Next Article in Journal
Analyzing the Effectiveness of Imbalanced Data Handling Techniques in Predicting Driver Phone Use
Previous Article in Journal
Cracking Pattern and Bearing Capacity of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Single-Layer Tunnel Lining
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/su151310667
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Examining the Effect of Green Logistics and Green Human Resource Management on Sustainable Development Organizations: The Mediating Role of Sustainable Production

by
Antonius Setyadi
1,*,
Yunata Kandhias Akbar
2,
Sunda Ariana
3 and
Suharno Pawirosumarto
4,*
1
School of Economics and Business, Universitas Mercu Buana, Jakarta 11650, Indonesia
2
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Esa Unggul, Jakarta 11510, Indonesia
3
Postgraduate Program, Universitas Bina Darma, Palembang 30111, Indonesia
4
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Putra Indonesia YPTK, Padang 25145, Indonesia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10667; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su151310667
Submission received: 18 May 2023 / Revised: 30 June 2023 / Accepted: 30 June 2023 / Published: 6 July 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Purpose: This research aimed to examine the effect of green logistics (GL) and green human resource management (GHRM) on the performance of environmentally friendly manufacturing industries oriented toward sustainable development of organizations (SDO) through the role of sustainable production (SP) as a mediating variable. Methodology: A quantitative approach was employed through a standardized questionnaire to obtain data from 110 manufacturing industries in Indonesia that implemented environmentally friendly practices. Advanced statistical techniques, such as structural equation modeling (SEM) and data analysis using Smart PLS (partial least square) version 4 were utilized to analyze the collected data. Findings: The results showed that the model supported the statistical significance of all seven hypotheses and confirmed the direct and mediating effects of GL, GHRM, and SP on SDO. Practical implications: This research added critical insights into the theory and practice of GL and GHRM to realize SDO through the role of SP as a mediator in environmentally friendly manufacturing industries. Originality: This research contributes to the existing literature by adding to the effect of SP mediation on the relationship of GL and GHRM on SDO. There was no previous research that discussed the important role of SP mediation in influencing the relationship between GL and GHRM on SDO.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the mainstream media has brought attention to the global environmental crisis resulting from human activities. As a response, the government has taken various measures, on the basis of the academic literature, to involve the general public in mitigating this crisis [1,2,3,4]. The ramifications of this phenomenon provide a basis for stakeholders to make legitimate demands that industries take responsibility for any adverse effects due to their economic activities. Industries around the world respond to these demands by seeking models and methods to internalize environmental concerns in their strategic planning [5]. Furthermore, the literature related to the sustainable development of organizations (SDO) emphasizes organizational performance oriented toward environmental aspects to achieve competitive advantage by applying the concept of green human resource management (GHRM) [6].
On the other hand, the concept of sustainable development goals (SDGs) has determined the important role of green logistics (GL) and GHRM in implementing environmentally friendly performance [7]. From a micro perspective, these tools for environmentally friendly practices can directly influence the realization of SDO. GL significantly affects emissions and energy consumption [8,9]; hence, its role cannot be ignored in reducing impacts and creating environmentally friendly solutions. Furthermore, it raises environmental awareness by mandating the consequences of using the logistics system implemented in industries’ operational activities [10]. The main objective is the management of all operational activities to achieve a balance of economic, environmental, and social performance, which is a dimension of the SDO concept known as the triple bottom line. A human factor is a tool that can stimulate the practice of increasing the effectiveness of an organizational environment. Meanwhile, environmentally oriented management should be exclusively carried out by individuals possessing the necessary competence in the field of ecology, coupled with a positive attitude toward the environment. These individuals must assume responsibility for the environmental implications of all their actions. GHRM in the development has played an important role, and several sources of the literature emphasize the significant potential of HRM that contributes to the popularization of sustainable balance [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20].
Recent research found that GL and the implementation of GHRM mediated by sustainable production (SP) can influence the circular economy (CE) [21], with the object of research being the garment industry in Bangladesh. The research of Bombiak et al. [6] regarding GHRM practices positively affected the performance of SDO in Poland with an emphasis on environmental aspects. In addition, GL is an original approach to achieving SDO through the harmonization of economic aspects with the principles of sustainable development achieved through the systematization of logistical methods and instruments [7]. Research raising the issue of implementing GL and GHRM to realize SDO has been carried out, but the number of publications with good practices in implementing SDO is limited. Therefore, the relevance is still minimal for environmentally friendly manufacturing industries. This reality stimulated the conduction of research on the issue of GL and GHRM on SDO accompanied by intermediary variables. The addition of these intermediary variables completes the gaps in previous research, as well as explores other factors that can accelerate the realization of SDO. Furthermore, SP was considered a mediator variable in bridging the influence of GL and GHRM on SDO.
This research was conducted on environmentally friendly manufacturing companies in Indonesia that meet three categories of green industry standards: the use of raw materials, reduction of industrial waste, and producing eco products [22]. All of them are leading industries in realizing the aims of the green industry by reducing the impact of carbon emissions in Indonesia within various fields including the agro industry, the transportation equipment industry, the telematics industry, the machinery industry, and the metal industry. The green industry standard regulated by the Indonesian government is a reference for the authors in determining the object of this research, focusing on GL, GHRM, and SP practices to realize SDO. This study is unlike existing studies conducted by Cheng et al. [21] focusing on the garment industry in Bangladesh, Ibrahim et al. [23] focusing on logistics companies in Malaysia, Centobelli et al. [24] focusing on the supply chain and SDO in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the transportation sector, and Richnák and Gubová [25] focusing on GL and SDO in telecommunications companies.
In 2022, a total of 44 manufacturing industries that apply the green industry concept succeeded in following the low carbon development (LCD) policy implemented by the government to maintain economic and social growth through development activities with low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and minimize the exploitation of natural resources. This impact is determined by the validated GHG program results for the reporting year 2021. These results showed energy and water savings amounting to IDR 3.2 trillion and IDR 169 billion, respectively. Additionally, emissions were reduced by up to 2.73 million tons of CO2e, equivalent to 99.3% of the NDC target for the industrial sector in 2020 at 2.75 million tons of CO2e [26]. This was only achieved by 28.95% of green manufacturing industries, and the achievements had a relatively small impact on sustainable and environmentally friendly business practices. Despite the clear regulations set forth by the Indonesian government in RI Law Number 3 of 2014 concerning industry, the utilization of natural resources is subject to strict guidelines. These guidelines stipulate that resources must be processed and used in an efficient, environmentally friendly, and sustainable manner. In addition, industrial companies in Indonesia should be able to optimize the use of natural resources efficiently, promote environmental friendliness, and be sustainable at all stages of the process starting from product planning to the design process, self-production stage, optimization of remaining waste products, and waste recycling [27].
Several findings have also stemmed from the results of investigating the concept of green manufacturing (GM). The biggest factors causing obstacles to the implementation of GM are regulations that have not been seriously enforced, and there is still a lack of knowledge regarding the concept [28,29]. Furthermore, organizational culture is also one of the inhibiting factors in achieving SDO in industries, which has an impact on the nonoptimal process of knowledge sharing to obtain knowledge and information related to GM issues [27]. Another factor is organizational structure [30,31]. The manufacturing industry has reported certain issues, namely, the lack of a clearly defined organizational structure and a dedicated department in the field of environmental management. These issues are particularly relevant to the effective implementation of green human resource management (GHRM) in support of green and sustainable manufacturing practices [27,32]. Concerning issues from previous research related to the performance of SDO in environmentally friendly manufacturing companies, this study focuses on the need for the manufacturing industry to better understand GL and GHRM practices to realize SDO through SP.

2. Theoretical Basis and Research Hypothesis

2.1. Green Logistics

The concept of GL covers all functional areas of logistics in production activities and operations, up to product disposal. Therefore, logistics becomes a tool for managing the problems of an organization in ensuring a balance between economic and environmental aspects [33].
GL is the integration of all activities involving product movement in the supply chain. The process starts from the raw materials for certain products to the production and distribution systems to the end consumers, while linking reverse logistics. These activities have the main objective of achieving a balance of economic, environmental, and social sustainability through a structured sequence of activities to meet customer needs with cost efficiency [34]. GL practices are related to the concept of sustainability, awareness that is oriented toward not only economic problems but also environmental and social issues impacting the wider community, such as the emergence of pollution, accumulation of waste, and relationships with consumers [35].
Other GL concepts have also been stated as part of reducing the environmental impact caused by organizations. This is due to an increase in environmental pollution through product transportation and logistics activities. Therefore, organizations, transportation providers, and the government have taken the initiative to reduce pollution through GL practices [36].
The adoption of the GL approach is attributed to multiple factors, such as heightened public awareness, the implementation of increasingly stringent international standards, and proactive government policies aimed at promoting energy conservation, reducing carbon emissions, and minimizing operational expenses. Furthermore, the use of alternative energy sources, either partially or entirely replacing fossil fuels, also contributes to this trend. Opting for environmentally friendly transportation modes and providing adequate education and training to ensure organizational sustainability essentially constitute GL practices [37].

2.2. Green Human Resource Management

GHRM focuses on environmental and future aspects of work processes and functions to obtain positive results in the form of increased performance, innovation, motivation, and satisfaction among employees [17,38]. The practices, policies, and characteristics are aligned with the concept of sustainability including social justice, health and welfare, behavior, and organizational performance [39].
GHRM has also been shown to have a positive impact on employee behavior, specifically in terms of environmental, financial, social, and innovation performance [40,41,42,43]. It allows employees to develop their knowledge and competence regarding environmentally friendly behavior, to increase the emergence of innovative ideas that contribute to employee performance by referring to the research literature, application of principles in the HRM department in the form of policies, and implementation of environmentally caring practices [44,45,46]. GHRM is a strategic topic that combines environmental and human resource management objectives. The scope includes a set of policies and practices aimed at protecting the workforce in the organization to maintain and develop intellectual capital through the implementation of HRM with effective and efficient methods [47,48,49]. The definition is also interpreted as the implementation of human resource policies to increase the use of sustainable resources while promoting a protective environment within the organization. Meanwhile, green employees’ management practices are also recommended in the GHRM concept. This is because organizations are also required to implement a green culture in all strategies while relying on all employee values, trends, and behaviors [50].

2.3. Sustainable Production

The concept of SP originated in the 1990s, as noted by Sezen and Çankaya [51]. However, in recent decades, the concept has gained significant traction and become a prominent topic of discussion. The definition of SP provided by the US Department of Commerce pertains to activities aimed at producing goods while minimizing adverse environmental impacts, conserving energy and natural resources, and ensuring healthy economic performance for the benefit of consumers and the wider community [52].
SP is the most effective strategy in supply chain management, enabling producers to increase operational efficiency, community welfare, and environmental sustainability, while sustainably reaping economic benefits [53,54]. SP also refers to the production of goods whose processes are environmentally friendly to limit negative ecological impacts, in addition to considering worker safety and welfare, as well as paying attention to social and environmental factors. The varied SP strategies include businesses based on the nature of operations adopted. The operations determine the long-term survival of industries by knowing the flow of materials and energy in the production system, which opens insights into costs, system effectiveness, and the consequences for the environment [1,55,56,57].
Green operating resources and GL initiatives are important factors for implementing SP [58]. In addition, production activities that focus on saving energy and reducing emissions can result in increased SP performance [59]. The practice is a form of effective and efficient use of natural resources in the production process, and this is a guarantee of fulfilling economic, social, and environmental aspects. This results in a sustainable concept that can protect the environment and improve the quality of life [60].

2.4. Sustainable Development

The concept of sustainable development has evolved but remains a subject of controversy. Some argue that certain approaches are too narrow when considering environmental protection, while others hold negative perspectives on the microeconomic level within organizations [61]. The concept of sustainable development is based on the triple bottom line [62,63]. As for sustainable development, there are three basic dimensions [64]:
(1)
Ecological (protection of the environment and its natural resources),
(2)
Economy (unhindered economic development, but driven by technological advances and increased effectiveness in the use of resources, materials, and labor),
(3)
Social (improvement of living conditions and safety of all people).
Sustainable development can answer global challenges related to human activities in developing and developed countries. These practices and concepts can contribute to civilization building focused on reducing and preventing the adverse effects of economic development. In addition, the concept is a form of modernization of economic development that emphasizes new management method approaches in organizations that are capable of producing various economic entities, as well as replacing environmentally friendly technologies [65].
The World Commission on Environment and Development believes that sustainable development can meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the capabilities of future generations. In addition, sustainability development is considered smart, environmentally friendly, and involving the use of resources carried out effectively using knowledge and producing innovation [66].

2.5. Hypothesized Model

2.5.1. Green Logistics and Sustainable Development Practice

Scientists [23,67,68] have suggested that sustainable development can be realized by actively implementing GL practices in business processes, transportation, storage, and packaging. Research regarding these practices has also been conducted in Germany, Italy, England, Sweden, Slovakia, China, Morocco, and Thailand [24,25,69,70,71,72]. The results showed a variety of GL practices, with notable differences observed across different countries. These variations can be attributed to various factors, such as the specifics of the cases studied, the duration of the industry’s operations, logistics service processes, and cultural differences. However, the main thread was that GL practice placed focus on the manufacturing sector and relatively little attention was paid to transportation and logistics services. There were still many variabilities related to the implementation of green practices by manufacturing industries and the factors that encourage their application.
GL plays an important role in achieving SDO in industries; in discussion forums [25,68,73,74,75,76,77,78,79], the concept had a foundation of three main aspects interrelated and complementary: economic, environmental, and social aspects. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Green logistics has a positive effect on the sustainable development of an organization.

2.5.2. Green Human Resource Management and Sustainable Development

GHRM practice is focused on making contributions in economic, social, and environmental aspects, which are further related to sustainability known as the triple bottom line [80,81]. There are two main components in GHRM, including environmentally friendly HRM practices and the preservation of knowledge assets. Therefore, it is imperative to construct an organizational culture that is conscientious, proactive, optimistic, and enduring, and that is instilled in all personnel to enhance their awareness, competence, and pro-environmental behavior [82]. GHRM has a contribution to reducing the energy consumption of natural resources, streamlining transportation, building a sustainable work environment, and reducing carbon emissions [18,83,84,85]. In addition, it contributes to the development, welfare, health, and satisfaction of employees through increased creativity and capacity to change, attract, and retain competent employees to create a sustainable organization [49,86,87]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Green human resource management has a positive effect on the sustainable development of an organization.

2.5.3. Green Logistics and Sustainable Production

The first proposal for the concept of sustainable manufacturing emerged as a result of research conducted in 1987 [88]. The results described an action taken to maintain the efficiency of natural resource assets using a sustainable strategy. Furthermore, suggestions were provided for improving the relation to policies that can promote resource conservation, minimize environmental degradation, boost the economy, and alleviate poverty in underdeveloped areas. SP is known as an effective strategy in supply chain management [89]; the practice of manufacturers developing hazardous compounds to fulfill consumer demand results in industries being obliged to reduce and even eradicate pollution [54]. Implementation of SP practices is considered to enable producers to increase operational efficiency, prosper the community, preserve the environment, and increase economic profits [74].
On the basis of some of the findings, GL is an important component in SP of manufacturing industries. The practice includes various green initiatives aimed at reducing global ecological consequences, as well as promoting pollution prevention activities [58]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Green logistics has a positive effect on sustainable production.

2.5.4. Green Human Resource Management and Sustainable Production

GHRM practices can function as an organizational tool in integrating humans into aspects of environmental sustainability through a series of activities based on human resources and comprehensive across various lines of the organization [49,90]. According to reliable sources, it is widely recognized that supporting the environmental management system through recruitment and selection, training, performance appraisal, and employee rewards is of utmost importance. GHRM practices are also relevant by supporting environmental management systems and the development of products and innovations with lower impacts [91]. Currently, industries cannot ignore environmental aspects, and this has resulted in major manufacturing industries around the world adopting GHRM which is meant for corporate preference. Therefore, large industries can practice SP by producing environmentally friendly products [92]. On this basis, the hypothesis is formulated as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Green human resource management has a positive effect on sustainable production.

2.5.5. Sustainable Production and Sustainable Development

The required parameter is the production of goods using environmentally friendly processes intended to minimize negative ecological impacts [93]. Several initiatives on SP practices have been implemented to reduce the impact of production on the environment. This goal is a major effort in reducing unwanted waste, excessive energy consumption, ineffective use of materials, and resource recovery [94]. These are all processes of integrating the systems of industries with the ability to create quality products through more efficient and environmentally friendly utilization of resources. Furthermore, sustainable production can align economic, environmental, and social impacts in all production processes to realize sustainable development [95]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Sustainable production has a positive effect on the sustainable development of an organization.

2.5.6. The Role of Mediation in Sustainable Production

The SDO model is complex and inseparable, which balances the three components of sustainable development, namely economic, social, and environmental aspects [7]. Many countries around the world, both adopting emerging market economies and those that are advanced in the economic and social fields, are currently striving to realize sustainable development. This is due to the need to create economic growth that can improve the quality of life without having to result in environmental destruction and exploitation of natural resources [33].
The available literature has identified several factors driving the realization of SDO, such as GL and GHRM. However, the research assumes that the effect of the green factor on SDO is not direct. The realization of SDO through GL and the implementation of GHRM still feel the need to incorporate sustainability initiatives to complement sustainable development. These variables can minimize the consequences of negative ecological impacts [96], and the relevance of the research is in line with Chang et al. and Rakhmangulov [7,21], highlighting the effect of GL on SDO. Meanwhile, when facing challenges in the external environment, the industry can take advantage of GHRM practices as an important factor in the development of human resources [50,97].
Several studies have shown the results of integrating GHRM into SP as a business process. Khan and Muktar [50] argued that GHRM recommends green employee management practices because this is part of a sustainable business management strategy. Therefore, industries must develop a green culture internalized in aspects of the production process, as well as employee values and behavior. Jinru et al. and Cheng et al. [1,21] found that SP is an important intermediary variable in corporate green practices such as GL and GHRM, affecting SDO. Therefore, the following hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Green logistics has a positive effect on the sustainable development of ab organization through sustainable production.
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Green human resource management has a positive effect on the sustainable development of an organization through sustainable production.
The model framework is shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Samples

The population of this study involved companies engaged in the green-based (environmentally friendly) manufacturing industry in Indonesia, comprising a total of 152 companies in various industrial fields including the agro industry, transportation equipment industry, telematics industry, machinery industry, and metal industry. These industries have been recorded in the database of the Ministry of Industry with the concept of GL, GHRM, SP, and SDO practices. The research distributed questionnaires to 152 industries, accompanied by a letter of introduction. The letter underscored the voluntary nature of the questionnaire and emphasized that respondents were under no obligation to participate. A total of 110 industries, which accounts for 72.36% of the total population, completed the questionnaire in its entirety and were deemed suitable for research purposes, thereby serving as the research sample. Furthermore, the data were collected between December 2022 and February 2023.

3.2. Profile of Respondents

The most recent data collected and received, which served as the research sample, originated from a group of 110 general managers of green-based manufacturing industries in Indonesia; the profiles of these respondents are presented in profile of respondents table.

3.3. Measurement

All items in each construct were measured using five-point Likert scales: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. About six indicators were obtained from the relevant literature to assess GL [7,21,79] and GHRM [49,84,98,99,100]. Meanwhile, SP [3,93,101,102] and SDO were measured using four and eight indicators [103,104]. Each of these indicators is described in the form of variable operational definitions presented in Table 1.

3.4. Method

Methods of data analysis and hypothesis testing were conducted using partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The measurement tool used SmartPLS version 4 to perform PLS-SEM analysis [105]. PLS analysis is a multivariate statistical technique that makes comparisons between multiple dependent and independent variables [106]. It can be used for very complex models, consisting of many latent variables, and can estimate path models with small samples. It explains the relationship between constructs and emphasizes the understanding of the value of the relationship [107].
The steps in the PLS analysis are carried out by evaluating the outer and inner models [105]. The outer model evaluates the relationship between constructs and their indicators. There are two measurement methods, namely, validity and reliability tests. The process of validity testing involves two distinct stages. The first stage entails convergent validity testing, which examines each construct on the basis of its respective loading factor values. The second stage involves discriminant validity testing, which compares constructs using the average variance extracted (AVE) measure [107]. Another test to evaluate the outer model is to analyze the construct reliability of latent variables as measured by composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha (CA) from the indicator block [108].
Furthermore, the inner model assesses the structural model with PLS, starting by analyzing R2 values, Q2 values, and the goodness-of-fit index (GoF) and then evaluating the significance between constructs shown by the path coefficient for testing the hypothesis [108]. The R2 value for each endogenous latent variable is the predictive power of the structural model. Changes in the value can be used to explain the substantive effect of certain exogenous latent variables on endogenous ones [109]. Evaluation of the PLS model is also carried out using Q2 predictive relevance known as predictive sample reuse [110]. Calculation of the value of the goodness-of-fit index (GoF) is conducted to determine the fitness or feasibility of the model [108]. Furthermore, the evaluation of the model to test the hypothesis is performed by looking at the significant value to determine the effect among variables through the bootstrapping procedure. Structural model testing can be achieved by paying attention to the value in the path coefficient output. To ascertain the impact of exogenous variables on endogenous variables, the statistical significance can be determined by analyzing the p-value. The level of significance can be measured using t-statistics. Additionally, the strength of the influence of exogenous variables on endogenous variables can be observed by examining the value of γ obtained in the original sample [105].

4. Data Analysis

4.1. Measurement and Structural Model

The research data were obtained through a questionnaire distributed to 110 respondents who served as general managers in environmentally friendly manufacturing companies. The entire questionnaire distributed was deemed suitable for data processing and analysis. The findings showed that the majority of the companies had been operating for more than 10 years (62.73%), while the remaining had been operational for around 5 years or less. Most of the respondents held the position of general manager for less than 1 year (93.64%), and the rest were in the position for more than 1 year. The majority of the respondents were in the productive age range of 25–50 years (97%), and a large proportion held master’s degrees (58.18%). The majority of respondent companies were publicly listed and employed more than 500 individuals (90%). The scope of the operations was primarily at the national level (57%), while the remaining companies operated at an international (37.37%) or local (10.91%) level. Table 2 shows detailed information regarding respondent profiles.
The outer model was a measurement result to evaluate the relationship between constructs and their indicators. Furthermore, there were two measurement methods, namely, validity and reliability tests. The validity test assessment used the loading factor value, and then the construct reliability is measured through Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR) values. A valid statement from an indicator was considered when the loading factor value was >0.70, while the reliability was considered to meet the requirements for CR and CA values >0.70 [107]. The average variance extracted (AVE) value was considered satisfactory when a value >0.5 was used to determine convergent validity (CV) [111], indicating that one latent variable could explain more than half of the indicators in the average value [108].
The validity and reliability measurements met the required criteria since the loading factor values were >0.70, while the CA and CR values were > 0.70. Therefore, the research model could be considered valid and reliable. The AVE value also met the specified requirements of >0.50 whereby the results showed values in the range of 0.610 to 0.785, as presented in Table 3 and Figure 2.
Determining the value of R2 has sequential requirements wherein a value of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 is declared weak, moderate, and strong [109]. The results of data processing show that the R2 value for the direct and indirect effect was 0.666 as presented in Table 4. Therefore, this research model was included in the moderate category with direct and indirect effects of GL and GHRM on SP of 66.6%. Meanwhile, the remaining 34% may be influenced by other variables outside the study. The SDO variable was also influenced by the GL, GHRM, and SP at 66%, with the results included in the moderate/strong enough category. Furthermore, 34% of the other influences may be caused by external variables. Concerning the implication of the R2 value, the implementation of GL and GHRM, which are exogenous latent variables, in the study to 110 (72.36%) environmentally friendly industrial companies had a fairly strong influence on endogenous latent variables, namely, SP and SDO. These results also prove that the structural model of the study has a moderate/strong enough relationship.
The subsequent step entails calculating the Q2 value, which serves to determine the predictive relevance of the research model with the observational value. The relevance of the model is deemed satisfactory or commendable when Q2 > 0 [110]. The Q2 value calculation is shown below to meet the requirements; hence, the research model can be declared relevant.
Q2 = 1 − ((1 − R12)(1 − R22)…(1 − Rx2))
= 1 − ((1 − 0.6662)(1 − 0.6662))
= 0.690.
Calculation of the goodness-of-fit index (GoF) value is conducted to find out the fitness level of the model with the requirement of a large GoF value = 0.36 [108]. The results of calculating the GoF value amounted to 0.680, meaning the model has a large feasibility level.
GoF Index = √AVE × R2
= √((0.647 + 0.737 + 0.785 + 0.610)/4) × ((0.666 + 0.666)/2)
= 0.680.

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

The stages of hypothesis testing were carried out to prove the effect of exogenous variables, namely, GL and GHRM on SP and SDO, through partial testing of direct and indirect effects where SP becomes the mediating variable, as shown in Table 5.
In Table 5, the results show that each of the seven hypotheses was statistically significant. The research model for the inner model is shown in Figure 3. The hypothesis test results are explained in detail as follows:
H1: GL had a positive effect on SDO, declaring H1 as true/confirmed. Therefore, H0 was rejected because the t statistic was 2.562 < 1.982 from the t-table =, with a p < 0.000.
H2: GHRM had a positive influence on SDO, declaring H2 as true/confirmed. Therefore, H0 was rejected because the t-statistic was 2.284 < 1.982 from the t-table, with p < 0.000.
H3: GL had a positive effect on SP, declaring H3 as true/confirmed. Therefore, H0 was rejected because the t-statistic was 3.224 < 1.982 from the t-table with p < 0.000.
H4: GHRM had a positive effect on SP, declaring H4 as declared true/confirmed. Therefore, H0 was rejected because the t-statistic was 9.090 < 1.982 from the t-table with p < 0.000.
H5: SP had a positive influence on SDO, declaring H5 as true/confirmed. Therefore, H0 was rejected because the t-statistic was 4.106 < < 1.982 from the t-table with p < 0.000.
H6: GL had a positive influence on SDO through SP mediation, declaring H6 as true/confirmed. Therefore, H0 was rejected because the t-statistic was 2.464 < 1.982 from the t-table with p < 0.000.
H7: GHRM had a positive influence on SDO through SP mediation, declaring H7 as true/confirmed. Therefore, H0 was rejected because the t-statistic was 3.534 < 1.982 from the t-table with p < 0.000.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Manufacturing industries are required to improve their performance as a form of commitment to achieving national sustainable development goals. Several industries are oriented toward environmentally friendly and sustainable methods to promote SDO practices [5]. For example, various businesses have implemented GL methods, which are efforts to achieve SDO performance [10]. Human resource factors influence the achievement of industries’ SDO performance through GHRM concepts and practices to create an environmentally friendly culture [6]. Therefore, GHRM practices function to improve SDO performance in environmentally friendly manufacturing industries. According to the SDG theory, a model was created that produced a concept by combining four constructions including GL, GHRM, SP, and SDO. The data processing and analysis using PLS-SEM suggested that there was a direct or mediated relationship among the four constructs. These findings can add important insights and knowledge related to the relevant literature in the context of green manufacturing industries in developing countries.
Firstly, the implementation of GL practices can affect the performance of SDO, and there are several studies with similar findings relevant to these results [7]. The logistics activities implemented in industries can realize all main aspects of SDO practice, namely, economic, environmental, and social aspects [25,68,73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. Logistics functional activities covering production and operations are the basis of GL. Therefore, logistics can become a tool for managing problems in organizations to achieve a balance between economic and environmental aspects [33]. These findings strengthen the contribution of GL elements in the SDG theory, which is one of the key factors for achieving sustainable development [7]. The research findings indicate that environmentally friendly manufacturing companies in Indonesia have successfully implemented GL by actively promoting the use of ecofriendly materials in their products and packaging. This has contributed to the enhancement of SDO performance, as the companies have been able to maintain production stability even as product consumption levels have risen.
Secondly, GHRM has a significant influence on SDO practices in industries. These findings are also supported by several research which produced a positive relationship between GHRM and SDO [6]. The findings showed that conscious, proactive, positive, and sustainable internalization of organizational culture can increase competency awareness of employees and green behavior which can certainly promote the achievement of SDO [82]. The SDGs theory also states that the concept of a tree bottom line is the main focus of GHRM practice which directly contributes to sustainable development [80,81].
The implementation of GHRM in the environmentally friendly manufacturing industry in Indonesia which focuses on investment in the form of training programs for employees related to performance can influence work culture. In addition, it is supported by the routine agenda of managers and company leaders to ensure the implementation of the green operating concept in company operations for high sustainability.
Thirdly, GL also has an impact on SP in industries. The practices can improve the performance of environmentally friendly oriented products. These findings are also relevant to previous research that connected GL with SP [21]. Ecofriendly manufacturing companies in Indonesia can maintain production stability by using technology and logistics management information systems. They implement this approach beginning from the raw material logistics stage through the production process to ensure that their operational activities are sustainable.
Fourthly, GHRM has a very important influence on creating sustainable production in the company. The results show that environmentally friendly manufacturing industry companies in Indonesia can implement SP supported by efforts for managers and company leaders to implement a green culture. These efforts have been carried out in several activities such as involving employees in environmental management activities, periodically holding training related to being environmentally friendly, socializing, and implementing green culture policies. These findings reinforce the results of previous research, where the company’s demand to be aware of the importance of preserving the environment has resulted in large manufacturing companies practicing GHRM. Therefore, sustainable production practices can be applied and achieved through the production of environmentally friendly innovative products [92].
Fifthly, SP has a significant effect on SDO, as supported by previous research [58,70,93,94,95]. The practice is a form of effective and efficient use of natural resources in the production process, which can guarantee the fulfillment of economic, social, and environmental aspects. Therefore, the SDO concept contributes to protecting the environment and improving the quality of life [60].
The findings indicate that the implementation of SP practices in the environmentally friendly manufacturing industry in Indonesia mainly took the form of using eco-friendly production technologies and processes. Specifically, the production process involved the reprocessing of waste materials to create new products. The focus on product life cycle analysis played a significant role in implementing the SP concept by contributing to the achievement of SDO performance. It should be noted that complying with the regulations set by the Indonesian government was also a primary focus for the manufacturing industry.
Lastly, the indirect effect analysis showed that there was an influence of SP as a mediator between GL and SDO. There was an indirect influence mediated by SP between GHRM and SDO. The results prove that the effect of GHRM through SP mediation on SDO had a greater influence on environmentally friendly manufacturing companies in Indonesia compared to SP mediation on GL and SDO even though both hypotheses showed positive and significant results. They simultaneously answer the main issues in achieving SDO performance according to previous research, where several factors were obstacles to this achievement, such as a lack of knowledge regarding green manufacturing, green organizational culture factors, and the absence of a special department in environmental management [27,28,29,30,31,32]. Some of these factors are the contributions of GHRM and SP to realize SDO performance, which are in line with previous research stating that sustainable production could be achieved with GHRM practices [50] and become a factor in the achievement of SDO [1,21].
In conclusion, industries oriented toward green practices, such as GL and GHRM, have succeeded in supporting the performance of environmentally friendly manufacturing industries and SDO. The existence can add to the literature related to GSCM and GHRM. This was due to the lack of research on the indirect effect of GL and GHRM on SDO performance in manufacturing industries.

6. Theorical Implications

The results can contribute theoretically to the current GL, GHRM, SP, and SDO literature. First, there is insight related to the relationship between green performance practices and their contribution to SDO in manufacturing industries. Concerning the SDG concept, this research has significant implications for manufacturing industries that implement environmentally friendly practices to achieve consistent SDO performance in a competitive environment. Second, the results are supported by statistical evidence in supporting the statement that the implementation of GL and GHRM has a major influence on improving SP and SDO practices in industries. These results are also consistent and relevant to research findings in other countries. Therefore, the SDG concept can be applied without being limited by geographical conditions. Third, on the basis of currently available knowledge, this research contributes to establishing a direct link between SP and SDO. The process of SP activities which is increasingly optimal can significantly improve SDO performance in green manufacturing industries. These results have important implications in developing countries because the majority of similar research concepts and models are carried out in developed nations.
Fourth, this research contributes to the literature by adding the effect of SP mediation on the relationship of GL and GHRM to SDO. The majority of the existing literature focuses on the direct influence between GL and SP, GHRM, and SP as an increase in SDO performance of industries [39,74]. Furthermore, the existence of SP as a mediator positively influences the relationship of GL and GHRM to SDO. This means that the activities of industries can increase the application of technology, information systems, and employees’ competency in implementing green performance to increase corporate value and prioritize social and environmental aspects. There is no previous research that discussed the important role of SP mediation in influencing the relationship between GL and GHRM on SDO.

7. Practical Implications

The implications for the practical world can cover corporate managers, governments, and legislators. Competitiveness can be increased to achieve SDO performance by combining many initiatives such as GL and GHRM practices to remain consistent in achieving sustainable development. In addition, this research developed a model for the implementation of GL and GHRM in supply chain management to raise employee awareness of environmental care. The ultimate objective is to significantly contribute to achieving SDO that is holistic, encompassing economic, social, and environmental aspects. These results can be used by the government to accelerate the implementation of green industry criteria standards with a broad impact on the environment through a low carbon development (LCD) policy to maintain economic and social growth through development activities with low GHG emissions and minimize the exploitation of natural resources.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S.; data curation, S.P.; formal analysis, A.S. and Y.K.A.; investigation, Y.K.A.; methodology, S.A.; project administration, S.P.; resources, S.A.; software, Y.K.A.; supervision, Y.K.A. and S.A.; validation, S.P. and S.A.; visualization, S.A.; writing—original draft, A.S. and Y.K.A.; writing—review and editing, A.S., S.P., Y.K.A. and S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful for all the contributions and support in preparing the writing of this article. The authors also acknowledge the contribution of the participants who answered the survey.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jinru, L.; Changbiao, Z.; Ahmad, B.; Irfan, M.; Nazir, R. How Do Green Financing and Green Logistics Affect the Circular Economy in the Pandemic Situation: Key Mediating Role of Sustainable Production. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž. 2022, 35, 3836–3856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shi, Y.; Siddik, A.B.; Masukujjaman, M.; Zheng, G.; Hamayun, M.; Ibrahim, A.M. The Antecedents of Willingness to Adopt and Pay for the IoT in the Agricultural Industry: An Application of the UTAUT 2 Theory. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zeng, H.; Chen, X.; Xiao, X.; Zhou, Z. Institutional Pressures, Sustainable Supply Chain Management, and Circular Economy Capability: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Eco-Industrial Park Firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 155, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yu, Z.; Khan, S.A.R.; Umar, M. Circular Economy Practices and Industry 4.0 Technologies: A Strategic Move of Automobile Industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 796–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Seroka-Stolka, O. The Development of Green Logistics for Implementation Sustainable Development Strategy in Companies. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 151, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Bombiak, E.; Marciniuk-Kluska, A. Green Human Resource Management as a Tool for the Sustainable Development of Enterprises: Polish Young Company Experience. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Rakhmangulov, A.; Sladkowski, A.; Osintsev, N.; Muravev, D. Green Logistics: Element of the Sustainable Development Concept. Part 1. Naše More 2017, 64, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, J.; Feng, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. Green Supply Chain Management and the Circular Economy: Reviewing Theory for Advancement of Both Fields. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2018, 48, 794–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vienažindienė, M.; Tamulienė, V.; Zaleckienė, J. Green Logistics Practices Seeking Development of Sustainability: Evidence from Lithuanian Transportation and Logistics Companies. Energies 2021, 14, 7500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fortes, J. Green Supply Chain Management: A Literature Review. Otago Manag. Grad. Rev. 2009, 7, 51–62. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen, E.; Taylor, S.; Muller-Camen, M. HR’s Role in Corporate Social Use and Management of Downsizing Responsibility and Sustainability; SHRM Foundation: Alexandria, VI, USA, 2010; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ehnert, I.; Harry, W. Recent Developments and Future Prospects on Sustainable Human Resource Management: Introduction to the Special Issue. Manag. Rev. 2012, 23, 221–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Ehnert, I.; Harry, W.; Zink, K.J. (Eds.) Developing Sustainable Business Organizations; CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; ISBN 978-3-642-37523-1. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ehnert, I.; Parsa, S.; Roper, I.; Wagner, M.; Muller-Camen, M. Reporting on Sustainability and HRM: A Comparative Study of Sustainability Reporting Practices by the World’s Largest Companies. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27, 88–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Santos, F.C.A. The Central Role of Human Resource Management in the Search for Sustainable Organizations. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008, 19, 2133–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Preuss, L.; Haunschild, A.; Matten, D. The Rise of CSR: Implications for HRM and Employee Representation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2009, 20, 953–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ahmad, S. Green Human Resource Management: Policies and Practices. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2015, 2, 1030817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Opatha, H.H.D.N.P.; Arulrajah, A.A. Green Human Resource Management: Simplified General Reflections. Int. Bus. Res. 2014, 7, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Davies, I.A.; Crane, A. Corporate Social Responsibility in Small-and Medium-Size Enterprises: Investigating Employee Engagement in Fair Trade Companies. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2010, 19, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Leszczynska, A. Conseptualization of Green Human Resource Management. In Proceedings of the 16th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development—“The Legal Challenges of Modern World”, Split, Croatia, 1–2 September 2016; pp. 431–441. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cheng, Y.; Masukujjaman, M.; Sobhani, F.A.; Hamayun, M.; Alam, S.S. Green Logistics, Green Human Capital, and Circular Economy: The Mediating Role of Sustainable Production. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Republic of Indonesia Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 3 Tahun 2014 Tentang Perindustrian. 2014. Available online: https://agro.kemenperin.go.id/files/performance-document/UU_Perindustrian_No_3_2014.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2023).
  23. Ibrahim, I.; Sundram, V.P.K.; Omar, E.N.; Yusoff, N.; Amer, A. The Determinant Factors of Green Practices Adoption for Logistics Companies in Malaysia. A Case Study of PKT Logistics Group Sdn. Bhd. J. Emerg. Econ. Islam. Res. 2019, 7, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. Pursuing Supply Chain Sustainable Development Goals through the Adoption of Green Practices and Enabling Technologies: A Cross-Country Analysis of LSPs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 153, 119920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Richnák, P.; Gubová, K. Green and Reverse Logistics in Conditions of Sustainable Development in Enterprises in Slovakia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ministry of Industry Republic of Indonesia. Kementerian Perindustrian Luncurkan Penghargaan Industri Hijau 2022; Ministry of Industry Republic of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022.
  27. Aviasti, A.; Amaranti, R.; Rumania, O. Berbagi Pengetahuan Pada Penerapan Green Manufacturing Di Kawasan Industri. Prosiding SNaPP Sains Teknologi 2017, 7, 363–371. [Google Scholar]
  28. Amaranti, R.; Drajad, I.; Rajesri, G. Green Manufacturing: Kajian Literatur. In Seminar dan Konferensi Nasional IDEC. 2017; pp. 2579–6429. Available online: https://idec.ft.uns.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Prosiding2017_ID030.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2023).
  29. Marimin; Darmawan, M.A.; Machfud; Islam Fajar Putra, M.P.; Wiguna, B. Value Chain Analysis for Green Productivity Improvement in the Natural Rubber Supply Chain: A Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rehman, M.A.A.; Shrivastava, R.L. Green Manufacturing (GM): Past, Present and Future (a State of Art Review). World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 10, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dornfeld, D.A. Moving towards Green and Sustainable Manufacturing. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol. 2014, 1, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Kurnia, H.; Setiawan, I.; Hernadewita, H. Integrasi Lean dan Green Manufacturing Untuk Mengurangi Pemborosan Proses Rekrutmen Karyawan Pada Industri Manufaktur di Indonesia. J. Rekayasa Sist. Ind. 2022, 11, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kurbatova, S.M.; Aisner, L.Y.; Mazurov, V.Y. Green Logistics as an Element of Sustainable Development. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 548, 052067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Green Logistics Organization. What Is Green Logistics? Green Logistics Organization: Duluth, GA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  35. Regina Da, P.; Zaluski, S.; Souza, D.; Meireles Rocha, G.; Rodrigues, L.; Merelles, O.; Machado, R.L. Diferenças Entre Lean Manufacturing E Green Supply Chain -Revisão Sistemática. Rev. Gest. Inov. Neg. 2016, 2, 72–84. [Google Scholar]
  36. Fahimnia, B.; Bell, M.G.H.; Hensher, D.A.; Sarkis, J. The Role of Green Logistics and Transportation in Sustainable Supply Chains. In Green Logistics and Transportation; Fahimnia, B., Bell, M.G.H., Hensher, D.A., Sarkis, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 1–12. ISBN 978-3-319-17180-7. [Google Scholar]
  37. McKinnon, A.C. (Ed.) Green Logistics: Improving the Environmental Sustainability of Logistics, 3rd ed.; Kogan Page: London, UK; Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-0-7494-7185-9. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mousa, S.K.; Othman, M. The Impact of Green Human Resource Management Practices on Sustainable Performance in Healthcare Organisations: A Conceptual Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Amrutha, V.N.; Geetha, S.N. A Systematic Review on Green Human Resource Management: Implications for Social Sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Singh, S.K.; Giudice, M.D.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green Innovation and Environmental Performance: The Role of Green Transformational Leadership and Green Human Resource Management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kim, Y.J.; Kim, W.G.; Choi, H.-M.; Phetvaroon, K. The Effect of Green Human Resource Management on Hotel Employees’ Eco-Friendly Behavior and Environmental Performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pham, N.T.; Vo Thanh, T.; Tučková, Z.; Thuy, V.T.N. The Role of Green Human Resource Management in Driving Hotel’s Environmental Performance: Interaction and Mediation Analysis. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 88, 102392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. O’Donohue, W.; Torugsa, N. (Ann) The Moderating Effect of ‘Green’ HRM on the Association between Proactive Environmental Management and Financial Performance in Small Firms. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27, 239–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Shah, M. Green Human Resource Management: Development of a Valid Measurement Scale. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 771–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chreif, M.; Farmanesh, P. Applying Green Human Resource Practices toward Sustainable Workplace: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huang, X.; Hu, Z.; Liu, C.; Yu, D.; Yu, L. The Relationships between Regulatory and Customer Pressure, Green Organizational Responses, and Green Innovation Performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3423–3433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mahmood, Q.-U.-A.; Ahmed, R.; Philbin, S.P. The Moderating Effect of Big Data Analytics on Green Human Resource Management and Organizational Performance. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2022, 18, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tang, G.; Chen, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Paillé, P.; Jia, J. Green Human Resource Management Practices: Scale Development and Validity. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2018, 56, 31–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Renwick, D.W.S.; Redman, T.; Maguire, S. Green Human Resource Management: A Review and Research Agenda: Green Human Resource Management. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2013, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Khan, M.H.; Muktar, S.N. A Bibliometric Analysis of Green Human Resource Management Based on Scopus Platform. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1831165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sezen, B.; Çankaya, S.Y. Effects of Green Manufacturing and Eco-Innovation on Sustainability Performance. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 99, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Tate, W.L.; Ellram, L.M.; Dooley, K.J. Environmental Purchasing and Supplier Management (EPSM): Theory and Practice. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2012, 18, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Maruthi, G.D.; Rashmi, R. Green Manufacturing: It’s Tools and Techniques That Can Be Implemented in Manufacturing Sectors. Mater. Today Proc. 2015, 2, 3350–3355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Roy, M.; Khastagir, D. Exploring Role of Green Management in Enhancing Organizational Efficiency in Petro-Chemical Industry in India. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 121, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yadav, G.; Luthra, S.; Jakhar, S.K.; Mangla, S.K.; Rai, D.P. A Framework to Overcome Sustainable Supply Chain Challenges through Solution Measures of Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy: An Automotive Case. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Soundarrajan, P.; Vivek, N. Green Finance for Sustainable Green Economic Growth in India. Agric. Econ. Zemědělská Ekon. 2016, 62, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Turner, C.; Moreno, M.; Mondini, L.; Salonitis, K.; Charnley, F.; Tiwari, A.; Hutabarat, W. Sustainable Production in a Circular Economy: A Business Model for Re-Distributed Manufacturing. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Bressanelli, G.; Adrodegari, F.; Perona, M.; Saccani, N. Exploring How Usage-Focused Business Models Enable Circular Economy through Digital Technologies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Zhang, W.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, Q.; Zhang, X. What Influences the Effectiveness of Green Logistics Policies? A Grounded Theory Analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 714, 136731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Garetti, M.; Taisch, M. Sustainable Manufacturing: Trends and Research Challenges. Prod. Plan. Control 2012, 23, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Borys, T. Zrównoważony rozwój organizacji—Co chcemy lub powinniśmy równoważyć? Sci. Pap. Wrocław Univ. Econ. 2015, 376, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Elkington, J.; Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone: Oxford, UK, 1999; ISBN 978-1-900961-27-1. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hülsmann, M.; Grapp, J. Nachhaltigkeit und Logistik-Management; LIT: Hamburg, Germany, 2007; pp. 85–126. [Google Scholar]
  65. Poskrobko, B. Teoretyczne Aspekty Ekorozwoju. Bazekon 1997, 1, 7–20. [Google Scholar]
  66. Koszali, P. Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu jako czynnik konkurencyjności przedsiębiorstw. Cent. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2014, 180, 131–140. [Google Scholar]
  67. Khan, S.A.R. The Nexus between Carbon Emissions, Poverty, Economic Growth, and Logistics Operations-Empirical Evidence from Southeast Asian Countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 13210–13220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Evangelista, P.; Santoro, L.; Thomas, A. Environmental Sustainability in Third-Party Logistics Service Providers: A Systematic Literature Review from 2000–2016. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Pålsson, H.; Kovács, G. Reducing Transportation Emissions: A Reaction to Stakeholder Pressure or a Strategy to Increase Competitive Advantage. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2014, 44, 283–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, Y.; Thompson, R.G.; Bao, X.; Jiang, Y. Analyzing the Promoting Factors for Adopting Green Logistics Practices: A Case Study of Road Freight Industry in Nanjing, China. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 125, 432–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. El Baz, J.; Laguir, I. Third-Party Logistics Providers (TPLs) and Environmental Sustainability Practices in Developing Countries: The Case of Morocco. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2017, 37, 1451–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sureeyatanapas, P.; Poophiukhok, P.; Pathumnakul, S. Green Initiatives for Logistics Service Providers: An Investigation of Antecedent Factors and the Contributions to Corporate Goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 191, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. Environmental Sustainability in the Service Industry of Transportation and Logistics Service Providers: Systematic Literature Review and Research Directions. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2017, 53, 454–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Karaman, A.S.; Kilic, M.; Uyar, A. Green Logistics Performance and Sustainability Reporting Practices of the Logistics Sector: The Moderating Effect of Corporate Governance. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Seroka-Stolka, O.; Ociepa-Kubicka, A. Green Logistics and Circular Economy. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 39, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rakhmangulov, A.; Sladkowski, A.; Osintsev, N.; Muravev, D. Zelena Logistika: Sustav Metoda i Instrumenata—2. Dio. Naše More 2018, 65, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Kumar, A. Green Logistics for Sustainable Development: An Analytical Review. IOSRD Int. J. Bus. 2015, 1, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  78. Jum’a, L.; Zimon, D.; Ikram, M. A Relationship between Supply Chain Practices, Environmental Sustainability and Financial Performance: Evidence from Manufacturing Companies in Jordan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Baah, C.; Jin, Z.; Tang, L. Organizational and Regulatory Stakeholder Pressures Friends or Foes to Green Logistics Practices and Financial Performance: Investigating Corporate Reputation as a Missing Link. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Xu, B.; Gao, X.; Cai, W.; Jiang, L. How Environmental Leadership Boosts Employees’ Green Innovation Behavior? A Moderated Mediation Model. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 689671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Colbert, B.A.; Kurucz, E.C. Three Conceptions of Triple Bottom Line Business Sustainability and the Role for HRM. Hum. Resour. Manag. Soc. 2007, 30, 21–29. [Google Scholar]
  82. Mukherji, A.; Bhatnagar, J. Conceptualizing and Theorizing Green Human Resource Management: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Manpow. 2022, 43, 862–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mehta, K.; Chugan, P.K. Green HRM in Pursuit of Environmentally Sustainable Business. Univers. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2015, 3, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jabbour, C.J.C.; De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain Management: Linking Two Emerging Agendas. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1824–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Milliman, J. Leading-Edge Green Human Resource Practices: Vital Components to Advancing Environmental Sustainability: Leading-Edge Green Human Resource Practices. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2013, 23, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ari, E.; Karatepe, O.M.; Rezapouraghdam, H.; Avci, T. A Conceptual Model for Green Human Resource Management: Indicators, Differential Pathways, and Multiple Pro-Environmental Outcomes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Shipton, H.; Budhwar, P.S.; Crawshaw, J. HRM, Organizational Capacity for Change, and Performance: A Global Perspective. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2012, 54, 777–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Repetto, R. Economic Incentives for Sustainable Production. Ann. Reg. Sci. 1987, 21, 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ghosh, S.K. Green Supply Chain Management in Production Sectors and Its Impact on Firm Reputation. J. New Theory 2017, 18, 53–63. [Google Scholar]
  90. Martínez-del-Río, J.; Céspedes-Lorente, J.; Carmona-Moreno, E. High-Involvement Work Practices and Environmental Capabilities: How HIWPS Create Environmentally Based Sustainable Competitive Advantages. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012, 51, 827–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Govindarajulu, N.; Daily, B.F. Motivating Employees for Environmental Improvement. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2004, 104, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Masri, H.A.; Jaaron, A.A.M. Assessing Green Human Resources Management Practices in Palestinian Manufacturing Context: An Empirical Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 474–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bag, S.; Pretorius, J.H.C. Relationships between Industry 4.0, Sustainable Manufacturing and Circular Economy: Proposal of a Research Framework. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2022, 30, 864–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pajunen, N.; Watkins, G.; Wierink, M.; Heiskanen, K. Drivers and Barriers of Effective Industrial Material Use. Miner. Eng. 2012, 29, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Machado, C.G.; Winroth, M.P.; Ribeiro Da Silva, E.H.D. Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0: An Emerging Research Agenda. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 1462–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lopes De Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Rojas Luiz, J.V.; Rojas Luiz, O.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Ndubisi, N.O.; Caldeira De Oliveira, J.H.; Junior, F.H. Circular Economy Business Models and Operations Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1525–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Zaid, A.A.; Jaaron, A.A.M.; Talib Bon, A. The Impact of Green Human Resource Management and Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Sustainable Performance: An Empirical Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 965–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bowen, F.E.; Cousins, P.D.; Lamming, R.C.; Farukt, A.C. The Role of Supply Management Capabilities in Green Supply. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2009, 10, 174–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pagell, M.; Wu, Z. Building A More Complete Theory of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Using Case Studies of 10 Exemplars. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2009, 45, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Srinivasan, A.; Kurey, B. Creating a Culture of Quality. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2014, 92, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  101. Unob, F.; Wongsiri, B.; Phaeon, N.; Puanngam, M.; Shiowatana, J. Reuse of Waste Silica as Adsorbent for Metal Removal by Iron Oxide Modification. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 142, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lee, J.; Song, H.T.; Yoo, J.-M. Present Status of the Recycling of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment in Korea. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 50, 380–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Glonti, V.; Trynchuk, V.; Khovrak, I.; Mokhonko, G.; Shkrobot, M.; Manvelidze, L. Socialization of Organization Sustainable Development Based on the Principles of Corporate Social Responsibility. Montenegrin J. Econ. 2020, 16, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Lindgreen, A.; Swaen, V. Corporate Social Responsibility. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Mitchell, R.; Gudergan, S.P. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in HRM Research. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 1617–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Leguina, A. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38, 220–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hair, J.F.; Law, R. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 6, 211–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P.; Fischer, A.; Nitzl, C.; Menictas, C. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling-Based Discrete Choice Modeling: An Illustration in Modeling Retailer Choice. Bus. Res. 2019, 12, 115–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Testing Measurement Invariance of Composites Using Partial Least Squares. Int. Mark. Rev. 2016, 33, 405–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Islam, N. The Measurement of Employee Turnover Intentions in Telecom Industry of Bangladesh. J. Bus. Manag. Econ. 2019, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Palupi, M. Apakah Keadilan Formal Penilaian Kinerja Menjadi Determinan Kepuasan Kerja Dan Komitmen Continuance? MIX J. Ilm. Manaj. 2021, 11, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 10667 g001 550
Figure 1. Model framework.
Figure 1. Model framework.
Sustainability 15 10667 g001
Sustainability 15 10667 g002 550
Figure 2. Outer model.
Figure 2. Outer model.
Sustainability 15 10667 g002
Sustainability 15 10667 g003 550
Figure 3. Inner model.
Figure 3. Inner model.
Sustainability 15 10667 g003
Table
Table 1. Operational definition of variables.
Table 1. Operational definition of variables.
VariableCodeItemSource
Green logisticsGL1Industries implement a logistics system by considering environmental, economic, and sociocultural aspectsCheng et al. [21], Baah et al. [79], Rakhmangulov et al. [7]
GL2Industries implement a GL system to maintain market sustainability by utilizing technology and information systems
GL3Industries continuously improve the function of the logistics system including methods, techniques, and instruments to be competitive and ensure a sustainable market position
GL4Industries adapt to the changes in the GL operation system to consolidate ecological solutions and optimize the economy
GL5The entire supply chain system of industries is adapted for sustainable development
GL6Industries promote the use of environmentally friendly materials through its products and packaging
Green human resource managementGHRM1The job position in industries allows involvement in environmental management activitiesRenwick et al. [49], Jabbour [84], Pagell and Wu [99], Srinivasan and Kurey [100].
GHRM2Industries assess the contribution of employees to environmental management
GHRM3Environmental training is considered an important investment in industries
GHRM4Leaders promote employees to learn green information
GHRM5Managers communicate green and environmental policies with employees
GHRM6Managers talk about environmental issues and review green operations for sustainability
Sustainable productionSP1Industries prioritize environmentally friendly product design (such as design and product life cycle analysis)Bag [93], Unob et al. [101], Lee et al. [102], Zeng et al. [3].
SP2Industries attach importance to the use of production technology and production processes that are environmentally friendly
SP3Waste and garbage are used after reprocessing to produce new products
SP4Industries continuously develop and implement policies to produce environmentally friendly products
Sustainable development of organizationsSDO1The market value of industries is increased, which is an indicator of sustainable performanceGlonti et al. [103], Lindgreen [104].
SDO2The production stability and high consumption levels are maintained
SDO3Industries comply with the principles of equality and equity by prioritizing social and environmental aspects
SDO4Industries can meet consumer needs to feel satisfied
SDO5Industries improve the level and quality of life of staff, consumers, and stakeholders
SDO6Industries in the production process reduce the emission of hazardous waste into the atmosphere
SDO7Natural resources are used effectively, efficiently, and rationally
SDO8Industries optimize the allocation of costs for environmental protection
Table
Table 2. Profile of respondents.
Table 2. Profile of respondents.
VariablesCategoriesFrequencyPercentage
Industry age<10 Years4137.27%
>10 Years6962.73%
Tenure in the position of general manager<1 Year10393.64%
>1 Year76.36%
Age25–50 Years9788.18%
>50 Years1311.82%
Highest educationDiploma00.00%
Masters3128.18%
Magister6458.18%
Doctor1513.64%
Number of employees<500 employee1110.00%
>500 employee9990.00%
Scope of operationLocal1210.91%
National5751.82%
International4137.27%
Table
Table 3. Loading factor value.
Table 3. Loading factor value.
VariableIndicatorOuter LoadingCACRAVE
Green logistics (X1)GL10.7120.8900.8970.647
GL20.834
GL30.811
GL40.799
GL50.797
GL60.864
Green human resource management (X2)GHRM10.8720.9280.9320.737
GHRM20.814
GHRM30.906
GHRM40.809
GHRM50.854
GHRM60.892
Sustainable production (Y1)SP10.9110.9080.9080.785
SP20.922
SP30.886
SP40.823
Sustainable development of organizations (Y2)SDO10.8150.9090.9140.610
SDO20.827
SDO30.733
SDO40.810
SDO50.766
SDO60.758
SDO70.778
SDO80.759
Table
Table 4. R-square value (R2).
Table 4. R-square value (R2).
ConstructR-Square
Sustainable production0.666
Sustainable development of organizations0.666
Table
Table 5. Hypothesis test results.
Table 5. Hypothesis test results.
Relations between ConstructsOriginal Sample (O)t Statistics (|O/STDEV|)p-Values
H1: GL → SDO0.2362.5620.010
H2: GHRM → SDO0.2432.2840.022
H3: GL → SP0.2223.2240.001
H4: GHRM → SP0.6779.0900.000
H5: SP → SDO0.4444.1060.000
H6: GL → SP → SDO0.0992.4640.014
H7: GHRM → SP → SDO0.3013.5340.000
t-Table = 1.982.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Setyadi, A.; Akbar, Y.K.; Ariana, S.; Pawirosumarto, S. Examining the Effect of Green Logistics and Green Human Resource Management on Sustainable Development Organizations: The Mediating Role of Sustainable Production. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10667. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su151310667

AMA Style

Setyadi A, Akbar YK, Ariana S, Pawirosumarto S. Examining the Effect of Green Logistics and Green Human Resource Management on Sustainable Development Organizations: The Mediating Role of Sustainable Production. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10667. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su151310667

Chicago/Turabian Style

Setyadi, Antonius, Yunata Kandhias Akbar, Sunda Ariana, and Suharno Pawirosumarto. 2023. "Examining the Effect of Green Logistics and Green Human Resource Management on Sustainable Development Organizations: The Mediating Role of Sustainable Production" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 10667. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su151310667

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop