO as a multi-dimensional construct and a moderating variable, this study extends Chavez et al. (2021), which examines EO as a moderating effect between external environmental information exchange with suppliers and customers. Still, it was operationalised as a single construct. Though our findings reveal that EO moderates the relationship between CSC practices and CSP, internal EO and external EO provide varying moderating effects on the relationship between CSC practices and CSP. This study proposes that environmental expectations of internal and external stakeholders provide different moderating effects on the relationship between CSC practices and CSP.

Finally, our study contributes to theory advancement in CSCM through a novel combination of LMXT and CT to explore the relationship between SCEL, EO, CSC practices and CSP. Taken individually, the positive relationship between SCEL and CSC practices through the lens of LMXT extends the relevance of LMXT to CSCM domain since its use in supply chainmanagement literature is scarce (Shin and Park, 2021). However, as a full model, this study extends LMXT through the lens of CT to reveal EO as a contingent factor to influence CSC practices to enhance CSP.

6.2 Managerial implication This study’s findings offer some implications for practice. First, this study provides strong evidence that adopting an ethical style of leadership promotes CSC practices among

JMTM 34,2

226

manufacturing SMEs. This confirms the positive impact of SCEL on CSC practices. This finding implies that managers of manufacturing SMEs in Ghana should build solid ethical leadership to promote CSC practices with their supply chain partners. This will help influence the behaviour of their supply chain partners to collaborate and support CSC initiatives since manufacturing SMEs in Ghana are limited in financial resources and capabilities to successfully implement CSC practices.

Second, the results also suggest that CSC practices enhance CSP. This proves that CSC practices contribute to achieving environmental, social and financial goals. This finding informs managers of manufacturing SMEs to integrate circular initiatives into product design, manufacturing processes and sourcing to prevent environmental pollution, ensure societal safety and enhance profitability. Thus, this study suggests that managers of manufacturing SMEs should pay critical attention to CSC practices to become sustainable.

Third, this study’s findings further prove that despite the positive impact of CSC practices on CSP, EO positively moderates the relationship between CSC practices and CSP. This highlights the essential role EO plays in the relationship between CSC practices and CSP. Managers of manufacturing SMEs in Ghana should understand environmental expectations of internal and external stakeholders to adopt the right circular economy initiatives to achieve sustainability. Although the findings confirm that internal EO and external EO strengthen the impact of CSC practices on CSP, they manifest different strengths of interactive effects. The results indicate that external EOprovides a stronger interactive effect on the relationship between CSC practices and CSP. Managers of manufacturing SMEs should rather prioritize addressing environmental issues from external stakeholders. In the end, the results demonstrate that manufacturing SMEs in Ghana that builds solid ethical and leadership behaviour, implement CSC practices and have high EO achieve better social, environmental and financial goals.

6.3 Limitations of the study This study comeswith some limitations. First, this study explores the direct effect of SCEL on CSC practices, without exploring any contingent factors that may affect this relation. Future studies may consider exploring other factors such as employee training, knowledge sharing and innovation capability that may affect this relationship through a moderation approach. This study employs the cross-sectional approach to data gathering. Future studiesmay adopt a longitudinal approach.

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.

Afum, E., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Baah, C., Agyapong, G.K., Armas, J.A.L. and Al Farooque, O. (2022a), “Prioritizing zero-waste performance and green differentiation advantage through the Prism of circular principles adoption: a mediated approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 361, 132182.

Afum, E., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Baah, C., Asamoah, G. and Kusi, L.Y. (2022b), “Eco-market orientation in the logistics industry: a conveyor belt for achieving organizational outcomes via green logistics practices”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 712-734.

Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Afum, E., Baah, C. and Essel, D. (2022a), “Exploring the role of external pressure, environmental sustainability commitment, engagement, alliance and circular supply chain capability in circular economy performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 52 Nos 5/6, pp. 431-455.

Circular supply chain practices

227

Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Baah, C. and Afum, E. (2022b), “Do the roles of green supply chain learning, green employee creativity, and green organizational citizenship behavior really matter in circular supply chain performance?”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, pp. 1-23.

Agyabeng-Mensah, Y. and Tang, L. (2021), “The relationship among green human capital, green logistics practices, green competitiveness, social performance and financial performance”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 1377-1398.

Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Ahenkorah, E., Afum, E., Nana Agyemang, A., Agnikpe, C. and Rogers, F. (2020), “Examining the influence of internal green supply chain practices, green human resource management and supply chain environmental cooperation on firm performance”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 585-599.

Ahi, P. and Searcy, C. (2013), “A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 52, pp. 329-341.

Akhtar, P., Kaur, S. and Punjaisri, K. (2017), “Chain coordinators’ strategic leadership and coordination effectiveness: New Zealand-Euro agri-food supply chains”, European Business Review, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 515-533.

Ardito, L., Raby, S., Albino, V. and Bertoldi, B. (2021), “The duality of digital and environmental orientations in the context of SMEs: implications for innovation performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 123, pp. 44-56.

Baah, C., Afum, E., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Dacosta, E., Opoku-Agyeman, D. and Nyame, C. (2022), “Environmental orientation, relational capital and SMEs performance: do religious, cultural and mimetic orientations matter in a sub-Saharan African economy?”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.

Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S. and Kashyap, R.K. (2003), “Corporate environmentalism: antecedents and influence of industry type”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 106-122.

Bassi, F. and Dias, J.G. (2020), “Sustainable development of small-and medium-sized enterprises in the European Union: a taxonomy of circular economy practices”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2528-2541.

Bendjenna, H., Charre, P. and Eddine Zarour, N. (2012), “Using multi-criteria analysis to prioritize stakeholders”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 264-280.

Bjørnbet, M.M., Skaar, C., Fet, A.M. and Schulte, K.Ø. (2021), “Circular economy in manufacturing companies: a review of case study literature”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 294, 126268.

Blome, C., Foerstl, K. and Schleper, M.C. (2017), “Antecedents of green supplier championing and greenwashing: an empirical study on leadership and ethical incentives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 152, pp. 339-350.

Burawat, P. (2019), “The relationships among transformational leadership, sustainable leadership, lean manufacturing and sustainability performance in Thai SMEs manufacturing industry”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1014-1036.

Carter, C.R., Hatton, M.R., Wu, C. and Chen, X. (2020), “Sustainable supply chain management: continuing evolution and future directions”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 122-146.

Chan, R.Y. and Ma, K.H. (2021), “How and when environmental orientation drives corporate sustainable development in a cross-national buyer–supplier dyad”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 109-121.

Chan, R.Y., He, H., Chan, H.K. and Wang, W.Y. (2012), “Environmental orientation and corporate performance: the mediation mechanism of green supply chain management and moderating effect of competitive intensity”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 621-630.

JMTM 34,2

228

Chavez, R., Malik, M., Ghaderi, H. and Yu, W. (2021), “Environmental orientation, external environmental information exchange and environmental performance: examining mediation and moderation effects”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 240, 108222.

Cheffi, W., Zahir-ul-Hassan, M.K., Farooq, M.O., Baqrain, A. and Mansour, M.M.H. (2023), “Ethical leadership, management control systems and circular economy in SMEs in an emerging economy, the UAE”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 156, 113513.

Chen, Y. and Chen, I.J. (2019), “Mixed sustainability motives, mixed results: the role of compliance and commitment in sustainable supply chain practices”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 622-636.

De Angelis, R. (2022), “Circular economy business models as resilient complex adaptive systems”, Business Strategy and the Environment.

de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Ndubisi, N.O. and Seles, B.M.R.P. (2020), “Sustainable development in Asian manufacturing SMEs: progress and directions”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 225, 107567.

Del Giudice, M., Chierici, R., Mazzucchelli, A. and Fiano, F. (2020), “Supply chain management in the era of circular economy: the moderating effect of big data”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 337-356.

Dey, P.K., Malesios, C., De, D., Budhwar, P., Chowdhury, S. and Cheffi, W. (2020), “Circular economy to enhance sustainability of small and medium-sized enterprises”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2145-2169.

Dickel, P., H€orisch, J. and Ritter, T. (2018), “Networking for the environment: the impact of environmental orientation on start-ups’ networking frequency and network size”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 179, pp. 308-316.

Dillman, D.A. (2007), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed., 2007 update, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Donkor, F., Papadopoulos, T. and Spiegler, V. (2021), “The supply chain integration–Supply chain sustainability relationship in the UK and Ghana pharmaceutical industry: a stakeholder and contingency perspective”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 155, 102477.

Edwin Cheng, T.C., Kamble, S.S., Belhadi, A., Ndubisi, N.O., Lai, K.H. and Kharat, M.G. (2021), “Linkages between big data analytics, circular economy, sustainable supply chain flexibility, and sustainable performance in manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Production Research, pp. 1-15.

Eide, A.E., Saether, E.A. and Aspelund, A. (2020), “An investigation of leaders’ motivation, intellectual leadership, and sustainability strategy in relation to Norwegian manufacturers’ performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 254, 120053.

Elkington, J. (1997), “The triple bottom line”, Environmental Management: Readings and Cases, Vol. 2, pp. 49-66.

Eriksson, T., Bigi, A. and Bonera, M. (2020), “Think with me, or think for me? On the future role of artificial intelligence in marketing strategy formulation”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 795-814.

Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Liu, Y. and Hartley, J.L. (2022), “Circular supply chain management: performance outcomes and the role of eco-industrial parks in China”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 157, 102596.

Feng, T., Li, Z., Shi, H. and Jiang, W. (2022), “Translating leader sustainability orientation into green supply chain integration: a missing link of green entrepreneurial orientation”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.

Franke, G. and Sarstedt, M. (2019), “Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a comparison of four procedures”, Internet Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 430-447.

Circular supply chain practices

229

Gabler, C.B., Richey, R.G. Jr. and Rapp, A. (2015), “Developing an eco-capability through environmental orientation and organizational innovativeness”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 45, pp. 151-161.

Genovese, A., Acquaye, A.A., Figueroa, A. and Koh, S.L. (2017), “Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: evidence and some applications”, Omega, Vol. 66, pp. 344-357.

Goodwin, V.L., Bowler, W.M. and Whittington, J.L. (2009), “A social network perspective on LMX relationships: accounting for the instrumental value of leader and follower networks”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 954-980.

Gosling, J., Jia, F., Gong, Y. and Brown, S. (2016), “The role of supply chain leadership in the learning of sustainable practice: toward an integrated framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 137, pp. 1458-1469.

Govindan, K. and Hasanagic, M. (2018), “A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 Nos 1-2, pp. 278-311.

Gupta, S., Chen, H., Hazen, B.T., Kaur, S. and Gonzalez, E.D.S. (2019), “Circular economy and big data analytics: a stakeholder perspective”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 144, pp. 466-474.

Henseler, J. (2018), “Partial least squares path modelling: Quo vadis?”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-8.

Hussain, M. and Malik, M. (2020), “Organizational enablers for circular economy in the context of sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 256, 120375.

Ilyas, S., Abid, G. and Ashfaq, F. (2020), “Ethical leadership in sustainable organizations: the moderating role of general self-efficacy and the mediating role of organizational trust”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 22, pp. 195-204.

Jabbour, C.J.C., Seuring, S., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Jugend, D., Fiorini, P.D.C., Latan, H. and Izeppi, W.C. (2020), “Stakeholders, innovative business models for the circular economy and sustainable performance of firms in an emerging economy facing institutional voids”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 264, 110416.

Jahed, M.A., Quaddus, M., Suresh, N.C., Salam, M.A. and Khan, E.A. (2022), “Direct and indirect influences of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage in fast fashion manufacturing industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 598-617.

Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.

Jia, F., Gong, Y. and Brown, S. (2019), “Multi-tier sustainable supply chain management: the role of supply chain leadership”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 217, pp. 44-63.

Kamble, S.S., Belhadi, A., Gunasekaran, A., Ganapathy, L. and Verma, S. (2021), “A large multi-group decision-making technique for prioritizing the big data-driven circular economy practices in the automobile component manufacturing industry”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 165, 120567.

Kang, Y. and He, X. (2018), “Institutional forces and environmental management strategy: moderating effects of environmental orientation and innovation capability”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 577-605.

Kazancoglu, Y., Ozbiltekin Pala, M., Sezer, M.D., Luthra, S. and Kumar, A. (2021), “Drivers of implementing Big Data Analytics in food supply chains for transition to a circular economy and sustainable operations management”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-12-2020-0521.

Keszey, T. (2020), “Environmental orientation, sustainable behaviour at the firm-market interface and performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 243, 118524.

JMTM 34,2

230

Khan, E.A., Chowdhury, M.M.H., Hossain, M.A., Mahmud, A.S., Baabdullah, A.M. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2022), “Performance of small firms in a circular economy: configuring challenges and entrepreneurial orientation”, Management Decision, ahead-of-print.

Kitsis, A.M. and Chen, I.J. (2020), “Do motives matter? Examining the relationships between motives, SSCM practices and TBL performance”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 325-341.

Kline, R.B. (2011), “Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling”.

Kock, N. (2017), “Common method bias: a full collinearity assessment method for PLS-SEM”, Partial Least Squares Path Modeling, Springer, Cham, pp. 245-257.

Kurucz, E.C., Colbert, B.A., Luedeke-Freund, F., Upward, A. and Willard, B. (2017), “Relational leadership for strategic sustainability: practices and capabilities to advance the design and assessment of sustainable business models”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 189-204.

Lahane, S. and Kant, R. (2021), “Evaluation and ranking of solutions to mitigate circular supply chain risks”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 27, pp. 753-773.

Lahane, S., Kant, R. and Shankar, R. (2020), “Circular supply chain management: a state-of-art review and future opportunities”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 258, 120859.

Latan, H., Noonan, R. and Matthews, L. (2017), “Partial least squares path modeling”, Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Basic Concepts, Methodological Issues and Applications.

Le, T.T. (2022), “How humane entrepreneurship fosters sustainable supply chain management for a circular economy moving towards sustainable corporate performance”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 133178.

Le, T.T., Behl, A. and Pereira, V. (2022), “Establishing linkages between circular economy practices and sustainable performance: the moderating role of circular economy entrepreneurship”, Management Decision, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/MD-02-2022-0150.

Lessidrenska, T. (2019), “SMEs and SDGs: challenges and opportunities”, OECD Development Matters, (accessed 10 November 2019).

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.

Mastos, T.D., Nizamis, A., Terzi, S., Gkortzis, D., Papadopoulos, A., Tsagkalidis, N.,and Tzovaras, D. (2021), “Introducing an application of an industry 4.0 solution for circular supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 300, 126886.

Mokhtar, A.R.M., Genovese, A., Brint, A. and Kumar, N. (2019), “Supply chain leadership: a systematic literature review and a research agenda”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 216, pp. 255-273.

Nguyen, N.T.T., Nguyen, N.P. and Hoai, T.T. (2021), “Ethical leadership, corporate social responsibility, firm reputation, and firm performance: a serial mediation model”, Heliyon, Vol. 7 No. 4, e06809.

Niemann, C.C., Mai, R. and Dickel, P. (2022), “Nurture or nature? How organizational and individual factors drive corporate entrepreneurial projects”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 140, pp. 155-169.

Ogaga, I.A., Ezenwakwelu, C.A., Isichei, E.E. and Olabosinde, T.S. (2023), “Ethical leadership and sustainability of agro-allied firms: moderating role of environmental dynamism”, International Journal of Ethics and Systems, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 36-53.

Ojha, D., Acharya, C. and Cooper, D. (2018), “Transformational leadership and supply chain ambidexterity: mediating role of supply chain organizational learning and moderating role of uncertainty”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 197, pp. 215-231.

Circular supply chain practices

231

Paulraj, A., Chen, I.J. and Blome, C. (2017), “Motives and performance outcomes of sustainable supply chain management practices: a multi-theoretical perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 2, pp. 239-258.

Peng, X.R. and Wei, J. (2015), “Stakeholders’ environmental orientation and eco-innovation: the moderating role of top managers’ environmental awareness”, Studies in Science of Science, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1109-1120.

Quaye, D. and Mensah, I. (2019), “Marketing innovation and sustainable competitive advantage of manufacturing SMEs in Ghana”,Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 1535-1553.

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.

Saha, R., Cerchione, R., Singh, R. and Dahiya, R. (2020), “Effect of ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility on firm performance: a systematic review”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 409-429.

Salvador, R.O. and Burciaga, A. (2020), “Organizational environmental orientation and employee environmental in-role behaviors: a cross-level study”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 98-113.

Shang, H., Chen, R. and Li, Z. (2020), “Dynamic sustainability capabilities and corporate sustainability performance: the mediating effect of resource management capabilities”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 595-612.

Shin, N. and Park, S. (2021), “Supply chain leadership driven strategic resilience capabilities management: a leader-member exchange perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 122, pp. 1-13.

Wang, J. and Feng, T. (2022), “Supply chain ethical leadership and green supply chain integration: a moderated mediation analysis”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, pp. 1-27.

Wang, G., Feng, T., Zhu, Z. and Jiang, Y. (2022), “Enabling green supply chain integration via green entrepreneurial orientation: does environmental leadership matter?”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.

Witjes, S. and Lozano, R. (2016), “Towards a more Circular Economy: proposing a framework linking sustainable public procurement and sustainable business models”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 112, pp. 37-44.

Yadav, G., Luthra, S., Jakhar, S.K., Mangla, S.K. and Rai, D.P. (2020), “A framework to overcome sustainable supply chain challenges through solution measures of industry 4.0 and circular economy: an automotive case”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 254, 120112.

Yasir, M., Majid, A. and Qudratullah, H. (2020), “Promoting environmental performance in manufacturing industry of developing countries through environmental orientation and green business strategies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 275, 123003.

Yu, Y. and Huo, B. (2019), “The impact of environmental orientation on supplier green management and financial performance: the moderating role of relational capital”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 211, pp. 628-639.

Zaid, A.A., Jaaron, A.A. and Bon, A.T. (2018), “The impact of green human resource management and green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: an empirical study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 204, pp. 965-979.

Zhang, X.E. and Teng, X. (2022), “Effects of environmental orientation on agricultural enterprises’ performance: mediation and moderation analyses”, Asian Business and Management, pp. 1-23.

Zhang, J.A. and Walton, S. (2017), “Eco-innovation and business performance: the moderating effects of environmental orientation and resource commitment in green-oriented SMEs”, R&D Management, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. E26-E39.

JMTM 34,2

232

Zhou, C., Xia, W., Feng, T., Jiang, J. and He, Q. (2020), “How environmental orientation influences firm performance: the missing link of green supply chain integration”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 685-696.

Zhu, B., Nguyen, M., Siri, N.S. and Malik, A. (2022), “Towards a transformative model of circular economy for SMEs”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 144, pp. 545-555.

Corresponding author Yaw Agyabeng-Mensah 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]

Circular supply chain practices

233

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.