Motivational influences on supply manager environmental sustainability behavior

Abstract

Purpose Although supply chain managers serve a central role when implementing corporate environmental sustainability objectives, existing literature does not demonstrate high levels of supply manager support for such initiatives. This paper aims to investigate the potential of individual behavioral influences to explain supply manager orientation toward environmental responsibility. Methodology/approach This paper constructs a research model based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to explore how personal environmental motivations influence supply manager environmental behavior in the workplace. This paper also incorporates hyperbolic discounting as a cognitive bias moderator in the model. The research hypotheses were tested with regression of survey data of practicing supply managers in the USA. Findings Support was found for the direct TPB hypotheses, revealing the importance of an individual’s personal attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control on interpreting and applying the organization’s environmental sustainability objectives. Although the interactive effect of hyperbolic discounting as a cognitive bias was not supported, a direct effect was found. Practical implications The findings can help organizations improve supply manager support for sustainability initiatives. Originality/value Prior supply chain sustainability research has examined drivers and barriers at political, legal, economical and overall firm levels. This study expands this research base by investigating individual-level barriers and drivers related to personal responsibility for environmental sustainability. As a second contribution, integration of cognitive biases in the TPB has been understudied in existing literature.

The Role Of The TPB In Predicting Sustainability Behavior In Educations

“…TPB considers that the influence of the environment will stimulate individuals to generate intentions and behavior. Various studies in sustainability field have also found the same thing where social influences will drive sustainable behavior (Heeren et al 2016;Swaim et al 2016;Giampietri, Finco, & Giudice 2016). However, the findings of this study are in line with Yadav & Pathak (2016) who found no influence from the environment on sustainable behavior.…”

Enabling green supply chain integration via green entrepreneurial orientation: Does environmental leadership matter?

“…Several previous studies have widely suggested the extent to which the personal characteristics of leaders are translated into a professional ethic that aims to translate personal values into corporate vision, to achieve corporate excellence (Gadenne & Mckeiver, 2009; Rivera, 2019). The personal commitment of the manager, owner, or founder is related to environmental practices such as GSCI (Anthony Swaim et al, 2016; Fraj et al, 2013). Leader support for environmental protection is positively related to employees' willingness to become involved in eco‐initiatives and green internal integration (Ramus & Steger, 2000; Sarkis et al, 2010).…”

Analyzing rational decision‐making's effect: Empirical evidence from Green supply chain

“…To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to thoroughly consider the firm-level empirical verification of game theory model results to explore and discuss RDM's effects. These findings can offer meaningful insights into sustainable development strategies by retailers' RDM, thus expanding previous scholars' research on sustainability (Nguyen et al, 2023;Swaim et al, 2016;Wijethilake, 2017).…”

“…These existing literatures have studied the impact of rational (irrational) decision-making by managers. Based on these literature streams, we also find that rational and irrational behavior decisions by managers have a significant impact on production decisions and environmental sustainability, such as Swaim et al (2016), da Silva et al (2020), and Yang et al (2022. This research contributes to the extensive body of literature concerning decision rationality.…”

“…Equally pertinent, Chen et al (2020) and Li, Liu, et al (2021) scrutinize the repercussions of power structures through the prisms of product quality regulations and supply chain innovation, both accentuating their influence on societal welfare. Moreover, an array of studies tackles social welfare matters from the vantage point of sustainable supply chains, as exemplified by Swaim et al (2016), Hafezalkotob (2017), Huang et al (2020), andZheng (2021). Synthesizing insights from these works yields a more holistic comprehension of the intricate mechanism mediating the influence of sustainability upon social welfare dynamics.…”