RPA in supply chain management

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

23

Table 5: Barriers in current literature, showing the gap1

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

24

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

25

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

26

Apart from these spelt out obstacles, Mollenkopf et al (2009) identify barriers to both

compound subjects, Green & Global Supply Chain and Green & Lean Supply Chain. The

first one recognises Resistant suppliers, Newness of the concept of GSCM, Data and metrics

not available and Risk of losing Suppliers and the second one sees barriers as Unawareness of

environmental risks, Common belief that green practices do not pay and limit

competitiveness and Cost (practices are expensive to set up). The impediments’  grounds  are

global.

Given the diversity of the current literature, two frameworks have been chosen to further

discussion. It can be seen that in the current literature, the models Walker et al (2008) and

Luthra et al (2011) are the closest to the research aim because are more focused to the topic.

The first one is an empirical model providing general propositions whereas the second one,

although in only one industry, is a theoretical model that considers a myriad of organisations,

which is seen as potentially promising. Both are to ease understanding of the barriers to

implementing GSCMP in organisations.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

27

2.3.1 Empirical Model of Walker et al (2008)

Figure 2: Barriers (Internal and External) to implementing GSCMP1

Source: Walker et al (2008)

This model is based on a multiple case study, from which five barriers to implementing

GSCMP have been identified. As a result of the interviews and analysis, the barriers are

categorised into two internal and three external to the organisation, whereas the first ones

comprehend cost and lack of legitimacy and the latter are regulation, poor supplier

commitment and industry specific barriers.

The seven participant organisations are large, corresponding to the private and the public

sectors operating in the UK. The methodology used is based on an explorative study which

was conducted through semi-structured interviews to explore drivers and barriers to GSCMP.

The interviews were approached through consultation with two experts in environmental

SCM, who facilitated the access to information to these companies by having existing

connections. Company names were anonymised to secure open responses. Participants were

Regulations

Industry specific barriers

Lack of Legitimacy

Costs

Poor supplier

commitment

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

28

given the meaning of GSCM and examples of practices related before the questionnaires took

place.

Apart from barriers, it is noteworthy that this model refers to drivers to implement GSCMP

too; however this dissertation will consider only the part regarding barriers, which are pointed

out as follows:

Internal barriers Costs: Walker et al (2008) claim that costs is the most serious impediment in organisations to implement environmentally friendly SCM practices, specifically in the purchase process.

Lack of legitimacy: As regards lack of legitimacy, it is about a much unimpassioned view about environmental issues from managers creating a green facade while practices are not

firmly implemented. Organisations overcoming this barrier have had to increase stakeholder

commitment (Walker et al, 2008).

External barriers Regulations: Concerning external barriers, the European law was founded as almost a threatening regulation because it prescribes that contracts above a certain level be advertised

in the Official Journal of the European Union. This discussion shows only European

regulation because participant organisations belong to this continent.

Poor supplier commitment: It was found also that the existent barrier of poor supplier commitment is raised by the lack of information, confidentiality concerns or fear of poor

environmental performance exposure factors. In accordance to this statement, Liu Y. et al

(2012) affirm that parts in the SC need to collaborate to a large degree so as to leverage each

other’s  capabilities  and   resources  for  achieving   mutual  goals.  Doing so will be of help to

reduce the uncertainty that arises from implementing the GSCM activities and guide the

functioning of the system (Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. & Lai (2010).

Industry specific barriers: The last inhibitor states that barriers to GSCM can be delimited to a specific industry; for instance  in  the  case  of  the  health  care  sector,  doctors’  preferred  

choice of products for treating patients, with environmental issues being of lower

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

29

importance. Other factors influence to certain sectors like oligopoly and a vast number of

small suppliers, which hinders effective communication.

While contrasting whether more internal or external barriers are experienced by

organisations, the final conclusions mention that there is merger between both categories; this

rules out disproportion. Conclusions mention from a positive point of view, that the existence

of internal barriers suggests that solutions to overcome them are in control of organisations

themselves.

Also, it is further mentioned that findings of the model are not relevant for Small and

Medium organisations. Among other limitations are from one hand, that organisations which

are not seeking to implement any GSCM practice were not polled, therefore barriers

encountered do not correspond to them effectively. From the other hand, Public Relations

(PR) pressure might have affected the honesty from respondents.

Uniformly to the ample majority of research studies in the field of GSCM, the empirical

model used in this dissertation is based in large organisations as mentioned earlier (Walker et

al, 2008). Therefore, it suggests that further work should be conducted to understand the role

that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) play in this terrain. Moreover, note that this model

draws conclusions from organisations operating in a developed country, a fact that invites to

further research in non-developed countries.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

30

2.3.2 Theoretical Model of Luthra et al (2011) Figure 3: Barriers to implementing GSCMP (in automobile industry).1

Source: Luthra et al (2011)

This model developed by Luthra et al (2011) lies in the automobile industry particularly in

India, where motor organisations are settling up manufacturing plants while GSCM

requirement increases. Eleven obstacles to implementing GSCM are identified (Figure 3), as

well as the contextual relationship among them. Thereon, five of them have been classified as

dependent (D), three of them as driver (I) and three as linkage variables (L), as shown in the

• Lack of IT implementation

1

• Resistance to Technology

Advancement Adoption

2

• Lack of Organisation

Encouragement

3

• Poor Quality of Human

Resources

4

• Market Competition and

Uncertainty

5

• Lack of Government

Support systems

6

• Lack of Implementing

Green Practices

7

• Lack of Top Management Commitment

8

• Cost implications

9

• Supplier Reluctance to

change towards GSCM

10

• Unawareness of customers

11

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

31

Figure 3. From one hand, barriers are identified from literature   and   expert’s   opinions,

whereas relationship type analysis -based on dependence and driving power, was carried out

with the help of MICMAC analysis and Interpretative Structural Modeling (ISM) technique.

These are short descriptions of each barrier in the Indian automobile industry, according to

Luthra et al (2011):

1. Lack of IT implementation: Information and Technology systems are important to support environmental friendly product design, recovery and usage, etc. E.g. tracking

and tracing return of products, linking with previous sales. Overall, not implementing

IT systems can hinder GSCMP application.

2. Lack of top Management Commitment: Absence of top management commitment equals to unsuccessful implementation of GSCMP because managers have the ability

to influence and support actual the formation and execution in the strategic and

operational level.

3. Lack of Government Support systems: Government regulation can discourage environmental Supply chain (SC) practices through time-consuming regulatory

requirements, fees and levies. In general, limited support is given for new ideas to

implement GSCMP.

4. Poor Quality of Human Resources: This is a barrier because in this scenario new ideas cannot be given, new technologies cannot be learnt or used to solve a problem

and knowledge cannot be shared effectively. 5. Resistance to Technology Advancement Adoption: In the case where there is this

barrier, which means resistance to change, GSCM has no place since this is a nascent

tool.

6. Lack of Organisation Encouragement: Managers may fail to encourage employees to learn and adopt green practices through recognition or rewards for instance.

7. Lack of Implementing Green Practices: Organisations which do not implement GSCMP are not likely to employ efficient GSCMP at all in the Indian automobile

industry.

8. Market Competition and Uncertainty: This impediment is relevant due to global competitiveness and customer requirements instability and change.

9. Cost implications: The initial investment to implement GSCMP is too high in the Indian automobile industry because it may involve IT enablement, technology

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

32

advancement adoption, hiring good quality of employees and motivating and training

of employees towards GSCM.

10. Supplier Reluctance to change towards GSCM: Manufacturers cannot produce green products unless they work together with suppliers, which need to meet

requirements of buyers to maintain business relationship.

11. Unawareness of customers: This is an important impediment because normally customer demands of green products represent the most crucial external pressure. This

is not the case of India, since costumers do not appreciate the benefits of greenness;

therefore, automobile producers are not concerned.

Interestingly, the following are determined as the most relevant barriers:

 Cost implications

 Unawareness of customers

 Market competition and Uncertainty

 Lack of Implementing Green Practices

Thus, the model concludes that removal of the above barriers would help in implementing

GSCMP in Indian automobile industry.

As  said  earlier,  this  model  is  based  on  literature  and  expert’s  opinions,  which  brings  to  the  

most eminent weakness, this framework is hypothetical. Therefore, it is pending to be tested

in real organisations, a task suggested by the authors. The outcome might be different in

terms of what the barriers and their relationship are. Moreover, Luthra et al (2011) suggest

that the technique used to test the model could be Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Also,

it is said that future research should be done in the light of another country and industry.

2.4 The model choice

Although the two above discussed models have the potential to guide this research, both

present downsides. With respect to the empirical model, it is inferred that the respectable

conclusions are likely to fit or valid to organisations operating in developed countries such as

the USA and the UK, given that its theoretical review and empirical research are based on

those counties. Because of this, it is felt that propositions are too general to fit the particular

case of developing nations. In other words, the model might not be applicable in

organisations operating in developing countries, which presumably present different

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

33

conditions. With regard to the theoretical model, although conclusions are drawn based in a

developing country, there are no grounds that they can be extended to developing countries.

What is more, conclusions are too specific to a certain industry.

After mentioning the weaknesses of these models, the advantages come into consideration in

order to select the proper one. It was concluded that the Walter et al (2011) model excels

because it has more and most significant advantages, which are mentioned in the following

resume table.

Table 6: Comparison of the two main models1

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

34

2.5 Linking the barriers to the Accountability in Developing countries

Once mentioned the model to follow through the barriers exploration and before concluding

the literature review, deep awareness of focusing on developing countries is necessary.

Economic growth disparity

Most authors measure the well-being of the world based on the Gross Domestic Product

index (Bollino and Pollinori, 2011). By considering only this index nowadays, it could be

said that overall the well-being  has  been  increasing  since  the  late  90’s  with  the  exception  of  

2008 and 2009 which represented a dramatic fall (IMF, 2012) in the trend. Nevertheless,

there is currently a debate that involves the inequity of this economic growth along with its

resulting carbon emissions across advanced and developing economies. It consists on the

accountability as regards tackling the climate change (Bollino and Polinori, 2011). The

phenomenon is that companies are producing services and products in a great volume and

speed, damaging the environment as a result (The Corporation, 2005 & Tsireme, 2012). The

problem is larger and less controllable when inevitably different companies interrelate

themselves such as manufacturers, warehouses, shipping companies, service suppliers and

other participants in the SC of a given service or product (Sarkis, Zhu and Lai, 2010).

Nowadays this is a worldwide problem affecting every country regardless its particular level

of economic growth (Bollino and Polinri, 2011).

Having mentioned the inequity as regards economic growth, an example is illustrated below.

The chart shows the disparity between the USA advanced economy and the Mexican

developing economy. It can be observed that the latter yields roughly almost one third of the

GDP of the first one. See appendix 1 to grasp the world GDP disparity in annual percentage

change from 1994 to date and projections.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

35

Source: International Monetary Fund, IMF (2012)

To further understand the inequality, this other chart is a bit more comprehensive example

because  it  involves  other  two  extremely  different  rates  of  economy’s  growth.  According  to  

the IMF (2012), Ethiopia economic growth is approximately 2% of the British growth,

whereas it is the 1.5% of the USA economy. It is noteworthy that each of these four countries

presents similar curve shapes. This demonstrates the economic dependency among countries

regardless the level of economy.

Source: International Monetary Fund, IMF (2012)

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

36

Relating Economic growth and Environmental Damage

It is interesting to contrast the above economic growth data with the Greenhouse Gas

Emissions, which is one of the most important indexes for the United Nations to measure the

environmental damage (2011). In line with the last example graph and according to the data

corresponding to the latest year available from the United Nations Statistics Division, United

States produces 22.22, UK 10.32, Mexico 5.42 and Ethiopia 0.84 of GHGE per capita. The

interpretation is that the four countries can be ranged in the same order when considering

both Indexes. Thus, it can be concluded that the more economic growth, the more harm is

made to the environment. In other words, economic growth and environmental damage are

directly related.

Even though the charts above show overall a rapid increasing economy growth since 1980,

the current forecasts of the IMF (2012) to 2015 indicate that the gradual economic recovery is

being weak but will likely resume in the major advanced economies. According to Blanchard

(2012), persistent increasing trend will remain relatively solid in most emerging and

developing countries.

Summarising Despite advanced and developing countries pollute the world in different rates individually, it

is a fact that all of them contribute to the environmental damage. Individually, every

developing country pollutes a lot less than the developed countries; however, the large

number of the first ones (around 150 according to the WTO or two thirds of this organisation)

makes that altogether imperil the environment seriously (EPA, 2012). It is relevant to

mention that John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of

Global Change, said during an interview in November 2011 that developed countries

produced about 60 percent of the world's greenhouse gases in 1990 and now are responsible

for less than 50 percent. In this line, the SGM Energy Modelling Forum EFM-21 provides a

projection of future greenhouse gas emissions from the developing world are expected to

exceed those from the developed world by 2015. Therefore, the justification for reaction is

imperative. "We really need to get the developing world because if we don't, the problem is

going  to  be  running  away  from  us”  “...And  the  problem  is  pretty  close  from  running  away  

from us.", claims Andrew Weaver, scientist of the University of Victoria climate. The latter

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

37

statements urge to answer the research questions as to be able to react in developing countries

strategically in respect to the SC field. A good start is by exploring the barriers in

organisations operating in these types of nations.

2.6 Conclusions of the Literature Review

The discussion in this literature is based on whether the notion of the barriers to

implementing GSCM in organisations operating in developing countries can be a fixed

description or whether it is an ongoing and intricate concept that cannot be firmly defined and

understood. The assumption being made is that the existing universal understanding of the

barriers to GSCMP is not applicable worldwide equally i.e. between developed and

developing countries. Specifically, the current academic research fails to identify and

discuss the barriers that hinder the implementation of environmental SCM in organisations operating in the developing nations. The Walker et al (2008) model has been chosen to guide this study in seeking to answer the research questions. The context to

evaluate it is in organisations operating in developing nations, which accountability has been

grounded.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

38

3. Methodology

This chapter aims to explore the methodologies available and justify the methodology chosen

to answer the research questions. Since the research involves an empirical investigation of a

contemporary topic using multiple roots of information, it was felt that the most appropriate

method was a multiple case study design. In this line, the data collection method used was

semi-structured interviews, documentation and archival research throughout the supply

chains.

3.1 Introduction

In order to understand the barriers to implementing GSCMP in organisations operating in

developing countries, the research aims to discuss and analyse the framework early addressed

in a different context. The framework chosen identifies the barriers to GSCM, classifies them

in internal or external and moreover, states which of these is the most severe. The focus is on

answering the already stated research questions:

• What are the barriers to implementing green supply chain management

practices in organisations operating in developing countries?

• What is the most significant barrier to implementing green supply chain

management practices in organisations operating in developing countries?

• How these barriers are similar or different to those operating in developed

countries?

Consequently, this chapter comprehends the following sections:

 Research Approach

 Research Philosophy or Paradigm Identification

 Methodologies Available

 Methodology chosen

 Data Collection Methods

 Research Design

 Data Analysis

 Limitations of the Research Design

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

39

3.2 Research approach

Deciding what approach to take is the first step within the Methodology, playing an important

role when designing the research project. Normally there are two types of approaches,

deductive and inductive (Saunders et al, 2012):

 Deductive research is an approach in which a conceptual and theoretical structure is developed and then tested by empirical observation; thus, particular instances are

deducted from general  inferences” (Collis and Hussey, 2009:8). That is, there is an

existent theory to test and evaluate from general to particular in a very punctual

manner through a series of premises (Horn, 2009, Collis and Hussey, 2009 and

Saunders et al, 2012).

 Inductive research in contrast, generates general conclusions from particular occurrences. Therefore, theory is developed from observation of empirical actuality

(Collis and Hussey, 2009). Also, it enables a cause-effect linkage between particular

variables involving interpretation of the human being about their social world

(Saunders et al, 2012). Thus, it can be seen that its methodology would not be as rigid

as in a deductive research.

To grasp better, when the research aim is to understand why something is happening it is

more suitable to approach inductively; oppositely, when the aim is to understand what is

happening it is more appropriate the deductive position (Saunders et al, 2012).

Having mentioned the latter philosophical positions, it is relevant to bring attention to an

alternative approach called abduction. According to Saunders et al (2012), this is an advantageous combination of the two main approaches to which many management

researchers are inclined nowadays. As a matter of fact, this author points out that the third

procedure may be biased primarily to either of the two main approaches, depending on the

nature of the research topic and the pretention of the research.

Given the nature of the present research topic, it was taken advantage of the benefits of

abduction. The present research was undertaken from an abducted point of view, essentially

inclined to deductive research due to the fact that there is a stated general theory that lends

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

40

itself to define a theoretical framework and premises. For this research, an inductive approach

is not appropriate because too much debate is not necessary, as well as it is detached from

human being interpretations. Besides that, abduction yields to a more flexible evaluation of

theory than in a pure deductive approach. Moreover, it was felt to bring up the existent

model identified in the literature review to a specific context, one which occurs in organisations operating in developing countries; therefore, modification of existing theory was possible. It is recognisable the risk of taking the abduction approach, since there was the

possibility that no useful data patterns and theory could have come forth (Saunders et al,

2012).

3.3 Research Philosophy or Paradigm identification

According to Collis and Hussey (2009), a research paradigm is a philosophical framework

that instructs the manner in which a scientific research may to be conducted. First of all, it is

relevant   to   acknowledge   the   three   types   of   a   researcher’s   view,   and   therefore   the   four  

research philosophies in business and management research according to Saunders et al

(2012). To this effect, the table 5 is presented:

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

41

Table 7: Research philosophies comparison1

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

42

Basically, Saunders et al (2012) refer to Pragmatism as the ideology where one position might be more appropriate than another for answering a particular question or testing a

hypothesis. That is, there are a number of ways of interpreting the actuality especially when

the research question is ambiguous. In regards to the positivism position (a branch of epistemology), it observes reality with the interest of searching regularities and causal

relationships and therefore, to create scientific statements. This coincides with Collis and

Hussey’s  (2009)   view, highlighting that the aim is to discover theories based on empirical

research.  “Under  positivism,  theories  provide  basis  of  explanation,  permit  the  anticipation  of  

phenomena,  predict  their  occurrence  and  therefore  allow  them  to  be  controlled”  (Collis  and  

Hussey, 2009:56). Realism disconnects human beliefs and objects (Sanders et al, 2012), but unlike the latter philosophy, it is inclusive of values (Fisher, 2007). Lastly, Interpretivism gives importance to the difference between humans as social actors, based on the varied

interpretations of their own roles (Saunders et al, 2012).

Given the particularity of the propositions, the most appropriate paradigm in this dissertation

is the positivism because the present research is concerned with facts rather than feelings or

intuitions; this means that the philosophy is not underpinned by values. However, it is

recognisable  that  during  the  interview  the  “feelings”  researcher  affects  the  questions  to  ask  

and   interpreting   the   respondents’   comments.   Moreover,   the   focus   is on causality and

regularities, reducing phenomena to simplest factors or barriers (Saunders et al, 2012). In

other words, the research is supported by the belief that there are difficulties when applying

GSCMP in organisations operating in developing countries (the phenomenon). As a

consequence, uncertain causes to this observed fact were determined.

3.4 Methodologies available

In order to make an informed decision of strategy or strategies to be used, it is needed to be

aware of the spectrum of manners which lead in answering the research questions (Saunders

et al, 2012). These authors also point out 8 methodologies or strategies:

 Experiment, a strategy based on the natural science mostly and often inclusive of psychological and social sciences (Saunders et al, 2012), is used to investigate the

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

43

relationship between both, independent and dependent variables, manipulating the

former one (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

 Survey is a methodology with the objective of gathering data both primary and/or secondary data from a sample with the interest of counting and describing a

population (Collis & Hussey and Sapsford, 2007). Additionally, these data can be

used to suggest causality between variables and therefore create models (Saunders

et al, 2012).

 Ethnography is actually a term that comes from cultural anthropology, which describes a culture and understand the way of life from the point of view of its

members (Punch, 2006). Overall, it is devoted to precisely understand human

activity (Collis and Hussey, 2009).

 Action Research is basically a rich methodology with the purpose of solving current organisational problems collectively by using different kinds of

knowledge (Saunders et al, 2012). In other words, it associates doing and

researching altogether (Punch, 2009).

 Grounded Theory can be understood as both, a way for research while a form of analyzing data (Punch, 2009). This can be done by simultaneously collecting and

analysing data in categories through development of analytical codes (Saunders et

al, 2012).

 Narrative Inquiry is the methodology focused on obtaining information from people’s  entire  chronicles  rather  than  collecting  selected  information  narrowed  by  

interviews and plus, fragmented during data analysis (Saunders et al, 2012).

 Archival Research has the purpose of answering research questions which focus on the past and changes over time (Saunders et al, 2012).

 Case Study is a concept used to recognise and explore linkages among issues within an organisation in its context or within several real contexts (Cameron and

Price, 2009 and Saunders et al, 2012).

3.4.1. Nature of the research

Complementing the above subtitle, it is relevant to note that the research questions lead to an

exploratory, descriptive or explanatory nature of research. Before unveiling the appropriate

one, these are brief descriptions of each:

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

44

- Exploratory: It involves asking open questions with the purpose of grasping a deep understanding of a problem including its nature (Saunders et al, 2012). It applies

when the problem is poorly understood (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010).

- Descriptive: It comprehends description of the phenomenon on which it is intended to collect data, with the interest of obtaining accurate outline of events, people or

situations (Saunders et al, 2012). According to these authors, it is normally a

complement of an exploratory or explanatory research. Collis and Hussey (2009) state

that this type or research occurs where the objective is restricted to describe current

practice. Also, it applies when the problem is structured and well understood (Ghauri

and Grønhaug, 2010).

- Explanatory or causal: It comprises the study of a situation aiming to explain the causal relationship between variables (Saunders et al, 2012). It is employed where

existent theory is used to understand and explain what is happening (Collis and

Hussey, 2009) and when the problem in question is structured. This research

endeavours to identify the causes and define whether and to what extent they yield

effect (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010).

As to a potential combination between these approaches, it is significant to mention that a

research could be descripto-explanatory, bearing with the rationale in which Description should not be thought as final statement but as means to it (Saunders et al, 2012).

3.5 Methodology chosen

Having reviewed the methodologies available and the nature of the research objective, it is

determined that Case Study methodology along with a descripto-explanatory approach are the

correct means to challenge the existent framework and also lead to new research questions.

These are the reasons:

 GSCM is a fairly new orientation in the SC field, which makes its barriers exploration

a fresh area to look into.  Case study is greatly complementary to incremental

theory building, which is commonly useful in initial phase of research on a topic

(Eisenhardt, 1989) in (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010).

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

45

 Particularly, the phenomenon is explained by the barriers hindering implementation of

GSCMP and the context surrounds organisations operating in developing countries.

 “A   case   study   explores   a   research   topic   or   phenomenon   within   its   context”  

(Saunders et al, 2012:179).

 Understanding the barriers in the new context is not easy, whereas they are hard to

measure.  “The   phenomenon   under   investigation   is   difficult to study outside its

natural setting and also the concepts and variables under study are difficult to

quantify”  (Ghauri  and  Grønhaug, 2010:109).

 It is intended to gain a rich understanding of the context of the research and current

processes (Saunders et al, 2012).

 Again, the topic refers to what the barriers to GSCMP are in a specific context. 

“The  case  study  has  also  considerable  ability  to  answer  to  research questions  “why?”,  

as  well  as  “what?”  and  “how”  questions”  (Saunders  et al, 2012:179).

 This study seeks to obtain a precise description of a management situation; however it

is not limited to that task. Complementary to define and describe barriers, the second

and third questions force to establish a relationship between them in the interest of

stating which one is the most significant and a mere comparison. From another point

of view, the research questions refer to the barriers as reasons of the phenomenon (the

barriers as an explanation to difficulty when implementing GSCMP).

It is possible to study a number of organisations following the theory grounded in a set of

identified variables (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2010). Therefore, it was felt that multiple case

study is appropriate, expecting that findings could be replicated throughout cases. Also

because the researcher intends to find a theoretical replication3 given that a contextual factor

is deliberately different (Saunders et al, 2012). This dissertation addresses the attention to

three Mexican organisations, from which data was collected guided by the model in question.

3.6 Data collection Methods Used

Collecting data means determining how, when and where to gather qualitative (e.g. words)

and/or quantitative (e.g. numbers) evidence (Collis & Hussey, 2009). These authors highlight

documentary analysis, interviews and observations as methods in case studies and

3 Theoretical replication: “Finding  contrasting  results  for  anticipatable  reasons”  (Yin, 2009:54).

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

46

additionally Yin (2009) mentions a wider range of   common   “sources   of   evidence”:

Documentation, Archival records, Interviews, Direct observations, Participant-observation

and Physical artefacts. So, this descripto-explanatory study embracing qualitative data

(Saunders et al, 2012) embraces interviews, documentation and archival research where appropriate, as the chosen methods that helped to answer the research questions

appropriately. These sources of evidence are coherent with the nature of the study because

their strength is to perceive causal inferences and explanations, as well as to focus directly on

case study topics (Yin, 2009).

Interviews is a main source of case study information that although it is a guided

conversation, it is not rigorous (Yin, 2009), taking different degrees of formality and structure

(Saunders et al, 2012). The  latter  author  defines  it  as  a  “purposeful conversation between two

or more people, requiring the interviewer to establish rapport, to ask concise and

unambiguous questions, to which the interviewee is willing to respond and to listen

attentively”. On the other hand, documentation is relevant to every case study topic (Yin,

2009), and in this research was used to evidence answers from interviewees in the selected

country of research.

3.6.1 Justifying the country of research

As stated briefly earlier, Mexico was selected as the country where the research was carried

out. This is because it is a developed nation from which findings and conclusions drawn are

likely to fit organisations within other developing countries (See the developing country list

in the Appendix 2). In the same tone, in order to compare and contrast the Mexican features

to other low-income or middle-income economies, Mexico is described by using the PEST

analysis. This is a tool that provides reference points for considering the opportunities and

threats of a market (Weilkiens, 2011). Below is the brief analysis taken from a Business

Forecast Report.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

47

Table 8: PEST Mexico - Political factors1

Table 9: PEST Mexico - Economic factors1

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

48

Table 10: PEST MX Sociological/Demographic factors1

Table 11: Mexico - Technological factors1

The information above provides a notion of the country situation in which conclusions of this

research may apply.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

49

3.6.2 Justifying of the participating organisations’ size

In the interest of generating maximally useful data, the Mexican case-studies are centred on

small and medium-sized enterprises due to two relevant reasons. The first one is that the

model in question refers to large organisations, showing a clear omission in respect to smaller

entities. The second one is because it can be said that approximately 90% of the Mexican

organisations are of this size (INEGI, 2009), which makes it relevant to this developing

country. The following are the overall characteristics of the chosen cases to analyse to answer

the research questions:

Table12: Overall information about case organisations1

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

50

According to the U.S. EPA (2000), companies of all sizes are considering the environmental

impact of their decisions and actions. Nonetheless, Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. & Lai (2010) argue that

the difficulty of implementing GSCMP implies broad organisational complexities such as

relationships and size. Based on this statement and bearing with the rationale in which the SC

of large corporations is typically greater than that from SME which operate in a more limited

area, it can be inferred that large corporations and SME present different levels of

complexities when implementing GSCM. To reinforce the inference, these authors also state

that those barriers or complexities will be greater if environmental, economic, regulatory,

social and political factors are taken in account with a large number of parties interacting

with each other.

3.6.3. Interview Guide Design

This is actually a semi-structured “guided   conversation”   outline that was pre-structured to

enhance comparability. It was developed based on the Walker et al (2008) model, covering

several themes as follows:

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

51

Table 13: Interview Guide Design1

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

52

This guided conversation provided the information underpinning the analysis.

Complementary, documents and archival information served as support of verbal statements.

For instance, as regards the exploration of the five barriers proposed by the model, relevant

sources of data were retrieved. These include for Cost, financial statements resumes as well

as documents showing purchases of green technology and green fuels (e.g. invoices) within

the AREURMOT and MVM case studies. Also, ILM confidentially showed financial

resumes showing cost, energy, water and CO2 emissions savings in the last years. For Lack of

Legitimacy, AREURMOT and ILM case studies presented GSCM policies documentation,

from which unfortunately, some are not respected by employees. For Regulations, ILM was

the best case study; it referred to suppliers of glass, who in turn take advantage of the

legislation gap for profit. For poor supplier commitment, ILM was the only case that could

tell, by referencing exactly names of participant suppliers of one of its GSCM projects.

Lastly, for industry specific barriers, any case study could give evidence due to irrelevance.

Some other different collected data were presented to support GSCM initiatives and

additional barriers mentioned later in this paper.

3.7 Data Analysis

“Data   analysis   consists   of   examining,   categorising,   tabulating,   testing   or   otherwise,  

recombining   evidence   to   draw   empirically   based   conclusions”   (Yin,   2009:   126).   So as to

answer the research questions established in this study, it is vital to set a procedure to

synthesise and organise the collected raw data, by establishing themes and patterns against

existing theories (Collis and Hussey, 2009). The analytical strategy used was the most

important one in accordance to Yin (2009): Relying on theoretical prepositions. This study

analysis procedure is used to follow the theoretical positions from the framework in question,

which research questions produced the research questions for the present research. Again, the

model utilised units of analysis (implemented GSCM initiatives), in which interviewees

based their responses and also helped to organise data. Specifically, the  framework’s unit of

analysis is the GSCM project or initiative carried out by each of the large participant British

organisations. Similarly, units of analysis oriented the manipulation of data collected from the

organisations operating in Mexico.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

53

Matrices were developed to summarise the findings to enable comparison across the data and

reflect light on possible patterns that could emerge from the findings. The analysis was

conducted iteratively through the course of data collection (Walker et al, 2008).

3.8 Assurance

The criteria for judging the quality of the research design is:

 Reliability: It is one of the two aspects in credibility of Findings and it is considerably important in positive researches like this one. It focuses on the

consistency of observations and interpretations if the study was done using the same

procedures more than one time by different researchers (Yin, 2009 and Collis &

Hussey, 2009). To honour this authenticity, evidence such as documents were

gathered as much as permitted by interviewees, as suggested by Yin (2009).

 Validity: This is the second aspect of findings credibility, involving accuracy of the phenomenon under study (Collis and Hussey, 2009). External validity is suitable in the research to generalise beyond the particular multiple case study. Actually, this is

might be the most important limitation (Yin, 2009). Considering this type of research,

a sample of three organisations may be more powerful than a single case study. Being

aware of this, the PEST analysis has been carried out to Mexico with the interest of

giving means to compare and contrast with other developing countries. Nonetheless,

in accordance to Yin (2009), this theory may be tested by replicating the findings in

more developing countries, where the theory has specified that the same results would

occur.

3.9 Research Design

For each of the three organisations, there were interviewed from 2 to 4 managers whose

position is relevant to the SC control, plus from 2 to 5 suppliers and from 1 to 3 clients within

their SC, making a total of 24 respondents. Additionally, interviews were supported by

documentation and record files as evidence; however a number of them could not be provided

due to confidentiality reasons. It is noteworthy that 30 interviews were requested by the

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

54

researcher, but unfortunately six of them were not attended. Moreover, it was found more and

expedite availability and openness from managers in the smallest case study and less

availability in the largest one. Thankfully, the interviewed executives eased the grasp of their

context and the barriers that they experience or experienced to implementing GSCM

practices. The case study interviews were semi-structured to achieve flexibility and richness

of collected data. The latter means that the interview consisted of both, open questions and a

set of key questions carried out by internet conference and in a one-to-one basis (Yin, 2009

and Saunders et al, 2012). In this way, the aim was to foster genuine responses from

interviewees, while bearing in mind the major purpose of confirming or refuting the barriers

stated in the model. The order of the questions varied according to the flow of the

conversations. Apart from that, it is worth mentioning that respondents within the 3

organisations were asked the full interview, whereas the rest of the participants in their SC

where asked only essential questions aimed to understand their faced barriers.

Interviews were carried out in Spanish but translated and transcribed to English afterwards.

Having grounds provided by the literature facilitated the capability of the researcher to

prepare the interview guide and perform during the interview critically. At the beginning of

every interview it was explained the nature of the research; secondly simple questions were

posed to gather background information and to familiarise with the interview procedure.

Thirdly, open core-questions were posed in order to avoid response bias, and then specific

questions were made endeavoured to finish corroborating the model. At the end of the

interview, it was exposed the possibility for the interviewee to express any information that

was not shared during the interview. The interviews endurance was no more than 1 hour with

the purpose of being punctual in the quality of the questions and answers and avoiding

tediousness. In terms of ethics, it was explained in anticipation that anonymity means were

available to ensure trust from the interviewed participants.

Strategically, the research is related to companies that have shown some environmental

concern in their operations. The latter made the research more accurate and punctual as of the

identification and understanding of the barriers in question. Presumably, managers were more

related to the topic than others belonging to organisations that have not implemented green

practices in their SC at all.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

55

3.10 Conclusions of the Methodology

This chapter justified the methodology chosen by referring to philosophies, methodologies

available and data collection methods. Based on the research questions, the research adopted

a multiple case study, gathering evidence through semi-structured interviews subdivided in

themes. This chapter also justified Mexico as a good example of a developing country,

exposing grounds that let themselves to comparability to similar nations. It also explained the

reason of having chosen SME sized participant enterprises in the research. Additionally, it

was mentioned the way data was to be analysed in the next chapter, just as the model orients.

That is, based on units of analysis (implemented GSCM initiatives) boosted by the three

Mexican organisations.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

56

4. Findings

This chapter presents the results obtained throughout the collection of primary data in the

application of the research methodology chosen in the previous chapter. The focus is on three

organisations which basic information is presented in Table 12 including their size,

environmental policies and activities. From there, findings are organised in accordance to the

procedure of Walker et al (2008)’s  framework including the units of analysis synthesised in

Table 14 (GSCM ongoing initiatives or projects) and the current and/or overcome barriers.

Overall, data is summarised in tables and diagrams displayed to visualise with clarity. The

following is the overview of each organisation and their initiatives or projects description:

4.1 Asesoría en Reembobinado Urgente y Venta de Motores y Controles Eléctricos S.A. de C.V. (AREURMOT)

AREURMOT is a Small Enterprise that repairs, sells and make maintenance of electrical

motors for regional manufacturers. With only 10 employees and annual sales of £330,000, it

is a one owner organisation that has been showing efforts towards implementing GSCMP,

given that these are seen as a moral account. Even though the purpose of implementing

GSCMP is to improve the environmental performance, there is not a formal Environmental

Management System (EMS) and therefore, no measurements followed by anyone in

particular. Along the SC, the environmental practices carried out do not involve most of the

around 60 suppliers listed in active records, but the operations within the organisation borders

and customer relationship. The GSCM initiatives, which are barely published within a

catalogue implicitly every few years and as worth of mouth, imply reparation, distribution

and maintenance of electrical motors:

 Usage of energy-efficient light bulbs in the motor repair shop and offices.

 Acquisition of the first ecological washing machine which separates water, grease and

solid objects. It also reutilise water reducing considerably its waste and fosters correct

treatment  of  grease  and  solids’  waste  (subsoil  care).  

 Handling of cooper waste and its sale. This material is what the motor coils are made

of.

 Recycling of paper, cardboard and pallets.

 Recycling of end-life motors and their parts.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

57

 Acquisition, construction and sale of Ecological ovens, which eliminate toxic vapours

and fumes when heating the motors during the reparation process.

 Timely maintenance of the organisation vehicles which transport motors. This

minimise the environmental impact.

 Distribution of energy and cost-efficient electrical motors. This type of motor

diminish the energy waste in form of bearing friction, frame heating, wind opposition

caused by the ventilator etc. that normally is present when the electrical motors are

working  in  the  customer’s  facilities.  By  using  these  motors  customers  amortise  the  

motor cost rapidly and save money and Kilowats (kWh) per year; additionally they

can measure tonnes of CO2 emissions per year (See Appendix 3). Electrical motor

suppliers are multi-national companies like BALDOR, SIEMENS and WEG.

Overall, these initiatives have been implemented thanks  to  the  organisation’s  owner  initiative

in the last decade, years that in turn represent an economical boom. The owner refers to this

as a positive correlation; the more income the more and most significant GSCMP can be

implemented. In fact, there are two other initiatives to be implemented; this means, there are

still barriers to override. Firstly, there is the installation of solar panels along the shop and

secondly, the implementation of a previously failed plastic objects collection policy. Overall,

there is environmental concern across the SC related to reducing the levels of energy that the

organisation consumes, minimising waste and diminishing environmental impact of the

reparation services and motors sale processes. The latter is the goal as mentioned earlier, by

improving the efficiency of electrical motors by the time they are running. This energy

efficiency has been scientifically proven by a software package called Motor Master+

International (Appendix 3), which demonstrates approximate CO2 reduction and cost savings

from previous repaired electrical motors. With regards to the interviewed suppliers and

clients within the same SC, only one out of four implements GSCM activities. It is about a

large company, being the others SME. Its 2030 goals initiatives are formally measured and

published only through business visits and two on-line videos demonstrated during the

interview research and they are carried out majorly thanks to a private trust.

Further to the green contribution of these GSCMP, there are benefits such as diminution of

repairing time, increment of the service level, decrease of accidents-risk, number of

employees needed and so forth.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

58

4.2 Mosaicos Venecianos de México (MVM) MVM is a Medium-Enterprise with 250 employers, devoted to the production of high quality

and colourful art mosaics, which are featured by continuous innovation and supported by

advanced technology and artisans. The organisation is positioned as leader in America, with

national and international customers, possessing 60 suppliers and annual sales of £7.7million.

MVM considers itself as very engaged in GSCMP especially in the last dozen years, although

it does not have any EMS certification or any one specifically responsible of environmental

issues who measures environmental performance; however various managers are involved

throughout the organisation in these practices implementation. For MVM, the best design

implies environmental concern (MVM, 2012). Thus, there is an ecological product line which

is   published   in   one   important   client’s   website and the own, as well as other initiatives

involving reducing, reusing and recycling activities made public in the MVM website and

pamphlets occasionally. These are:

Reducing:

 Throughout the production, there are ecological ovens which diminish the production

of polluting waste.

 Reduction of gas and electricity consumption as complement of environmental

friendly fuels usage.

Reusing:

 Water is 100% reused in the manufacturing process

 Wood, cardboard and paper of pallets is re-used

Recycling:

 Purchase of products from suppliers that recycle considerably in their operations.

 Technology has been generated supported on recycled parts.

 The majority of the packaging plastic is recycled.

 More than 40 coloured mosaics are made of recycled glass:

o Pre-consumption: Mosaics that are disapproved by the Quality and Control Department due to cracks and imperfections are reincorporated to the

production.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

59

o Post-consumption: Glass from bottles, containers and windows collected/bought from other organisations are recycled as materials in the

mosaic production.

There are two main drivers for these practices; from one hand there is cost reduction and

from the other hand there are commercial requirements since one if the main supplier, which

is a large organisation operating in Mexico and USA, is environmentally certified and thus

request similar practices from its suppliers.

4.3 Industrias Lavín de México S.A. de C.V. (ILM) It is a medium-sized company that manufactures health and beauty products, employing 210

people with an annual budget of £11million. With   “respect   for   nature”   as   one of the

organisation’   principles (ILM, 2012), this organisation is engaged in diminishing the

environmental impact throughout its processes by implementing, publishing and thoroughly

measuring performance of these GSCM projects in charge of one manager:

 Formal EMS boosted by the top management, guided and certified by the

Environmental Ministry of Mexico. They improve the efficiency of its processes,

environmental performance and competitiveness at different levels (SEMARNAT,

2012):

o “Industria Limpia”  (Clean Industry) in 2003. o “Auditoría  Empresarial”  (Corporate audit) in 2011. o “Liderazgo  Empresarial para la Competitividad”  (Entrepreneurial  Leadership

for Competitiveness) in 2011.

The first two certifications govern the organisation itself; however the third one goes beyond

throughout the SC with the perspective of supporting a demand chain (ILM, 2012) like Hill

(2011) suggests. 12 out of 70 suppliers participated in this successful programme, consisting

on seminars and experimental training, yielding specific impressive results in terms of what

they consume, produce and waste (Appendix 4). Apart from that, there is a project to be

concluded; it us the installation of 210 solar panels to preheat the processed water, reduce gas

consumption and CO2 emissions. As evidence, some archival information was collected

regarding the achievements after implementing GSCMP.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

60

Table 14: Summary of GSCMP1

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

61

4.4 Barriers in case organisations For organisation purposes and as suggested by the Walker et al (2008) model, these are

divided into internal and external as follows:

4.4.1 Internal Barriers

4.4.1.1 Cost Based on the units of analysis, undoubtedly cost is the most common barrier throughout the 3

case studies according to the owner/general directors, general managers, suppliers and

clients’  opinion. Particularly AREURMOT, the smallest organisation, resents this barrier the

most. It has been overcoming it gradually after more than three decades of the organisation

creation; indeed, GSCM initiatives started to occur during its highest economic growth

thanks to continuous reinvestment. Some suppliers points out two critical features of this

obstacle; it are normally high and not easily released or available promptly. Interestingly, in

the two largest case studies, two suppliers said to believe that cost is not a barrier whatsoever;

however it is a minority opinion.

Overall, the keys to handle this ongoing barrier are found to be continuous reinvestment,

trusts, private sector investment, and trying to find alternative ways of operating which is felt

to be hard and time-consuming. Lastly, cost is a barrier that has been overcome to a certain

extent, but it is clearly an ongoing barrier to be considered in every implementation decision

significantly.

4.4.1.2 Lack of Legitimacy Although the research finds that top management is one of the main GSCMP booster,

organisations overall admit that a considerable number of employees are not impassioned at

all. This lets itself to incomplete engagement of the organisation as a whole, being more

critical in the medium-sized organisations which disclose more their environmental

commitment. For instance, it was found that glass recycling policy failed completely in

AREURMOT, whereas partially in MVM due to employees’   refusal.   Nevertheless, top

management legitimacy is genuine despite this threatening imbalance which has not been

overcome yet. In this respect Carter and Dresner (2001) in Walker et al (2008) suggest that

one way to bridge it is to make people sympathetic to the initiative.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

62

4.4.1.3 Other internal barrier An overcome  barrier  is  “Insufficient  top  Management  Commitment”.  One case mentioned the

breaking point happened after a formal demand from neighbours, a social pressure that

detonated serious commitment from top management. Archival evidence of this issue was

denied due to confidential reasons.

4.4.2 External Barriers

4.4.2.1 Regulation It is found that it could be a barrier or a driver in different cases. For the electrical motors

shop, regulation has been a barrier more than a driver to implementing GSCM initiatives. The

rationale is that Government environmental regulations commonly play to support this kind

of initiatives for instance, by lending money to organisations to buy green technology.

Nonetheless, the annual interests to be paid afterwards are too high (25 to 30%), which

represent a high cost at the end of the initiative. In contrast, it is recognisable that in the case

of ecological equipment acquisition, government allows a total amortisation within one first

fiscal year after purchase. With respect to MVM’s  opinion, a proper and punitive regulation

seems absent. This is, given that raw material is mostly recycled glass and there are not

recycling regulations in Mexico, it is hard to collect it. To date, this collection is made by

MVM through rummage across other organisation which glass represents waste and through

a private organisation which collects it as its own business. For two other investigated

environmental conscious suppliers, environmental legislation has been a driver, although not

very significant. Lastly, for ILM regulation is not a barrier or a driver because the projects

that it has been implementing are entirely voluntary. To better explain, the government gives

the option to organisations to participate in this programme along with suppliers, however is

not regulatory.

4.4.2.2 Poor supplier commitment Even though this impediment is included in the guide model, the research finds that

perceptions are very different. In the case of AREURMOT, only 3 out of 60 suppliers

(BALDOR, SIEMENS and WEG) maintain a green relationship with the organisation due to

the product features they handle, energy efficient electrical motors. In the case the case of

MVM, in words of an interviewed  manager:  “There  is  no  restriction  or  even  mention of the

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

63

environmental concern issue to suppliers”.   Lastly   in   the   case   of   ILM,   poor   supplier  

commitment is a barrier that was overcome supported by the Environmental Ministry of

Mexico  programme  “Entrepreneurial  Leadership  to  Competitiveness”.  

4.4.2.3 Industry Specific Barriers This hurdle was not particularly referred by organisations. However, it can be said that the

above mentioned Regulation barrier affects especially MVM because production is recycling-

glass based and there is not a formal waste separation regulation.

4.4.2.4 Other external barriers ‘No application of law sanctions’ is a frequent finding. In general, several interviewed

suppliers affirm that government inspectors commonly receive money from other companies

that incur in serious environmental impact when operating; in exchange, they grant silence

and impunity. Unfortunately, this research does not present any documents or archives as

proof, other than these assertions.

Differently to developed countries, findings show additional barriers that can be internal and

external at the same time. These are:

Insufficient know how about GSCMP Insufficient know how about GSCMP is another barrier overcome by ILM mostly. After

seminars and experimental training from the governmental programme it was demonstrated

that involving suppliers into GSCMP is more beneficial than they could ever imagine (ILM,

2012). This was beneficial to the organisation itself and the participant suppliers. It is

explained that these days, the organisation is endeavouring to extend the practices further to

other suppliers and clients who have not taken part yet. As for the MVM and AREURMOT

cases, there has been learning about good practices through a lot of effort over the time,

falling into mistakes and retrying.

Environmental Unconsciousness Almost or equally significant as cost, all in all organisations were very keen in emphasising

the cultural aspect or ideologies of employees towards green initiatives/projects. They

highlighted the fact that an important number of employees within each organisation in the

supply chains do not have enough environmental awareness (from low to medium levels),

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

64

which makes some GSCMP hard to implement. Although it was specified that addressed

barriers had to be underpinned by their implemented GSCMP, inevitably in all the interviews

general society was raised as environmental unconscious. This leads to an actual cultural

problem in Mexico as a root problem.

Apart from employee vulnerability within the organisation, environmental unconsciousness is

definitely found to be an ongoing critical barrier by suppliers and clients. For instance, the

manager in AREURMOT gave the example of a supplier from the same tier within the SC it

is  part  of,  as  reluctant  to  abide  environmental  rules  when  visiting  certain  facilities.  “This  is  a  

country  where  people’s  ideology  is  not  used  to  follow  regulations  and  do  the  right  thing”,  she  

explained. MVM gave another example in which it was proved that households and business

hide used glass materials within their rubbish so this prohibited waste was discrete. What is

more, some people do segregate glass but collecting-buses mix it with the rest when

collecting it. In fact, there was one supplier who clearly stated that environmental

unconsciousness can be seen as the mother barrier, and then the rest of difficulties are just

minor requirements. The case of ILM is specifically relevant here because consciousness of

12 suppliers was raised and therefore full commitment, which is impressive (ILM, 2012). The

programme involved suppliers having minimum 25 employees.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

65

Table15: Encountered barriers to implementing GSCMP1

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

66

Figure 4: Encountered barriers Diagram (Internal/External/both) to implementing GSCMP1

4.5 Conclusions of Findings

This chapter has presented the results gathered through the interviews by themes including

the units of analysis (GSCM initiatives) and barriers encountered. Findings are summarised

in matrices, tables and diagrams displayed to visualise with clarity. It was found cost, lack of

legitimacy and insufficient top management commitment as internal barriers to the

organisation; regulations, poor supplier commitment and no application of law sanctions as

external barriers to organisations and lastly, insufficient know how about GSCMP

implementation as both internal and external barriers. Interviewed managers commonly

report Cost as the most common barrier throughout the 3 case studies seconded by

Environmental Unconsciousness. Overall, it was found that GSCMP are mostly implemented

within the borders of the smallest organisations, noticing a trend of expanded and formal

green practices along the SC as organisations grow throughout the time and the larger they

are in comparison to others. Thus, the larger medium-sized organisation actively and formally

involves the most other SC participants within its SC in green practices.

Regulations Industry Specific Barriers

Insufficient Know How

Environmental Unconsciousness

Insufficient Top Manag

Commitment

No applic Law Sanctions

Lack of Legitimacy

Costs

Poor supplier commitment

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

67

5. Analysis and Discussion

This chapter contrasts the barriers proposed by the Walker et al (2008) model and the ones

found in this present research throughout the SC of Mexican organisations; basically, what is

summarised in the Figures 2 and 4. It also seeks to answer the research questions.

5.1 What are the barriers to implementing GSCMP in organisations operating in developing countries?

The barriers encountered in the project are discussed in this section. There is a mix of internal

and external barriers in the Walker et al (2008) model and in the present research too, while

in this report cost and environmental unconsciousness are the most common impediments to

implementing GSCMP.

5.1.1 Internal Barriers

5.1.1.1 Cost Just like in the guide model, cost is the major barrier and it is to overcome continuously.

Apparently the AREURMOT general manager was thinking straight when mentioning that

the more income, the more significant GSCMP can be implemented, bearing with the

rationale that when more income, costs are more likely be covered. In this respect, it is

noteworthy that the more the annual sales of the three organisations (Table 12), the larger and

stronger is the environmental care throughout their SC. Furthermore, SME are more

vulnerable than large organisations because generally have less resources available, explained

Walker et al (2012) when referring to organisations in their research linked with small

suppliers and the fact that they struggle the most.

5.1.1.2 Lack of legitimacy This is referred as a consequence of a root problem, lack of appropriate culture in favour of

the environment in general. Regardless the fact that top management in this research

publicise real green facts having genuine commitment at present, it is found inconsistency as

a whole company provided that an important number of employees across the SC are not

following. The model refers to lack of legitimacy caused by manufacturers; however this

research points out employees ideologies as critical to be changed.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

68

5.1.1.2 Insufficient top management commitment The model does not mention this barrier itself, but in this research it was mentioned that

although existent before, management commitment became stronger in recent years as

publishing of their practices grew too. This is a breakpoint barrier overcome already in this

study.

5.1.2 External Barriers

5.1.2.1 Regulation Although most cases prove regulations as barrier, there are encountered opinions according to

particular contexts, idea that agrees with Walker et al (2008) propositions. In this study some

participants found support in regulation while others did not. In fact, environmental

legislation is very weak in Mexico, and when existent, corruption regularly takes place.

Nonetheless, government itself offer free guidance to GSCM to organisations with 25

employees minimum, a fact that counteracts the weak environmental legislation in terms of

the opportunity of improving environmental performance.

5.1.2.2 Poor Supplier Commitment In the AREURMOT and MVM cases, there is low attention   to   suppliers’   commitment,

potentially because the implemented GSCM initiatives (units of analysis) do not involve

them. Conversely in ILM, poor supplier commitment has been bridged deliberately and

targeted thanks to the governmental experience training. Particularly, the model underpins

this barrier in the fact that some suppliers do not want to share information, but overall as

found in this study, thinking of suppliers as green participants is rare. Therefore the problem

is stressed in a step backwards.

5.1.2.3 Industry Specific Barriers Walker et al (2008) found specific barriers depending on the industry, but this study did not

draw conclusions herein since interviewees did not mentioned particular barriers within the 3

different industries. It would be overreaching to interpret these findings as strong to refute

this barrier.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

69

5.1.2.4 Other barriers ‘No application of sanctions’ is a barrier not referred in the guide model but found to be

important in the implementation of GSCMP. It was treated separately from regulations

because it was clearly spelt out as a strong barrier by interviewees. The rationale is that

although weak, regulations do exist, however they are not respected because there is not

penalty or reward for obedience. It seems the Mexican system is corrupted by individual

interests, over the respect for nature.

Differently to the model, the two other barriers classified as both internal and external, were

found to be important. From one hand, Environmental unconsciousness is considered as an internal and external barrier to the organisation because some employees and other

participants along the SC do not seem to demonstrate environmental care. According to

respondents, this barrier is of general population and therefore a regular ideology/cultural

problem of people participating in any SC. Moreover, this barrier could be related to Lack of

Legitimacy originated by employees because the general national problem affects them.

Actually, few of the interviewees refer to final consumers as drivers, presumably due to low

environmental consciousness of citizens as the managers highlight.

From the other hand, insufficient know how about GSCMP is a barrier not mentioned either in the model but considerably important by interviewees. Even though will is present in top

management, it is believed that more knowledge should be diffused as to how to implement

GSCMP.

1.2 What is the most significant barrier to implementing GSCMP in organisations operating in developing countries?

Regardless the size of an organisation, cost is the most important barrier in developed and

developing countries contexts. This is, out of the 24 respondents in this study, only two

suppliers said to believe that cost is not a barrier whatsoever; cost is a sweeping barrier.

Particularly, Cost has been resented the most by the smallest organisation, but overall this

hurdle is normally seen as high and not easily released or available promptly.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

70

1.3 How are these barriers similar or different to those operating in developed countries?

Barriers in developing countries are more than in developed countries, adding “Insufficient  

top  management  commitment”, “No  Application  of  law  Sanctions”, “Insufficient know how

about GSCMP implementation” and “Environmental  Unconsciousness” to the list. Barriers

also are classified different. From one side, the notable difference is that while barriers in

developed countries can be internal or external, there are two barriers in developing countries

that can be internal and external at the same time (“Insufficient know how about GSCMP

implementation” and “Environmental Unconsciousness”). From the other side, the similarity

is that cost is indeed the most significant barrier in developing nations. Only one barrier of

the  model  could  not  be  proved  “Industry  Specific  Barriers”,  potentially because only three

supply chains were investigated. Nevertheless, it would be overreaching to interpret it as non

valid barrier since there are a lot more industries that were not studied. Differently to the

barriers in developed nations, there is especial  concern  on  “Environmental  Unconsciousness”  

in the developing ones, because it is extremely difficult to achieve a change in habits and

culture from people, a common believe found in this research.

5.4 Limitations

There are limitations in this respect. Firstly, only three organisations might have been a too

small sample in only one developing country, which represents a risk of transmitting

conclusions to organisations in other developing countries. However, to counteract this

possibility, the research was as done exhaustively in the involved supply chains. Secondly,

Managers interpretations might be influenced by feelings to certain extend, which cannot be

seen or controlled by the researcher. Thirdly, the research does not include public

organisations but private. Therefore, conclusions are stranded in the latter omitting the ability

of this research of ensuring extending conclusions in public organisations.

Another limitation is that GSCMP of AREURMOT and MVM cases do not involve suppliers

as actively as ILM, which makes weaker the capability of analysing the Poor supplier

commitment barrier proposed by the guiding model. Furthermore, only three industries were

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

71

investigated in which any specific barrier was not found. Potentially having taking in account

more industries probabilities to find this barrier could have increased.

5.5 Recommendations for Future Research For further research in developing countries, special attention is urged to pay to units of

analysis that consider more direct relationship with consumers. Given that polled

organisations are manufacturers, cited GSCM initiatives are B2B based, not B2C. In this

way, more analysis could be yielded in this respect. Also, it is suggested to research more on

the relationship between barriers, e.g. which of them are independent, dependent, linkage,

etc., like in the Lutha et al (2011) model does with the barriers to GSCMP in the automobile

industry. Lastly, environmental unconsciousness should be more investigated due to the

importance that this barrier has, dragging back GSCMP implementation.

5.6 Conclusions of Analysis and Discussion

In summary, there has been comparison and contrasting between the present research and the

Walker et al (2008) model with the aim of discussing and answering the research questions in

sets of internal and external barriers. Despite that the context of the framework has been

changed deliberately, theoretical replication has been found. Thus, this report research agrees

with the model overall, but complements it with four more barriers making a total of nine:

Cost (being the most significant in both developed and developing countries, regardless the

size of the organisation), Lack of Legitimacy, Regulations, Poor supplier commitment,

Industry Specific Barriers, Insufficient Top Management Commitment, Insufficient Know

How about GSCMP, Environmental Unconsciousness and No application of sanctions.

There are more barriers to implementing GSCMP in organisations operating in developing

countries that in developed ones and also they are classified differently, having two factors

that can be internal and external at the same time. There is almost equal concern to

Environmental Unconsciousness barrier than to Cost. As a result, recommendations for

further research include B2B markets, relationship between barriers analysis and

environmental unconsciousness themes.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

72

6. General Conclusions

The purpose of this dissertation was to understand the barriers to implementing GSCMP in

organisations operating in developing countries. Therefore, these research questions were

developed in order to prove Walker et al (2008) model: What are the barriers to

implementing GSCM practices in the mentioned organisations?, What is the most significant

barrier? and How are these barriers similar or different to those operating in developed

countries? These were answered according to managers of organisations, suppliers and

respective clients.

This study found support for the barriers suggested by the Walker et al (2008) model,

complementing it with four more barriers. Thus, barriers are: Cost, Lack of Legitimacy,

Regulations, Poor supplier commitment and Industry Specific Barriers, as well as Insufficient

Top Management Commitment, Insufficient Know How about GSCM practices,

Environmental Unconsciousness and No application of sanctions.

In the same way, it is determined that cost is the most significant barrier along the case

studies, seconded by Environmental Unconsciousness. Only one barrier of the model could

not  be  proved  “Industry  Specific  Barriers”,  potentially  because  only  3  supply   chains  were  

investigated. Nevertheless, this fact is not sufficient to take off since this research does not

cover a significant number of industries.

Barriers in developing countries present different classification than those in developed ones.

That is, barriers in developed countries can be internal or external, whereas there are two

barriers in developing countries that can be both internal and external. One of these is

Environmental Unconsciousness, which rises almost equal concern to cost. As a result,

recommendations for further research in developing countries include B2C markets,

relationship between barriers analysis and environmental unconsciousness themes in

developing countries. This would help to organisations endeavouring to be more competitive

by greening their supply chain.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

73

5 References Aitken, J. (1998) Supply Chain Integration with the context of a Supplier Association, Ph. D. thesis, Cranfield University. An inconvenient truth (2006) Directed by Davis Guggenheim [Film] U.K.: Paramount Home Entertainment. Asesoría en Reembobinado Urgente y Venta de Motores y Controles Eléctricos S.A. de C.V. (AREURMOT) (2012) Servicios.Available at: http://areurmot.com/ (Accessed: 4th October 2012). Aswathappa, K. and Aswathappa, K. (2010) Strategic Management. New Delhi: Himalaya Publishing House. Bala, A., Muñoz, P., Rieradevall, J. and Ysern, P. (2008) ‘Experiences with greening suppliers. The Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), pp. 1610-1619. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk (Accessed: 24th September, 2012). BALDOR-BASF (2008) Energy efficiency – The World in 2030 Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG3HNQiEaTM (Accessed: 15th November, 2012) BALDOR-ABB (2012) The new-all-compatible drives portfolio Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRHMXkZ8Eqg (Accessed: 15th November, 2012) Barreto Ramos R.E., Marques S. and Santiago Nunes B. T. (2004) A theoretical approach for Green Supply Chain Available at: http://www.pomsmeetings.org/ConfProceedings/002/POMS_CD/Browse%20This%20CD/P APERS/002-0290.pdf (Accessed: 18th July, 2012) Bjorklund, M. (2011) ‘Influence from the business environment on environmental purchasing - Drivers and hinders of purchasing green transportation services.’ Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17(1), pp. 11-22. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk (Accessed: 13th November, 2012) Blanchard, O. (2012) Economic Counsellor and Director of the Research Department in the IFM Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/ (Accessed: 18th May 2012) Bollino, C.A. and Polinori, P. (2011) Energy, Sustainability and Environment. Ebook Library [Online]. Available at: http://www.kingston.eblib.com/patron/ (Accessed: 17th May, 2012) Borenstein, S. (2011) Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases Available at: http://news.yahoo.com/biggest-jump-ever-seen-global-warming-gases- 183955211.html;_ylt=ArFH_Elph4bYe2BzYNWL7Vys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNqZjlzYXZw BGNjb2RlA2N0LmMEcGtnA2U1NjEzNDBlLWQ4ZGUtMzA2OC1iYTgyLTllOGQwYmZ mYWY3MARwb3MDMwRzZWMDbW9zdF9wb3B1bGFyBHZlcgNlMjMzNzUwNC0wN mV (Accessed: 21st May 2012).

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

74

Bowersox, D.J. (2010) Supply Chain Logistics Management. Boston, Mass; London: McGraw-Hill. Cameron, S. and Price D. (2009) Business research methods: a practical approach. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Chan, R.Y.K. He, H., and Wang, W.Y.C. (2012), ‘Environmental orientation and corporate performance: The mediation mechanism of green supply chain management and moderating effect of competitive intensity’. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), pp. 621-630. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 13th July, 2012). Christopher, M. (2011) Logistics & Supply Chain Management. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2009). Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. 3rd Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) (2012) CSCMP Supply Chain Management Definitions Available at: http://cscmp.org/about-us/supply-chain-management- definitions (Accessed: 15th May 2012). Diabat A. and Govindan, K. (2011) ‘An analysis of drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain management.’ Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(1) pp. 659-667 [Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 14th February, 2012). Fawcett, S.E., Fawcett, A.M., Watson, B.J. and Magnan, G.M., (2010) ‘Bridging  the  Barriers   to Supply Chain Collaboration: An Integrative Theoretic Model.’ Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 8(1), pp. 1-6. [Online]. Available at: http://proceedings.aom.org/ (Accessed 14th May 2012) Fisher, C.M. (2007) Researching and writing a dissertation: A guidebook for business students: Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Ghauri, P.N. and Grønhaug K., (1948-, 2010), Research methods in business studies. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Hervani, A.A., helms, M.M. and Sarkis, J., ‘Performance measurement for green supply chain management’. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(4), pp. 330-353. [Online]. Available at: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 12th July, 2012). Hill, A.J. and Hill, T.J. (2011) Essential Operations Management Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hill, A.J. and Hill, T.J. (2012) Operations Management (3rd Edition), London, Palgrave Macmillan. Horn, Roy (2009) Research & Writing Dissertations: A complete guide for business and management students. Wimbledon: Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

75

Industrias Lavin de México S.A. de C.V., ILM (2012) Comunidad y Medio Ambiente Available at: http://www.lavin.com.mx/comunidad_ambiente.html (Accessed 30th September, 2012). Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (2009) Resumen de los Resultados de los Censos Económicos 2009 Available at: http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/economico s/2009/resum_gral/rd09-resumen.pdf (Accessed: 20th May 2012). International Monetary Fund, IMF (2012) GDP based on PPP per capita GDP Available at: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=k3s92bru78li6_&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&stra il=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ppppc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=world&idim=wo rld:Earth&idim=country:GB:US:MX:ET&ifdim=world&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false (Accessed: 17th April 2012). International Monetary Fund, IMF (2012) GDP based on PPP per capita GDP Available at: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=k3s92bru78li6_&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&stra il=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ppppc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=world&idim=wo rld:Earth&idim=country:GB:MX&ifdim=world&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false (Accessed: 17th April 2012). International Monetary Fund, IMF (2012) World Economic Outlook April 2012 Growth Resuming, Dangers Remain p. 190 Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/pdf/text.pdf p. 179 (Accessed: 17th May 2012). Kaplinsky, R. (2010) ‘Schumacher meets Schumpeter: Appropriate technology below the radar.’ Research Policy, 40(2), pp. 193-203. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 12th May, 2012). Lassar, W., Haar, J., Montalvo, R., Hulser L. (2009) ‘Competitive Challenges for Supply Chain Management in Emerging Markets: The case of Mexico.’ Florida International University. April 2009 [Online]. Available at: http://business.fiu.edu/ryder/pdf/SCM_in_Emerging_Mkts-Mexico.pdf (Accessed: 19th February 2012). Liu, Y., Huang, Y., Luo, Y., Zhao, Y., ‘How does justice matter in achieving buyer–supplier relationship performance?’ Journal of Operations Management, 30(5), pp. 355-367. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 2nd October 2012). Luthra  S.,  Kumar  V.,  Kumar  S.  and  Haleem  A.,  (2011)  ‘Barriers  to  implement  green  supply   chain management in automobile industry using interpretive structural modeling technique: An  Indian  perspective.’ Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management,4(2), pp. 231. [Online]. Available at: http://www.jiem.org/index.php/jiem (Accessed: 9th July, 2012) Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., Butcher, T. & Javadpour, R. (2012), Global logistics and supply chain management. New York: Wiley.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

76

Meehan, J. and Muir, L., (2008) ‘SCM in Merseyside SMEs: benefits and barriers.’ The TQM Journal, 20(3), pp. 223-232. [Online]. Available at: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 12th November, 2012). Mentzer, J.T. (2004) Fundamentals of supply chain management: twelve drivers of competitive advantage. Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London: SAGE. Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L. and Ueltschy, M., (2009) 'Green, lean, and global supply chains.’ International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(1), pp. 14-41. [Online]. Available at: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 25th September 2012). Mosaicos Venecianos de México (2012) Piensa Verde Available at: http://www.m-v- m.mx/productosverdes.html (Accessed: 3rd October, 2012). Murphy, P.R. and Wood D. F., (2011) Contemporary Logistics. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Punch, K.F. (2005) Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: SAGE. Reilly J., Science 2.0 (2011) Developing Countries Keep Global CO2 Emissions Rising Available at: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/developing_countries_keep_global_co2_emissions_ rising-84332 (Accessed 20th May 2012). Rhodes, Warren & Carter (2006) Supply Chains and Total Product System: a reader. Malden, Mass; Oxford: Blackwell. SAPSFORD, R. (2007) Survey research. London: SAGE. SARKIS, J. (2003) ‘A Strategic Decision Framework for Green Supply Chain Management.’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(4), pp. 397-409. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 27th May, 2012). SARKIS, J., ZHU, Q., LAI, (2010). ‘An  Organizational Theoretic Review of Green Supply Chain Management Literature.’ International Journal of Production Economics, 130(1), pp. 1-15. [Online]. http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 14th May, 2012) SARKIS, J. (2001) Greener manufacturing and operations: from design to delivery and back Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Saunders M., Lewis P and Thornhill A. (1959-, 2012) Research methods for business students. Harlow, England; New York: Pearson.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

77

SEMARNAT (2012) Economía Verde Empresarial Available at: http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/liderazgo/Paginas/liderazgo.aspx (Accessed 5th November 2012) Slack, N. and Lewis, M., (2011) Operations strategy. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. The corporation (2005) Directed by Abbott, J. and Achbar, M. [Film] Canada: Metrodome. Tsireme, A., Nikolaou, I., Georgantzis, E., Tsagarakis, I., Tsagarakis, N., Tsagarakis, K. and Tsagarakis, P., (2012) ‘The Influence of Environmental Policy on the Decisions of Managers to adopt G-SCM practices.’ Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 14(5), pp. 953- 964.[Online]. Available at: http://link.springer.com/ (Accessed: 12th November, 2012). Ubeda, S.. (2008), Greening the Supply Chain. Review of Greening the Supply Chain. Interfaces 38, no. 2, (March 1): 154-155. [Online]. Available at: http://www.proquest.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk/ (accessed July 19, 2012). United Nations (2011) Environmental Indicators GHGs Available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_greenhouse_emissions.htm (Accessed: 21st May 2012) United Nations (2000) Information Services Available at: http://www.unescap.org/unis/press/G_05_00.htm (Accessed 9th July 2012) United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Global Greenhouse Data Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html (Accessed: 18th May 2012) United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000) The Lean and Green Supply Chain: A practical Guide for Materials Managers and Supply Chain Managers to Reduce Costs and Improve Environmental Performance Available at: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20000XKS.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EP A&Index=2000+Thru+2005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&Toc Restrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQ FieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C 00thru05%5CTxt%5C00000001%5C20000XKS.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=ano nymous&SortMethod=h%7C- &MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425 &Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDes c=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL (Accessed: 18th July 2012) Walker, H., Di Sisto, L. and Mcbain, D. (2008), ‘Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: Lessons from the public and private sectors.’ Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 14(1), pp. 69-85. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com (Accessed: 14th February, 2012) Waters, Donald (2010) Global logistics: new directions in supply chain management. London: Kogan Page.

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

78

Weilkiens, T., (2011) OCEB Certification Guide: Business Process Management - Fundamental Level. Burlington: Elsevier Siene. World Trade Organization, WTO (2012) Understanding the WTO: Developing Countries Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/dev1_e.htm (Accessed 19th May 2012) Wu, K., Tseng, M. and VY, T. (2011), ‘Evaluation the drivers of green supply chain management practices in uncertainty.’ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 25, pp. 384-397. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk (Accessed: 10th July, 2012) Wycherley, I. 1999,  ‘Greening supply chains: the case of  The  Body  Shop  International’, Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 120-127 [Online]. Available at: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.kingston.ac.uk (Accessed: 12th November, 2012) Yin, R.K., (2009) Case study research: design and methods. Los Angeles, Calif.; London: SAGE. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2006), ‘Green supply chain management implications for closing the loop. Transportation Research Part E: Logistic and Transportation Review, 44(1), pp. 1[Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com (Accessed: 10th July, 2012)

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

79

Appendix 1

GDP since 1994 from IMF http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/pdf/text.pdf (p. 179)

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

80

Appendix 2: Developing countries according to the World Bank, 2012

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

81

Appendix 3: Evidence extracted from the Motor Master+ International software package

US Department of Energy (2012), Sample of MotorMaster programme window. Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_deployment/software_motormaster.html (Accessed 4th November, 2012)

Understanding the barriers to implementing GSCM practices in organisations operating in developing countries

82

Appendix 4: Project results (ILM)

PARTICIPANT SUPPLIERS: Procesos Plásticos de Morelos S.A de C.V, Tecnología en Plásticos Meuri S.A de CV, La etiqueta Fina S. A de C.V, Industria Cosmética CORS.A de CV, Corporativo Burbupac S.A de C.V, Cartones y Corrugados Industriales S.A de CV, Plasilusa, SA. De C.V., Aceites y Especialidades del Bajío, S.A DE C.V., La procuraduría Federal de Protección Ambiental (Delegación Morelos), Universidad Politécnica del estado de Mórelos, ECCACIV S.A. de C.V.

Extract from Archive provided by María Cordero Quality Assurance

Industrias Lavín de México S.A. de C.V.

Participación de 12 empresas e

Instituciones

Ahorros totales por más de 2.76 millones de pesos al año

17 empleos permanentes ROI de 3.5 meses

Ahorro de 734 m3 de agua anuales Equivalente a abastecer a una familia por todo un año

Ahorro de energía por 823,276 kWh por año Equivalente a abastecer 284 hogares

Emisiones evitadas de 620 ton CO2 Equivalente a dejar de circular 121 autos compactos por todo un año

Residuos evitados de 21.58 ton Es lo que generan de residuos sólidos 59 habitantes cada año

Distinguidos Visitantes, 26 Octubre 2011

Como siempre, para nuestro equipo de trabajo en Mosaicos Venecianos de México, S.A. de C.V., ha sido muy grato el haberlos podido encontrar durante su grata visita a la Expocihac 2011 que se llevó a cabo durante los días del 18 al 22 de octubre pasado en el Centro Banamex Ciudad de México, visitando nuestro Stand, donde como cada año, ofrecemos nuestros productos y mostramos las innovaciones más recientes que hemos realizado.

En nuestro constante esfuerzo por prestarles el mejor servicio posible y ofrecerles los mejores recubrimientos vítreos producidos en el país y de fama internacional, requerimos de su amable colaboración para obtener sus comentarios derivados de su visita para poder mejorar día a día. Su retroalimentación es relevante para nosotros y pueden estar seguros que apreciaremos enormemente su colaboración.

Compartimos con ustedes la enorme satisfacción de haber sido galardonados con el premio “Materiales   y   Recursos   Sustentables” que resulta de nuestro Sistema Ekol® donde nos hemos ocupado en el reciclaje de vidrio y cuidado del medio ambiente, que venimos desempeñando desde hace varios años.

Les expresamos nuestro más sincero y genuino agradecimiento por el apoyo que siempre nos han brindado, al seleccionar nuestros productos vítreos como parte de sus operaciones en el Ramo de los Recubrimientos dentro de la Industria de la Construcción.

Aprovechamos la oportunidad para enviarles también un cordial saludo.

MOSAICOS VENECIANOS DE MEXICO SA DE CV

¹ Basado en los estándares del programa LEED® 2.2 (Liderazgo en Energía y Diseño Ambiental) desarrollado por el US GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL (USGBC) respecto al proceso productivo de reciclaje post y pre- consumo.

Una decoración con corazón verde PRESENTACIÓN:

+ Con más de 60 años de experiencia, el portafolio de marcas de MVM-Mosaicos Venecianos de México® cubre de manera global todas las aplicaciones arquitectónicas con productos y servicios especializados para el ámbito del paisajismo, el interiorismo y el arte público a través de Kolorines®, Mosai&CO y el Taller de la Familia Perdomo® refrendando que el trabajo en vidrio es sin duda, el sello de la casa.

+ Kolorines® es una referencia internacional indiscutible en el ámbito de la decoración en piscinas y spa, y bajo ésta premisa, presenta un nuevo sistema de revestimiento vítreo: Ekol®, una solución constructiva, respetuosa con el medio ambiente, rentable y eficiente concebida para las grandes obras y las características específicas de este tipo de demanda.

+ Sistema Ekol® es la nueva generación de revestimiento vítreo diseñada a base de dos componentes: piedras sílicas + mortero que desarrollan alta resistencia mecánica y química para garantizar un acabado de calidad superior.

El lado ecológico del vidrio + El vidrio por naturaleza, es amigable con el medio ambiente, hasta podríamos decir que tiene un alma verde ya que como la energía, el vidrio no se destruye, sólo se transforma. Bajo este principio y orientados a ofrecer productos de calidad con valor agregado, MVM implementó el programa de compromiso con el desarrollo sustentable llamado: Piensa verde que promueve una filosofía basada en anteponer que la más profunda emoción estética se produce cuando la armonía entre la obra del hombre y la obra de la naturaleza es completa. Por eso y a través de mejoras en su sistema productivo reduce, reutiliza y recicla los materiales utilizados en la fabricación de Ekol® ya que tiene el beneficio de estar compuesto por un alto porcentaje de vidrio reciclado (80% o más)¹.

Diseño con estilo propio UNA NUEVA SENSACIÓN DE CONTACTO NATURAL, DENTRO Y FUERA DEL AGUA. SISTEMA EKOL® = piedras sílicas + mortero Piedras sílicas - Componente A. EKol® es un sistema formado por pequeñas piedras sílicas boleadas y decantadas que brindan al contacto con la piel una sensación similar a la arena y a sus ojos la belleza y durabilidad de un acabado original con valor excepcional. + La línea Ekol® está compuesta por pequeñas piedras sílicas que poseen un brillo y variedad tonal único generando un juego de pequeños reflejos dentro y fuera del agua. Son más de 30 colores a elegir, todos ellos dotados de una pureza de color extrema y con un carácter muy diferenciado. + Presumiendo de versatilidad y polivalencia natural, Ekol® ofrece también mezclas seleccionadas en dos colecciones: Biósfera (aplicaciones exteriores) y Acuática (piscinas y áreas húmedas) aportando acabados esmalte, translúcidos y opalizados dentro de la misma gama.

[Escribir texto]

+ Con la semejanza de la piedra boleada pero con las ventajas del material vítreo: No absorbe líquidos ni grasas. - Resistente a cambios de temperatura sin quebrarse. - No se decolora con la luz ni con el paso del tiempo. - Resistente a la acción de sustancias químicas. - Actúa contra el desarrollo de hongos y bacterias. - No se maltrata cuando se modifica la alcalinidad del agua. - Amplia gama de colores. Beneficios. - Sistema antiderrapante. - Ahorro significativo en mantenimiento. - Flexibilidad de diseños que se adaptan a cualquier ambiente. - Rapidez de colocación. - Fácil de texturizar.- La temperatura del revestimiento no aumenta bajo incidencia solar directa para colores claros. Mortero- Componente B. Mortero EKol® es un mortero de anclaje a base de cemento y otros componentes que le imparten cualidades sobresalientes de fluidez, adherencia y gran resistencia evitando fisuras o desprendimientos al momento de instalarse. - No requiere de ningún agregado. - De fácil preparación, aplicación y manipulación. - Color integrado que garantiza un color homogéneo. - Ahorro de material y mano de obra contra métodos convencionales. - Óptimo rendimiento y extraordinaria resistencia. - Actúa contra el desarrollo de hongos y bacterias. + La durabilidad del sistema es tan importante como su estética es por eso que la dupla de componentes está diseñada para resistir las condiciones en áreas húmedas tales como: piscinas, jacuzzis, canales de nado, spas, regaderas, fuentes y espejos de agua; así también, es altamente recomendable para aplicaciones en áreas secas como: andadores, muros, fachadas, escalones, y banquetas. Colores disponibles. Blanco, Trigo, Champange (blanco-amarillo), Petra (gris), Azul Claro, Azul Intenso. Mortero elaborado con la calidad internacional de Laticrete®.

+ que revestimiento una verdadera experiencia sensorial Basándose en que el mejor diseño incluye la consideración del medio ambiente, Ekol®: no depreda ni saquea los ambientes naturales como son los ríos, costas, riveras, playas o lagunas para obtener el producto y no hace uso de residuos animales como conchas marinas para agregar brillo a las piedras, su brillo se obtiene de procesos minerales que excluyen el uso de trituración de la concha marina, debido a que está compuesto por un alto porcentaje de vidrio reciclado. Con esto, queda de manifiesto el compromiso Ekol® de llevar el diseño a un nuevo nivel de recubrimiento Ekológicamente sustentable.

Instalación Para obtener un óptimo resultado en la colocación del Sistema Ekol® es necesario contar con personal capacitado de instalación que provean el uso de las mejores alternativas en productos para la colocación de nuestro revestimiento siendo características indispensables para asegurar: una belleza perdurable, un desempeño óptimo y un grado mínimo de mantenimiento. Consulte al Servicio de Área Técnica Ekol® para más información: [email protected]

Contacto Para más información, visite: www.ekol.mx Cuernavaca, Mor.| (52) 777+ 3 29 66 40 Lada sin costo nacional: 01 800 000 EKOL (3565) Cabo Sn. Lucas, BCS. | (52) 624 + 1234 666 [email protected] Radio. 52*17444*47