個人研討會發表論文

三、 個人研討會發表論文

AN EVALUATION OF GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT IN ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING FIRMS IN TAIWAN

Kuo-Chung SHANG ^a*, Chin-Shan LU ^b, Chih-Ching CHANG ^C

a Department of Transportation and Navigation Science, National Taiwan Ocean University, No. 2, Beining Rd. Keelung City, Taiwan, ROC.

b Department of Transportation and Communication Management Science, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University Road, Tainan City 701, Taiwan, ROC.

C Department of Shipping and Transportation Management, National Taiwan Ocean University, No. 2, Beining Rd. Keelung City, Taiwan, ROC.

Introduction

In line with global economic development and high levels of industrialization, the environmental

5

protection problems faced by all countries increase daily and are already greatly endangering the natural environment. Environmental management has become a topic of the mutual concern of businesses, government and consumers (New et al., 2002). In view of this, each country has, one after the other, formulated environmental protection laws and regulations; the European Union, for example, in 2003, passed WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) and RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substance), unequivocally proscribing the use of six hazardous substances in products (ex. Pb, Hg, Cd, CrVI, PBB, PBDE) for sale in the European market, and requiring compliance with the relevant product recycling laws. First WEEE and then RoHS were brought into force during two successive periods between August, 2005 and July, 2007. Large electronics purchasing businesses, such as Sony, and others, have laid out formulations for standards of green supply chain management. These two regulations present a massive challenge to Taiwan's information electronics companies, important OEM supply partners of large international electronics businesses. They affect approximately 350,000 Taiwan companies with an output value of NT$244.6 billion (Department of Industrial Technology, Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), 2003). The Taiwan government, in order to come into line with these two regulations especially established the MOEA RoHS Service Group and is vigorously conducting a “Green Project”, comprehensively promoting green supply chain management, in order to practice green product life-cycle management, and raise the green supply chain competitiveness of the domestic information electronics industry.

Of course, apart from intervention by government, it is also necessary for businesses to upgrade logistics management and supply chain management from a purely functional role to a strategic role (Shang and Marlow, 2005), and accelerate the raising of green supply chain management (GSCM) capability, in order to come into line with the current environment and create enduring competitive superiority. For this reason, much literature has already listed revised logistics, environmental management practices, or GSCM as among the important management topics of today (Montabon et al., 2007; Autry, 2005; Srivastava, 2007). Van Hoek (1999), for example, believes that, although reverse logistics management has already been extensively researched, if we look at the matter from the perspective of the values inherent in business pursuits, it is not enough simply to conduct good reverse logistics management; if we are to conform with current and future developmental trends, researchers must switch their research attention from reverse logistics management to research into green supply chain management. Skjoett-Larsen (2000) treats GSCM as Europe’s most important challenge of this century. Zhu and others, in a series of studies (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; 2006; Zhu et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2007a; 2007b; Zhu et al., 2008a; 2008b), hold that green supply chain management in the, “workshop of the world,” that is China, will become more and more important. Wu and Dunn (1995), make the point that if we are to minimize the impact on the business environment, we need to conduct research from the perspective of the whole system, which is a GSCM concept.

Rao and Holt (2005) urge researchers to conduct integrated research of green supply chain management, competitiveness and economic performance, in order to encourage organizations to,

“greenify”, their supply chain. For this reason, in the foreseeable future, “green,” or “environment,” will, in supply chain management systems, become an important competitive element (Skjoett-Larsen, 2000; Cook,1991; Lambert and Stock, 1993; Handfield and Nichols, 1999; Abukhader, and Jönson, 2004).

Taiwan, small Asian island though it is, possesses outstanding manufacturing capability. Until 2005, it was the world’s second largest information hardware producing country, accounting for over 70 percent of global market share (Department of Investment Services, Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2009) in such products and fields as semi-conductors, photonics, information, communications, and so on. Since most manufacturers are contract manufacturers (OEMs or ODMs) for large foreign businesses, as far as “greenness” ― or the question of the environment ― is concerned, they adopt

“passive” strategies, rather than proactive, or value-seeking strategies, affirming that they have no choice but to engage in such activity to respond to pressure from foreign buyers, and comply with the minimum regulations of importing countries (Kopicki et al., 1993). An important debate in environmental management literature, however, is whether companies that practice environmental management create an environmental/social and economic win-win situation or whether there is in fact a trade-off between the two (Seuring, 2004; Wagner et al., 2001; Pil and Orthenberg, 2003).The concept of traditional enterprises remains that “green” expenditure will have a negative effect on the company’s performance (Mathur and Mathur, 2000; Walley and Whitehead, 1994), but, among those who study the matter are those who vigorously argue that the environmental limitations faced by companies should not be seen as problems, but as opportunities (Porter and van der Linde, 1995a, 1995b); that, “green”, should be seen as a kind of competitive skill, representing a form of relatively

proactive strategy instead of the former, relatively passive strategy of yielding to environmental laws (van Hoek, 1999). They believe that if companies can improve their environmental performance, they will achieve greater competitiveness (Bacallan, 2000). If The Body Shop had begun to implement an environmental performance evaluation system as early as 1992, it would have become a pioneer in the field of environmental protection (Wycherley, 1999).

Before the year 2000, there was relatively little research available on logistics management/supply chain management and the environment; research of the sort represented by Abukhader and Jönson’s (2004) investigation of ten years’ (1992-2001) worth of eight types of logistics management and supply chain management periodicals. This showed that, compared to that under other themes, such as commercial logistics management, logistics and management, logistics management and information technology, there was much less research on, “logistics management/supply chain management and the environment”. In recent years, however, amid global warming and surging oil prices, an emphasis has been placed on environmental protection.

Many researchers have begun to explore the development of GSCM concepts or theories. This study, therefore, aims to investigate crucial green supply chain management capability dimensions. In line with the literature on green supply chain management and environmental management, dimensions such as environmental management, green design, green suppliers, green marketing, green logistics, and green manufacturing are assessed in this research.

In the following section, the existing literature is reviewed to develop the theoretical foundation presented in Section Two. Section Three describes the questionnaire design and responses. The collected data were examined using factor analysis. The results of the statistical analysis are detailed in Section Four. Section Five concludes the paper. It provides an overall review of the study’s findings’, identifies its contributions to the literature in the field, explains its implications and limitations, and proposes suggestions for future research.

Literature Review

Resource-based view and natural-resource-based view of the firm

The resource-based view of the firm (RBV) (Wernerfelt, 1984), became a dominant framework in the 1990s (Hoskisson et al., 1999). The RBV mainly emphasises firms’ internal strengths and weaknesses, in contrast to industrial organisation (IO) economics, which focuses on firms’ external opportunities and threats, because when the external environment is dynamic, the firm’s own resources and capabilities may be easier to control (Grant, 1991). The RBV contends that the idiosyncratic resources and capabilities of firms are the key sources of sustained competitive advantage (Lynch, 2000; Oliver, 1997). The premise also appears to be supported by logistics and SCM research (e.g. Bowersox et al., 1999; Lynch et al., 2000). Hart (1995), however, proposed that RBV add the natural environment concept in order to develop a natural-resource-based view of the firm, and suggested that the firm’s relationship to the natural environment (e.g. green supply chain management capability) has become an important source of sustainable competitive advantage (Menguc and Ozanne, 2005).

Green supply chain management capability

Green supply chain management, advocating efficiency and synergy between partners, facilitates environmental performance, minimal waste and cost savings (Rao and Holt, 2005). Different researchers offer different definitions. Zsidisin and Siferd (2001), for example, argue that environmental supply chain management comprises a series of policies and actions on such issues as design, procurement, production, bulk dispatch, utilization, reutilization, and disposal, undertaken by businesses out of concern for the natural environment. Skjoett-larsen (2000) holds that “green”

should include each link in the chain from initial manufacturer at the raw material stage to the end-user, including production, processing, packaging, shipping, handling, and so on. Green supply chain management capability involves finance flow, logistics flow, information flow, integration, relationships, and environmental management. The business and academic communities offer different explanations of its scope, depending on the purpose of its use. Hervani and Helms (2005), for example, defined it by the following equation:

Green supply chain management capability = green purchasing + green manufacturing/materials management ＋ green distribution/marketing + reverse logistics.

7

Epson, however, approached the matter from the perspective of the business supply chain, and proposed the concept of the green value chain, which includes such phenomena as green design, green purchasing, green manufacturing/processing, the green product, green marketing, the green consumer, the green recycling process, and green material each inextricably linked to the other, the sum incapable of existing without each of its parts (Epson Taiwan, 2005).

Methodology Sample

This research was based on the main Taiwan electronic companies listed on the data base of the Taiwan stock market (Taiwan Stock Exchange Corporation, TSEC) , in 2007 and Taiwan’s OTC market, the Gre Tai Securities Market (GTSM) in 2007) including companies in the fields of semiconductors, optoelectronics, computers and peripheral equipment, communications and the Internet, electronic components, and others. Questionnaires with accompanying cover letters and stamp-attached envelopes were initially mailed to 929 potential respondents. The cover letter explained the overall goals and objectives of the research project and how the data would be used.

Two weeks later, a second wave of mailing, accompanied by cover letters and stamp-attached envelopes, was performed, to all non-respondents. In total, 167 questionnaires were returned. The total response rate was therefore 18 per cent (167/929).

The six industries sampled were the semiconductor industry (29 firms, 17.4 percent), the optoelectronic industry (28 firms,16.8 percent) the computers and peripheral equipment industry (27 firms, 16.2 percent), the communications and Internet industry, (16 firms, 9.6 percent), the electronic parts/components industry, (54 firms, 32.3 percent, and other electronics businesses: (13 firms, 7.8 percent). Of the sampled firms, 32.3 percent were listed on the TSEC, while the rest were listed on the OCT market.

As regards employees, 10.8 percent of sampled firms had over 3,000 employees, whereas 22.2 percent had less than 100 employees. In the modal class most sampled firms employed between 201 - 500 (26.3 percent) full-time workers. Sampled firms’ sales varied considerably. Over 25 percent (25.8 percent) of firms’ sales were between NT$11 million and NT$4 billion, with, 16.9 percent enjoying sales of over NT$10 billion, and 33.3 percent recording sales below NT$1 billion.

Eighty percent of questionnaires were filled in by vice-presidents or presidents (26.7 percent), presidents’ assistants (19.3 percent), department managers (23.6 percent), and senior managers (12.4 percent), which further reinforced the reliability of the survey’s findings. In addition, 19.4 per cent of respondents had worked in their current company for less than two years, over 42 per cent between three and six years, and over five percent had been with the same company for more than 10 years. The majority of respondents (80.6 percent), therefore, had worked in their current firms for longer than two years and consequently had sufficient knowledge to answer the questionnaire accurately and reliably.

Research methods

The research involved conducting a questionnaire survey. Questions were based on previous studies (Agagón-Correa et al., 2004; Zhu et al., 2004; González-Benito, 2005; Rao and Holt, 2005; Vachon and Kiassen, 2006；Zhu et al., 2007) and judged as relevant by nine manufacturing industry executives. Interviews with practitioners resulted in minor modifications to the wording and examples provided in some measurement items, which were finally accepted as possessing content validity. For each item, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed that the item described its prospective content domain. Seven-point Likert-type scale anchors were used.

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item, where one represented

“Strongly Disagree” and seven represented “Strongly Agree”.

Factor analysis was conducted in order to identify and summarize a large number of GSCM attributes into a smaller, manageable set of underlying factors, called dimensions. A reliability test was conducted to assess whether these GSCM dimensions were adequate. This study identifies the perceived differences in GSCM attributes based on the firm size of respondents. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was commonly used statistical technique to test whether significant levels exist between manufacturing companies. In addition, a Scheffe test was employed to identify perceived

differences among groups on the basis of their perceptions of critical GSCM dimensions. All analyses were carried out using the SPSS 12.0 for Windows package and the analyses results are presented in the next section.

Results of Empirical Analyses Perceptions of GSCM capability

According to their aggregated scores for agreement with the 37 GSCM attributes, respondents’

perceptions ranged from, “neutral”, to “strongly agree”, (their mean scores were all over 5.87). The top three GSCM attributes in current organizations were: (G14) design of products to avoid or reduce use of hazardous products and manufacturing process (Mean=5.94), (G29) substitution of polluting and hazardous materials/parts (Mean=5.87), (G28) the manufacture process will reduce the noise pollution to the minimum. In contrast, respondents showed the lowest level of agreement with the following: (G22) holding awareness seminars for suppliers/contractors (Mean=3.80), (G43) Supply of regular voluntary information about environmental management to customers and institutions (Mean=4.07), (G41) sponsoring of environmental events/collaboration with ecological organizations (Mean=4.23), (their mean scores were below 4.23).

Factor analysis

Factor analysis was used to reduce the 37 GSCM attributes to smaller sets of underlying factors (dimensions). This helped to detect the presence of meaningful patterns among the original variables and to extract the main capability factors. Principal components analysis with VARIMAX rotation was employed to identify key GSCM dimensions, as shown in Table 2. The data were deemed appropriate for analysis, according to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy value of 0.925 (Hair et al., 1998). The Bartlett Test of Sphericity was significant [χ² = 4751.995, P < 0.001], indicating that correlations existed among some of the response categories. Scree plots and eigenvalues greater than one were used to determine the number of factors in each data set (Churchill, 1991). The six identified key GSCM dimensions accounted for approximately 69 percent of the total variance.

GSCM attributes F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

G31 Production planning and control focused on reducing waste and optimizing materials exploitation

.795 .234 .113 .141 .040 .131 G29 Substitution of polluting and hazardous materials/ parts .767 .156 .087 .264 -.030 .057 G30 Process design focused on reducing energy and natural

resources consumption in operations

.742 .211 .225 .076 -.046 .101 G28 The manufacture process will reduce the noise pollution

to the minimum. .715 .209 .014 .182 .197 .114

G35 Recyclable or reusable packaging/containers in logistics .618 .095 .411 .124 .210 .114 G33 Filters and controls on emissions and discharges .615 .485 .204 .184 .171 .106 G34 Selection of cleaner transportation methods .604 .223 .445 .144 .242 -.083 G14 Design of products to avoid or reduce use of hazardous

products and manufacturing process

.600 .267 -.002 .305 -.071 .416 G32 Acquisition of clean technology/equipment .575 .249 .308 .240 .129 .268 G36 Ecological materials for primary packaging .538 .115 .424 .190 .212 .146 G01 Natural environment training programs for managers and

employees

.102 .792 .233 .147 .048 .020 G04 Cross-functional cooperation for environmental

improvements .321 .771 .181 .185 .057 .148

G02 Established an environmental protection index of

recycling, gaseous reduction and energy conservation. .131 .758 .101 .172 .009 .029 G05 Environmental management system exists .248 .737 .168 .221 -.001 .229 G03 Commitment to GSCM from senior managers .263 .736 .236 .162 .036 .142 G09 Each full-time employee well understands the

environmental performance target for this year. .221 .710 .309 .144 .001 .123 G12 The company’s efforts in relation to environmental matters

have exceeded the requirements of the relevant regulations

.182 .573 .289 .331 .091 .295

G06 Natural environmental seminars for executives .207 .543 .463 .224 .094 .113

9 G10 Participation in government-subsidized natural

environmental programs. .277 .520 .274 .366 .133 -.118

G43 Supply of regular voluntary information about

environmental management to customers and institutions .011 .259 .756 .157 .113 .078 G41 Sponsoring of environmental events/collaboration with

ecological organizations .087 .297 .718 .207 .144 -.040

G40 Recuperation and recycling systems .075 .380 .665 .282 -.028 .089 G44 Use of natural environmental arguments in marketing .205 .230 .659 .295 .017 .190 G45 Periodic updating of the website on environmental issues. .389 .095 .637 .033 .150 .186 G38 Material packages will be labeled for retrieval purposes. .402 .137 .599 .092 .110 .247 G42 Considered that Eco Products boost the consumers’

purchasing willingness.

.415 .205 .591 .137 -.222 .024 G22 Holding awareness seminars for suppliers/contractors .164 .377 .536 .344 .258 -.153 G19 Second-tier supplier environmentally friendly practice

evaluation

.098 .160 .247 .795 .098 .060 G18 Suppliers’ ISO14000 certification .122 .275 .127 .775 .053 .128 G20 Choice of suppliers by environmental criteria .277 .240 .228 .765 .048 .129 G21 Urging/pressuring suppliers to take environmental actions .355 .197 .233 .753 .076 .089 G24 In purchasing, this company requires suppliers to provide

certification of testing for green product conformance .382 .354 .105 .638 -.021 -.005 G17 Providing design specification to suppliers that include

environmental requirements for purchased items .126 .192 .346 .524 .154 .426 G26 Sale of excess capital equipment .116 .028 .148 .096 .881 -.035 G27 Sale of scrap and used materials .137 .078 .097 .077 .856 .078 G13 Design of products for reduced consumption of

material/energy

.442 .180 .137 .115 .030 .707 G15 Designs focused on reducing resource consumption and

waste generation in product usage .272 .406 .252 .234 -.009 .587

Eigenvalues 16.40 2.54 2.20 1.85 1.53 1.03

Percentage variance 44.34 6.87 5.94 4.99 4.15 2.78

Table 2 Factor analysis for GSCM attributes

To aid interpretation, only variables with a factor loading greater than 0.50 were extracted, a conservative criterion based on Hair et al. (1998). A reliability test based on Cronbach’s Alpha, was used to test whether these dimensions were consistent and reliable. Cronbach Alpha values for each dimension are shown in Table 3. The reliability value of each factor was well above 0.73, indicating adequate internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978; Sekaran, 1992; Churchill, 1991).

Table 3 also shows respondents’ agreement level as regards the importance of each GSCM dimension in the current situation. The results indicate that they considered the green manufacturing and packaging dimension to be the most important (factor 1), followed by the green eco-design dimension (factor 6), green supplier dimension (factor 4), green stock dimension (factor 5), environmental management dimension (factor 2), and green marketing dimension (factor 3).

GSCM dimension Number of

items Cronbach

Alpha Mean S.D.

1. Green manufacturing and packaging 10 0.93 5.54 0.91

2. Environmental management 9 0.93 4.88 1.15

3. Green marketing 8 0.90 4.61 1.10

4. Green supplier 6 0.91 5.15 1.21

5. Green stock 2 0.81 4.99 1.28

6. Green eco-design 2 0.73 5.51 1.16

Table 3 Cronbach alpha values for each GSCM dimension One-way analysis of variance

To evaluate the relationship between GSCM dimensions and respondents’ employees, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. There were statistically significant differences found for employee and sales at the five percent significant level. As shown in Table 4, respondents were divided into two groups, namely, large enterprises (employees>200) and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), (employees<=200). The evaluations for green manufacturing and packaging, environmental management, green marketing, green supplier, and green stock differed statistically between large enterprises and SMEs. The large enterprises agree in these five dimensions tended to be higher than that of SMEs.

Large Enterprises (employees)

SMEs (employees) GSCM Dimension

Mean S.D Mean S.D F Sig.

Green manufacturing and packaging 5.67 0.87 5.36 0.95 4.76 **0.03 Environment management 5.29 0.95 4.32 1.17 34.74 **0.00

Green marketing 4.88 1.03 4.25 1.10 14.23 **0.00

Green supplier 5.41 0.92 4.80 1.45 11.10 **0.01

Green stock 5.14 1.18 4.80 1.39 2.91 **0.09

Green eco-design 5.64 1.09 5.34 1.23 2.73 0.10

Note: Mean scores based on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree); S.D. = standard deviation; *represents significance level p < 0.05; *represents significance level p < 0.01.

Table 4 Comparison of large enterprises and SMEs groups’ of GSCM dimensions Conclusion and Discussions

This study has examined the GSCM in a Taiwan manufacturing industry context. The study’s main findings are summarized below. Factor analysis was conducted to reduce the identified GSCM attributes into six critical GSCM dimensions (factors). The six GSCM dimensions were labeled as,

“green manufacturing and packaging”, “environmental management”, “green marketing”, “green supplier”, “green stock”, and “green eco-design”. The green manufacturing and packaging dimension was the most important, followed by the green eco-design dimension, green supplier dimension, green stock dimension, environmental management dimension, and green marketing dimension.

Apart from this, the research also showed that, leaving aside the factor of green eco-design, there are significant differences between large companies and SME companies in relation to such factors as green manufacturing and packaging. For this reason, large companies must have greater GSCM capability than small companies, perhaps because large companies generally have more resources

Apart from this, the research also showed that, leaving aside the factor of green eco-design, there are significant differences between large companies and SME companies in relation to such factors as green manufacturing and packaging. For this reason, large companies must have greater GSCM capability than small companies, perhaps because large companies generally have more resources