i

POLITECNICO DI MILANO

Scuola di Ingegneria Industriale e dell’Informazione

Corso di Laurea in Management Engineering

THE EFFECTS THAT A SUPPLY CHAIN

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIC FIT HAS ON TRIPLE

BOTTOM LINE PERFORMANCE: A SURVEY IN THE

WOOD AND FURNITURE INDUSTRY

Relatore: Prof.ssa Margherita Emma Paola PERO

Correlatore: Dott.ssa Federica CICCULLO

Tesi di Laurea Magistrale di:

Flavia Ricetti

Matricola 837825

Anno Accademico 2015-2016

ii

Indice Abstract Italiano ................................................................................................................................ xiv

Abstract English .................................................................................................................................. xv

Sommario .......................................................................................................................................... xvi

Introduzione ................................................................................................................................................ xvi

Analisi della Letteratura .............................................................................................................................xviii

Identificazione dei gap della Letteratura .................................................................................................... xix

Domande di ricerca .....................................................................................................................................xxii

Framework di ricerca ..................................................................................................................................xxii

Metodologia ............................................................................................................................................... xxiv

Risposta alla RQ1 ........................................................................................................................................ xxix

Risposta alla RQ2 ....................................................................................................................................... xxxii

Risposta alla RQ3 ...................................................................................................................................... xxxiv

Risposta alla RQ4 ...................................................................................................................................... xxxvi

Conclusioni .................................................................................................................................................xlvii

Implicazioni manageriali .............................................................................................................................xlix

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. l

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... l

Literature review ........................................................................................................................................... lii

Literature gap identification......................................................................................................................... liii

Research questions ...................................................................................................................................... lvi

Research framework .................................................................................................................................... lvi

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. lviii

Answer to RQ1 ........................................................................................................................................... lxiii

Answer to RQ2 ........................................................................................................................................... lxvi

Answer to RQ3 .......................................................................................................................................... lxviii

Answer to RQ4 ............................................................................................................................................ lxx

iii

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... lxxxi

Managerial implications .......................................................................................................................... lxxxiii

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2

1 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................ 5

1.1 Sustainable Development Definition ................................................................................................. 6

1.2 The Triple Bottom Line ....................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Criticism to the definition of Triple Bottom Line ............................................................................. 11

1.4 The social dimension of the TBL ....................................................................................................... 12

1.5 Sustainability Definition ................................................................................................................... 12

1.6 Literature inconsistencies ................................................................................................................ 14

2 Sustainability as a competitive factor ........................................................................................ 17

2.1 Introduction to the theme of sustainability as a strategic competitive factor ................................ 18

2.2 Evolution of the strategic role of Sustainability ............................................................................... 18

2.3 The change in Environmental Corporate Strategy ........................................................................... 21

2.4 Sustainability as a Strategic Competitive Factor: Order Winner, Order Qualifier ........................... 27

3 Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management ....................................................................... 33

3.1 Introduction to Sustainable Supply Chain Management ................................................................. 34

3.2 Supply Chain Management: a brief overview .................................................................................. 34

3.3 Sustainable Supply Chain Management Definition .......................................................................... 39

3.4 Drivers to the development of a Sustainable Supply Chain Management ...................................... 42

3.5 Barriers to the development of a Sustainable Supply Chain Management ..................................... 46

3.6 Implementation of a Sustainable Supply Chain (a framework of SSCM) ......................................... 47

3.7 Strategies for the development of Sustainable Supply Chain Management ................................... 49

3.8 Benefits and Drawbacks of implementing a Sustainable Supply Chain ........................................... 53

4 The Sustainability along the Furniture Supply Chain ................................................................. 55

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 56

4.2 The Furniture Supply Chain .............................................................................................................. 58

iv

4.3 Drivers for the integration of Sustainability in the Furniture Supply Chain ..................................... 60

4.4 Sustainable Practices along the Furniture Supply Chain .................................................................. 63

4.4.1 Green Design practices ............................................................................................................. 64

Shrivastava, 1995b ................................................................................................................................... 67

Carter and Carter, 1998; Gupta, 1995; Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet et al., 1995 .................... 67

4.4.2 Sustainable production practices ............................................................................................. 67

4.4.3 Sustainable Purchasing practices ............................................................................................. 73

4.4.4 Sustainable collaboration with customers ............................................................................... 78

4.4.5 Supply Chain Network Design practices ................................................................................... 80

4.4.6 Green Logistics practices .......................................................................................................... 83

4.5 Performance ..................................................................................................................................... 86

4.5.1 Environmental Performance .................................................................................................... 86

4.5.2 Social Performance................................................................................................................... 88

4.5.3 Economic Performance ............................................................................................................ 89

4.5.4 Impact of Sustainable Practices on Corporate Performance ................................................... 90

5 Research framework and methodology ..................................................................................... 94

5.1 Considerations on the Literature and gaps identification................................................................ 95

5.2 Research Questions ........................................................................................................................ 100

5.3 Research Framework ...................................................................................................................... 100

5.4 Research Methodology .................................................................................................................. 105

5.4.1 Selection of the Furniture Industry as field of analysis .......................................................... 105

5.4.2 Research Methodology: the use of the survey ...................................................................... 106

5.4.3 Development of the Survey based on the Research Framework ........................................... 108

5.4.4 Factor analysis ........................................................................................................................ 131

5.4.5 Cluster Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 134

5.4.6 ANOVA .................................................................................................................................... 137

6 Analysis of the results .............................................................................................................. 139

v

6.1 General considerations on the analyses conducted ...................................................................... 140

6.2 Analysis of the survey’s results and considerations ....................................................................... 141

6.2.1 Drivers impact on practices implementation: the survey’s results ........................................ 144

6.2.2 Sustainable practices implementation: the survey’s results.................................................. 146

6.2.3 Performance improvement: the survey’s results ................................................................... 158

6.3 Answer to RQ1 ............................................................................................................................... 161

6.4 Answer to RQ2: .............................................................................................................................. 178

6.5 Answer to RQ3: .............................................................................................................................. 189

6.6 Answer to RQ4: .............................................................................................................................. 195

6.6.1 Construction of the sustainable strategic fit matrix............................................................... 198

6.6.2 Factor analysis on performance ............................................................................................. 206

6.6.3 ANOVA analysis on the sustainable strategic fit matrix’s rows and columns ........................ 208

6.6.4 ANOVA analysis on sustainable strategic fit matrix’s cells ..................................................... 218

6.7 Considerations on the results ........................................................................................................ 229

7 Conclusions............................................................................................................................... 233

7.1 Summary of results ........................................................................................................................ 234

7.2 Managerial implications ................................................................................................................. 239

7.3 Limitations and generalizations ..................................................................................................... 240

7.4 Considerations for future research ................................................................................................ 240

8 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 241

9 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................. 255

vi

vii

Indice delle figure Figure 1 - Struttura della tesi.......................................................................................................................... xvii

Figure 2 - Finding zone of strategic fit (Chopra and Meindl, 2012) ............................................................... xxi

Figure 3 - Framework di ricerca (Verderio, 2015) .......................................................................................... xxiii

Figure 4 - Nuovo framework di ricerca........................................................................................................... xxiv

Figure 5 – Fase di ricerca: invio dei questionari ..............................................................................................xxv

Figure 6 – Fasi di ricerca: Factor analysis ...................................................................................................... xxvii

Figure 7 - Fase di ricerca - Cluster analysis ................................................................................................... xxviii

Figure 8 - Fasi di ricerca: ANOVA .................................................................................................................... xxix

Figure 9 - Riassunto del modello ..................................................................................................................... xxx

Figure 10 - Passi dell'analisi per rispondere alla RQ4 ................................................................................... xxxix

Figure 11 - framework di fit strategico sostenibile ........................................................................................... xl

Figure 12 - Risultati ANOVA sulla diagonale................................................................................................... xlvi

Figure 13 - Mappa concettuale: Messaggi chiavi dell'analisi ........................................................................ xlviii

Figure 14 - Structure of the thesis ...................................................................................................................... li

Figure 15 - Finding zone of strategic fit (Chopra and Meindl, 2012) ............................................................... lv

Figure 16 - Research Framework (Verderio, 2015) ......................................................................................... lvii

Figure 17 - Research Framework.................................................................................................................... lviii

Figure 18: Research phase: questionnaire's sending ....................................................................................... lix

Figure 19 - Research phase: Factor analysis..................................................................................................... lxi

Figure 20 - Research phase: Cluster analysis .................................................................................................. lxii

Figure 21 - Research Phase - ANOVA ............................................................................................................. lxiii

Figure 22 - Model summary ........................................................................................................................... lxiv

Figure 23 - Sustainable strategic fit framework ............................................................................................ lxxiv

Figure 24 - Environmental sustainable strategic fit matrix ............................................................................ lxxv

Figure 25 - Social sustainable strategic fit matrix .......................................................................................... lxxv

Figure 26 - Results of ANOVA: matrix's diagonal ........................................................................................... lxxx

viii

Figure 27 - Conceptual map: The key messages of the analysis .................................................................. lxxxii

Figure 28 – Sustainability: the Triple Bottom Line (Craig R. Carter and Dale S. Rogers, 2008) .......................... 8

Figure 29 - More and more companies are addressing sustainability to align with their business

goals (McKinsey, 2014)..................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 30 - Framework on the change in corporate environmental strategy .................................................. 23

Figure 31 – the Supply Chain ............................................................................................................................ 35

Figure 32 - Supply Network Structure (Sianesi & Spina, 2010) ........................................................................ 35

Figure 33 - ‘‘House of Sustainable Supply Chain, Teuteberg and Wittstruck (2010)’’ ..................................... 42

Figure 34 - Green supply management chain (Holt & Ghobadian, 2009) ........................................................ 44

Figure 35 - Sustainable supply chain Management (Craig R. Carter and Dale S. Rogers, 2008) ...................... 53

Figure 36 - Contributions of three major product categories to environmental pressures in the

EU25, based on data from the EC EIPRO study (EC, 2006). ............................................................................. 57

Figure 37 – Wood Furniture Supply Chain (DaSilva, 2010) .............................................................................. 59

Figure 38 - Theoretical framework for the influence of green practices on supply chain

performance (Azevedo et al., 2011) ................................................................................................................. 91

Figure 39 - Research Framework (Caniato et al., 2012) ................................................................................... 96

Figure 40 - Finding zone of strategic fit (Chopra and Meindl, 2012) .............................................................. 99

Figure 41 - Structured questionnaires research framework (Verderio, 2015) .............................................. 102

Figure 42 - Research Framework.................................................................................................................... 104

Figure 43 - Theory-testing survey research process (Forza, 2012) ................................................................ 107

Figure 44 - Steps of the analysis - Survey's development and sending ......................................................... 109

Figure 45 - Role of companies along the SC ................................................................................................... 115

Figure 46 - Product family selected ................................................................................................................ 116

Figure 47 - Direct customers .......................................................................................................................... 117

Figure 48 - Is the product design activity performed directly by the company? ........................................... 117

Figure 49 - production process LT .................................................................................................................. 130

Figure 50 - Suppliers' LT ................................................................................................................................. 131

Figure 51 - Steps of the analysis - factor analysis........................................................................................... 132

ix

Figure 52 - Steps involved in conducting a principal components analysis (Mooi and Sarstedt,

2011) .............................................................................................................................................................. 133

Figure 53 - Example of a path diagram (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011) ............................................................... 134

Figure 54 -Steps of the analysis - cluster analysis .......................................................................................... 135

Figure 55 - Steps in a cluster analysis (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011) ................................................................. 136

Figure 56 - Steps of the analysis - ANOVA analysis ........................................................................................ 137

Figure 57 - Steps in ANOVA (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011) ................................................................................. 138

Figure 58 - Research framework .................................................................................................................... 141

Figure 59 - Threshold values for KMO and MSA (Kaiser, 1974) ..................................................................... 162

Figure 60 - Model summary (cluster analysisi) .............................................................................................. 171

Figure 61- CLuster size (cluster analysis) ........................................................................................................ 171

Figure 63 - Steps of the analysis to answer RQ4 ............................................................................................ 198

Figure 64 - Strategic fit frameowork (Chopra and Meindl, 2012) .................................................................. 199

Figure 65 - Sustainable strategic fit framework ............................................................................................. 200

Figure 66 - Mean value of label 3 vs Mean value total sample ...................................................................... 203

Figure 67 - Mean value of label 5 vs Mean value total sample ...................................................................... 204

Figure 68 - Mean value of label 7 vs Mean value total sample ...................................................................... 204

Figure 69 - results of ANOVA Clusters 1,2,3 ................................................................................................... 211

Figure 70 - Results of ANOVA: Strategic Role of Environmental Sustainability 1,2,3 .................................... 216

Figure 71- Results of ANOVA: Strategic Role of Social Sustainability 1,2,3 ................................................... 217

Figure 72 - ANOVA PA: Diagonal Labels 1,2,3 ................................................................................................ 219

Figure 73 - ANOVA PI (E): Diagonal Labels 1,2,3 ............................................................................................ 219

Figure 74 - ANOVA PS: Diagonal Labels 1,2,3 ................................................................................................. 220

Figure 75 ANOVA PI (S): Diagonal Labels 1,2,3 .............................................................................................. 220

Figure 76 - Results of ANOVA: Diagonal Labels 1,2,3 ..................................................................................... 221

Figure 77 - Steps of the analysis ..................................................................................................................... 229

Figure 78 - Conceptual map: Main results ..................................................................................................... 238

x

Indice delle Tabelle Table 1 - Matrice dei centroidi ....................................................................................................................... xxxi

Table 2 - Matrice di fit strategico sostenibile ambientale ............................................................................... xli

Table 3 - Matrice di fit strategico sostenibile sociale ....................................................................................... xli

Table 4 - Centroids matrix ............................................................................................................................... lxv

Table 5 - Steps of the analysis to answer RQ4 .............................................................................................. lxxiii

Table 6 - Summary of Sustainability Studies (Hanan Alhaddi, 2015) ............................................................... 15

Table 7 - Comparison of Sustainability and Sustainable Development (Helena Bender, 2012) ...................... 16

Table 8 - Representative definitions of supply chain management (Payman A. et al., 2013) ......................... 38

Table 9 - Definitions of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) (Payman Ahi and Cory,

2013) ................................................................................................................................................................ 41

Table 10 - Grouping papers according to modeling techniques (Seuring, 2013) ............................................. 51

Table 11 - A review of the drivers affecting the development of SSCM .......................................................... 62

Table 12 - Green design practices .................................................................................................................... 67

Table 13 - Sustainable production practices .................................................................................................... 73

Table 14 - Sustainable purchasing practices .................................................................................................... 78

Table 15 - Sustainable collaboration with customers ...................................................................................... 80

Table 16 - Supply Chain Network Design Practices .......................................................................................... 83

Table 17 - Green Logistics practices ................................................................................................................. 86

Table 18 - Environmental Performance ........................................................................................................... 87

Table 19 - Social Performance .......................................................................................................................... 89

Table 20 - Economic Performance ................................................................................................................... 90

Table 21 - Linkage between green practice and supply chain performance, Azevedo et al. (2011) ............... 92

Table 22 - Literature gaps............................................................................................................................... 100

Table 23 - Sustainability's interpretations ..................................................................................................... 105

Table 24 - Companies' features ...................................................................................................................... 114

xi

Table 25 – Competitive role of Social and Environmental Sustainability ...................................................... 118

Table 26 - Drivers included in the survey ....................................................................................................... 119

Table 27 - Green Design practices included in the survey ............................................................................. 121

Table 28 - Sustainable Production practices included in the survey.............................................................. 122

Table 29 - Suppliers selection and evaluation practices included in the survey ............................................ 123

Table 30 - Collaboration with suppliers’ practices included in the survey .................................................... 125

Table 31 - Collaboration with customers’ practices included in the survey .................................................. 126

Table 32 - Supply chain network design practices included in the survey ..................................................... 126

Table 33 - Green logistics practices included in the survey ........................................................................... 127

Table 34 - Performance included in the survey ............................................................................................. 129

Table 35 - Strategic role of environmental and social sustainability (overall answers) ................................. 143

Table 36 - Degree of relevance of drivers (survey's answers) ....................................................................... 145

Table 37- Green design practices (survey's results) ....................................................................................... 147

Table 38 - Sustainable production (survey's results) ..................................................................................... 149

Table 39 - Suppliers' selection and evaluation (survey's results) ................................................................... 151

Table 40 - Suppliers' collaboration (survey's results) ..................................................................................... 154

Table 41- Customers' collaboration (survey's answers) ................................................................................. 155

Table 42 - Supply chain network design (survey's results) ............................................................................ 156

Table 43 - Green logistics (survey's results) ................................................................................................... 158

Table 44 - Performance (survey's results) ...................................................................................................... 160

Table 45 - GD factor composition .................................................................................................................. 164

Table 46 - GM factor composition ................................................................................................................. 164

Table 47 - GP factor composition ................................................................................................................... 165

Table 48 - PPC factor composition ................................................................................................................. 165

Table 49 - SGM factor composition ................................................................................................................ 166

Table 50 - SGA factor composition ................................................................................................................. 167

Table 51 - GCS factor composition ................................................................................................................. 167

xii

Table 52 - SRP factor composition ................................................................................................................. 168

Table 53 - GCM factor composition ............................................................................................................... 168

Table 54 - DDN factor composition ................................................................................................................ 169

Table 55 - SP factor composition ................................................................................................................... 169

Table 56 - GL factor composition ................................................................................................................... 169

Table 57 - Centroids matrix ............................................................................................................................ 174

Table 58 - Clusters definition ......................................................................................................................... 175

Table 59 - Strategic role of environmental and social sustainability (suppliers' answers) ............................ 180

Table 60 - Strategic role of environmental and social sustainability (producers' answers) .......................... 181

Table 61 - Suppliers producers comparison: Environmental sustainability is a DA ....................................... 183

Table 62 - Suppliers producers comparison: Social sustainability is a DA ..................................................... 184

Table 63 - Suppliers producers comparison: Environmental sustainability is a MQ ...................................... 185

Table 64 - Suppliers producers comparison Social sustainability is a MQ ..................................................... 186

Table 65 - Suppliers producers comparison: Environmental sustainability is a OW...................................... 187

Table 66 - Suppliers producers comparison: Social sustainability is a OW .................................................... 188

Table 67 - RD Factor composition .................................................................................................................. 190

Table 68 - DI Factor composition ................................................................................................................... 190

Table 69 - SD Factor composition .................................................................................................................. 190

Table 70 - ANOVA RD, Clusters 1,2,3 ............................................................................................................. 192

Table 71 -ANOVA DI, Clusters 1,2,3................................................................................................................ 193

Table 72 - ANOVA SD, Clusters 1,2,3 .............................................................................................................. 193

Table 73 - Environmental sustainable strategic fit matrix ............................................................................. 201

Table 74 - Social sustainable strategic fit matrix ............................................................................................ 201

Table 75 - Zone of sustainable fit and misfit .................................................................................................. 202

Table 76 - PP Factor composition ................................................................................................................... 207

Table 77 - - PSE Factor composition .............................................................................................................. 207

Table 78 - - PA Factor composition ............................................................................................................... 207

xiii

Table 79 - PS Factor composition ................................................................................................................... 207

Table 80 - PI Factor composition ................................................................................................................... 208

Table 81 - ANOVA PA: Clusters 1,2,3 .............................................................................................................. 209

Table 82 - ANOVA PS: Clusters 1,2,3 .............................................................................................................. 209

Table 83- ANOVA PI: Clusters 1,2,3 ................................................................................................................ 209

Table 84- ANOVA PP: Clusters 1,2,3 ............................................................................................................... 210

Table 85 - ANOVA PSE: Clusters 1,2,3 ............................................................................................................ 210

Table 86- ANOVA PA: Strategic Role of Environmental Sustainability 1,2,3 .................................................. 212

Table 87 ANOVA PI: Strategic Role of Environmental Sustainability 1,2,3 .................................................... 213

Table 88-ANOVA PP: Strategic Role of Environmental Sustainability 1,2,3 ................................................... 213

Table 89 -ANOVA PSE: Strategic Role of Environmental Sustainability 1,2,3 ................................................ 213

Table 90 -ANOVA PS: Strategic Role of Social Sustainability 1,2,3 ................................................................. 214

Table 91 -ANOVA PI: Strategic Role of Social Sustainability 1,2,3.................................................................. 214

Table 92 - ANOVA PP: Strategic Role of Social Sustainability 1,2,3................................................................ 215

Table 93 - ANOVA PSE: Strategic Role of Social Sustainability 1,2,3 .............................................................. 215

Table 94 - ANOVA PA: Labels 1 - 9 ................................................................................................................. 223

Table 95 - ANOVA PI (E): Labels 1 - 9 ............................................................................................................. 224

Table 96 - ANOVA PS: Labels 1 – 9 ................................................................................................................. 227

Table 97 - ANOVA PI(S): Labels 1 - 9............................................................................................................... 227

xiv

Abstract Italiano Questo lavoro di tesi si pone come obiettivo di analizzare ed approfondire il tema della

sostenibilità lungo la supply chain. In particolare, lo studio si concentra sulla filiera legno-arredo e

su come le aziende appartenenti a questo settore si approcciano alla sostenibilità nelle sue

accezioni ambientale, sociale ed economica. Mentre fino a qualche anno fa la sostenibilità veniva

percepita come un concetto slegato dalla strategia aziendale, oggi le aziende stanno

gradualmente realizzando che essa è un vero e proprio fattore competitivo e, quando

correttamente integrata nella strategia corporate, può essere anche fonte di vantaggio

competitivo. Inoltre, precedenti studi sul tema sustainable supply chain, hanno appurato che

esiste un legame fra l’implementazione di pratiche sostenibili e il miglioramento delle

performance aziendali.

In quest’ottica, questa ricerca si pone innanzitutto di classificare le aziende, sia produttrici di

mobili che fornitori di componenti, in base alla loro abilità nell’implementare pratiche di

sostenibilità. In secondo luogo, sono stati coinvolti nell’analisi anche i driver che maggiormente

spingono le aziende ad approcciarsi alla sostenibilità. Infine, dopo aver definito il legame che

esiste fra il ruolo competitivo della sostenibilità e l’effettivo impegno che le aziende dedicano alla

realizzazione di iniziative sostenibili, si è cercato di definire l’impatto che questo legame ha sulle

performance di Triple Bottom Line.

Al fine di realizzare questo lavoro, la metodologia di ricerca utilizzata è stata l’indagine di mercato.

Pertanto, un questionario strutturato è stato sviluppato e inviato al maggior numero possibile di

aziende operanti nella filiera legno-arredo. Una volta raccolto un volume soddisfacente di

risposte, le informazioni sono state analizzate tramite un software per l’elaborazione di dati. Tre

diverse tipologie di analisi sono state condotte con il supporto di SPSS: analisi fattoriale, clustering

e ANOVA.

I risultati ottenuti mostrano che non solo le aziende possono essere classificate sulla base della

loro bravura nell’implementare pratiche sostenibili, ma ogni classe di compagnie identificata

viene influenzata in maniera diversa da driver interni ed esterni all’azienda. Inoltre, è emerso che

esiste una differenza fra produttori e fornitori per quanto riguarda le pratiche sostenibili più

implementate. Infine, è stato provato che quando il match fra la dichiarazione che le aziende

fanno del ruolo competitivo della sostenibilità e l’effettivo impegno che esse dedicano alla

realizzazione di iniziative sostenibili è rispettato nella sua condizione ottimale, le performance di

Triple Bottom Line subiscono un miglioramento.

xv

Abstract English This thesis aims to analyze and explore the theme of sustainability along the supply chain. In

particular, the study focuses on the wood and furniture industry and how companies operating in

this sector approach sustainability in its environmental, social and economic meanings. While

until a few years ago, sustainability was perceived as a concept disconnected from corporate

strategy, now companies are gradually realizing that it is a competitive factor and, when properly

integrated into corporate strategy, it can also be a source of competitive advantage. In addition,

previous studies on the sustainable supply chain topic, have found that there is a link between the

implementation of sustainable practices and the improvement of business performance.

In this light, this research has the purpose to rank companies, both furniture manufacturers and

component suppliers, based on their ability to implement sustainable practices. Secondly, drivers

that are leading companies to approach the sustainability issue, have been included in the

analysis. Finally, after having defined the link that exists between the competitive role of

sustainability and the effective commitment of companies to the implementation of sustainable

initiatives, the impact that this link has on the triple bottom line performance has been identified.

The research methodology used for this work was the survey. A structured questionnaire was

developed and sent to a large number of companies operating in the wood and furniture industry.

Once collected a satisfactory amount of responses, the information have been analyzed through a

data processing software. Three different types of analyses were performed with the SPSS’s

support: factor analysis, clustering and ANOVA.

The results show that not only companies can be categorized based on their commitmen in

implementing sustainable practices, but each identified class of companies is influenced in a

different way by internal and external drivers. In addition, it emerged that there is a difference

between producers and suppliers for what concerns the most implemented sustainable practices.

Finally, it has been proved that when the match between the competitive role of sustainability

and the actual effort that companies devote to the realization of sustainable initiatives is

respected in its optimal condition, the Triple Bottom Line performance improve.

xvi

Sommario Introduzione La crescente sensibilità delle imprese alle problematiche ambientali, la necessità di rispettare

normative sempre più frequenti, la necessità di migliorare la qualità dei prodotti e, allo stesso

tempo, di ridurre i costi di produzione, nuove opportunità di mercato, la volontà di migliorare

l'immagine aziendale e la reputazione e, infine, l’aumento delle preoccupazioni circa i

cambiamenti climatici, sono solo alcune delle variabili che stanno cimentando l'interesse delle

aziende verso il ruolo della sostenibilità nella definizione della strategia aziendale (Chiesa e Utizi,

2014). Le pressioni crescenti del mercato, causate anche dalla scarsità delle risorse naturali e

dall'aumento dell'inquinamento, hanno portato il tema della sustainable supply chain ad essere

tra le più importanti decisioni aziendali. I manager devono affrontare la sfida della sostenibilità

nelle loro attività quotidiane e gradualmente stanno sviluppando consapevolezza del fatto che ci

sia un legame tra pratiche green e sociali e il successo delle imprese (Chiesa e Utizi, 2014). La

sostenibilità non è più un concetto puramente ambientale, ma sta diventando una vera e propria

componente strategica.

Lo scopo di questa tesi, è quello di approfondire il tema della sostenibilità lungo la supply chain,

tema che è considerato di estremo interesse e attualità. Per fare ciò, una revisione della

letteratura sui temi della sostenibilità e della supply chain sostenibile è stata effettuata. Questa

review, ha rivelato che esiste scarsa integrazione tra sostenibilità e discipline di sustainable supply

chain. Tuttavia, sono emersi anche alcuni spunti che il mercato si sta gradualmente muovendo

verso un modo più sostenibile di fare business. La revisione letteratura ha compreso anche una

panoramica sui drivers per lo sviluppo di iniziative sostenibili. Inoltre, una vasta parte dell'analisi

letteratura ha interessato le pratiche sostenibili più diffuse sul mercato, con particolare

attenzione a quelle realizzate da aziende operanti nel settore del legno e del mobile. Infine, è

stata eseguita una revisione delle performance di triple bottom line.

Questa tesi si pone di colmare in parte le carenze emerse dalla Letteratura attraverso lo sviluppo

di un framework di ricerca. Il modello è stato costruito sulla base delle considerazioni tratte a

valle della revisione della letteratura e prendendo spunto da un framework di ricerca sviluppato in

un lavoro di tesi precedente. L’obiettivo del lavoro precedente era di identificare le pratiche

sostenibili più implementate nel settore dell’arredamento in base al diverso ruolo strategico della

sostenibilità (order winner, market qualifier e desirable attribute) e la posizione dell’azienda lungo

xvii

la filiera. Il nuovo framework, è uno strumento utile sia per ricercatori che per professionisti, in

quanto affronta diversi temi che sono scarsamente affrontati in letteratura come ad esempio: la

definizione di linee guida univoche per una corretta integrazione della sostenibilità nella strategia

aziendale come fattore competitivo, oppure il fatto che in letteratura sono pochi gli studi che

trattano il tema del fit strategico tra le priorità dei clienti e le capacità della supply chain. Inoltre,

non ci sono riferimenti alla controparte sostenibile del concetto fit strategico, che in questo studio

sarà definito come "sustainable strategic fit" o fit strategico sostenibile. D'altra parte, il

framework e i relativi risultati che ne sono derivati, rappresentano anche un potente strumento

per i manager che operano nel settore del mobile e, in generale, per le aziende che operano in

contesti con bassa complessità di prodotto e di processo. Questo lavoro, infatti, ha l'ambizione di

fornire ai manager una guida per orientare le loro decisioni verso l'attuazione di una strategia di

supply chain sostenibile.

I passi dell’analisi, nonché capitoli della tesi, sono sintetizzati nel seguente schema (Fig.1):

Figure 1 - Struttura della tesi

xviii

Analisi della Letteratura Nel primo capitolo, sono stati approfonditi i temi della sostenibilità e dello sviluppo sostenibile.

Diverse definizioni di sviluppo sostenibile sono emerse dalla letteratura, tra cui una delle più

interessanti è quella fornita dalla Commissione mondiale sull'ambiente e lo sviluppo (WCED): "Lo

sviluppo che soddisfa i bisogni delle generazioni presenti senza compromettere la capacità delle

generazioni future di soddisfare i propri bisogni ". Dopodiché è stato fatto un excursus sulle

definizioni più diffuse di sostenibilità. Secondo Shrivastava (1995a), la sostenibilità consiste in

"offrire il potenziale per ridurre i rischi a lungo termine associati all'esaurimento delle risorse, le

fluttuazioni dei costi energetici, le passività di prodotto, l'inquinamento e la gestione dei rifiuti",

secondo Dovers e Handmer (1992) la sostenibilità è "la capacità di un sistema umano, naturale o

misto, di resistere o di adattarsi ai cambiamenti endogeni o esogeni a tempo indeterminato". Per

Elkington (1994), creatore della Triple Bottom Line, la sostenibilità è "l'equilibrio tra i tre pilastri:

ambientali, economici e sociali". Molti altri contributi sono stati proposti nel capitolo dedicato.

Il secondo capitolo ha affrontato il ruolo strategico competitivo della sostenibilità. In particolare,

questa sezione è stata incentrata sulla evoluzione del ruolo strategico della sostenibilità. È stata

inclusa una panoramica delle strategia aziendali ambientale più diffuse, tra quelle riportate nel

capitolo, possiamo citare la classificazione fatta da Lee e Rhee (2007) che hanno suddiviso le

aziende in base ai loro approcci ambientali, gli Autori hanno identificato quattro modelli di

strategie ambientali: reattive, focused, opportunista, proattive, o la categorizzazione storica

proposta da Wilson (1975), che ha individuato quattro possibili modelli di business che

rispecchiano i modi in cui le aziende affrontano temi sostenibili: reattivo, difensivo, accomodante,

propositivo. L'ultima parte del capitolo due è stata dedicata a modellare meglio il concetto di

sostenibilità come fattore competitivo. In questa parte sono state introdotte le definizioni di order

winner e order qualifier coniate da T. Hill (2000), in quanto questi due concetti sono stati

fondamentali per la costruzione del framework di ricerca. Terry Hill (2000) sosteneva che i

principali criteri richiesti dal mercato possono essere suddivisi in due gruppi: order winner e order

qualifer. Hill ha definito order winner come: "una caratteristica di un prodotto o un servizio che è

richiesto perchè il prodotto / servizio sia considerato dal cliente come una valida alternativa" e

order winner come "caratteristica del prodotto che permette la vincita dell'offerta o determina

acquisto da parte del cliente "(T. Hill, 2000). I contributi della Letteratura al tema della

sostenibilità come order winner e market qualifier sono piuttosto limitati. Tuttavia, Wu e Pagell

(2010) hanno studiato il modello di business di diverse organizzazioni sottolineando come ogni

organizzazione consideri aspetti ambientali nel proprio processo decisionale strategico. In

particolare, gli Autori hanno realizzato delle configurazioni di comportamenti ambientali,

xix

comportamenti sociali e strategie sociale e li hanno definiti "posture ambientali". Il risultato è

stato la definizione di quattro posizioni ambientali: the environmental first posture, the equal

footing posture, the opportunity first posture and the community first postures. La classificazione

proposta dagli Autori si avvicina molto alla definizione di sostenibilità come order winner e market

qualifier.

Il terzo capitolo ha introdotto il tema della supply chain sostenibile. In particolare, dopo una

panoramica generale sul tema della supply chain, sono state fornite alcune definizioni di supply

chain sostenibili. Tra i contributi più interessanti vi è la definizione di Carter e Rogers (2008), che

ha definito SSCM come "l'integrazione trasparente strategica ed il raggiungimento degli obiettivi

sociali, ambientali ed economici di un'organizzazione attraverso il coordinamento sistemico dei

processi aziendali organizzativi inter-relazionali per miglioramento delle prestazioni economiche a

lungo termine della singola azienda e della sua catena di approvvigionamento ". Un'altra

definizione interessante di sustainable supply chain è stata fornita da S. Seuring e M. Müller

(2008), che l’hanno definita come "la gestione di materiale, informazioni e flussi di capitale,

nonché la cooperazione tra le imprese lungo la catena di approvvigionamento, tenendo conto di

tutte e tre le dimensioni dello sviluppo sostenibile, quali l'economia, ambiente e l’aspetto sociale,

che sono derivati da esigenze del cliente e delle parti interessate ". Nello stesso capitolo, anche i

driver e le barriere alla realizzazione di SSCM, le strategie per lo sviluppo di una filiera sostenibile

e relativi vantaggi e svantaggi, sono stati ampiamente illustrati.

Il capitolo quattro si è focalizzato sulla filiera dell’arredamento. In particolare, un’introduzione

generale all'industria del mobile apre il capitolo, dopodiché la supply chain del settore del legno-

arredo è stata spiegata e commentata. Tuttavia, la parte principale di questo capitolo è la cernita

delle pratiche sostenibili più diffuse nel settore del mobile. In particolare, le categorie di pratiche

esaminate sono: green design practices, sustainable production practices, sustainable purchasing

practices, sustainable collaboration with customers’ practices, supply chain network design

practices and green logistics practices. Inoltre, è stata eseguita una panoramica dei drivers più

impattanti per lo sviluppo della filiera sostenibile. Sia drivers interni che esterni sono stati inclusi

nell'analisi. Infine, un elenco delle performance di triple bottom line è stato redatto.

Identificazione dei gap della Letteratura Dalla revisione della letteratura due gap principali sono emersi:

Gap 1. Non esistono le linee guida univoche per la corretta integrazione della sostenibilità

nella strategia aziendale come fattore competitivo. Inoltre, vi è una mancanza di

xx

framework che mostrano come questa integrazione impatta sulle pratiche di supply chain

sostenibili.

Nonostante l'attenzione verso il tema sostenibile stia senza dubbio aumentando, le aziende che

sono riuscite a sviluppare una strategia aziendale pienamente sostenibile sono ancora rare. La

difficoltà che le imprese devono affrontare quando cercano di integrare la sostenibilità nella loro

strategia di business, è la mancanza di un framework strutturato che le guidi chiaramente nel

processo decisionale. Per esempio, in letteratura è possibile trovare molti riferimenti a diversi

strumenti strategici, tuttavia, non c’è uno strumento sistematico in grado di fornire le linee guida

generali per l'attuazione di una strategia aziendale sostenibile.

Gap 2. L'impatto che lo sviluppo di pratiche sostenibili da parte delle aziende ha sulle

prestazioni TBL (ambientali, sociali ed economiche) non è definito da un modello. Inoltre,

non esiste una versione univoca della natura di questo rapporto.

La revisione della letteratura ha mostrato che ci sono molti studi che analizzano il legame tra

l'attuazione di pratiche sostenibili e performance di TBL e che ci sono altrettante teorie diverse sul

loro rapporto. Alcuni autori, come Caniato et al. (2012), hanno analizzato i rapporti tra i drivers, le

pratiche e le performance utilizzando un'analisi di regressione lineare. In particolare, per l'analisi

condotta sulle performance, gli Autori hanno notato risultati differenti: ad esempio, pratiche di

acquisti green e di cooperazione con i clienti hanno un impatto significativo solo sulle prestazioni

ambientali, ma non su altri aspetti di performance, pratiche di “investment recovery” hanno un

impatto negativo sui risultati economici, mentre pratiche di eco-design non hanno mostrato alcun

impatto sulle performance. Azevedo et al. (2011) hanno analizzato la relazione tra pratiche e

performance sostenibili, con l'obiettivo di esplorare e comprendere l'influenza che le pratiche

GSCM hanno sulle performance sostenibili. I risultati dello studio hanno mostrato che il costo

ambientale, la qualità e l’efficienza sono le misure di performance con le relazioni più significative

con le pratiche green. Tuttavia, il legame diretto e positivo tra pratica e performance dell’azienda

non è sempre immediato. Molti altri papers hanno affrontato lo stesso argomento, tuttavia le

conclusioni tratte sono sempre molto diverse. Pertanto, la presenza di Gap 2 è giustificata dalla

mancanza di omogeneità nei risultati ottenuti nei precedenti studi.

Infine, un terzo gap è emerso dopo aver approfondito il tema del “strategic fit” definito da Chopra

e Meindl (2012). Gli autori lo hanno concepito come un concetto che indica la coerenza tra le

priorità dei clienti e le funzionalità di strategiche della supply chain. Gli autori hanno precisato che

si ha uno strategic fit ogni volta che strategia competitiva e strategia di supply chain hanno gli

stessi obiettivi, pertanto un’azienda può fallire a causa di una mancanza di strategic fit o perché i

xxi

suoi processi e le sue risorse non permettono di seguire la strategia desiderata. Chopra e Meindl

(2012) hanno fornito un procedimento ben definito per la realizzazione del strategic fit: per prima

cosa, l’azienda dovrebbe comprendere l'incertezza del cliente e della supply chain, a quel punto

dovrebbe concentrarsi sulla sua catena di fornitura, infine, l'azienda deve garantire che ciò che la

propria catena di approvvigionamento è in grado di fare sia coerente con le esigenze del cliente di

destinazione.

Gli autori hanno portato l'esempio di strategic fit tra l'incertezza della domanda e la strategia di

supply chain (reattiva o efficiente). Per ottenere strategic fit, maggiore è l'incertezza implicita, più

la filiera dovrebbe essere reattiva. Una crescente incertezza implicita da parte dei clienti e delle

fonti di approvvigionamento viene affrontata meglio aumentando la reattività dalla supply chain.

Questa relazione è rappresentata dalla "zona di strategic fit" illustrata in Fig. 2. Per ottenere un

elevato livello di performance, le aziende dovrebbero spostare la loro strategia competitiva (e la

conseguente incertezza implicita) e la strategia della supply chain (e la capacità di adattamento

conseguente) verso la zona di adattamento strategico.

Figure 2 - Finding zone of strategic fit (Chopra and Meindl, 2012)

Purtroppo, questo è uno dei rari contributi della Letteratura alla teoria del strategic fit disponibili,

è molto difficile trovare articoli scientifici che trattano questo argomento mentre è impossibile

trovare riferimenti al concetto sustainable strategic fit, in quanto è un concetto del tutto

innovativo. In questo lavoro, l'espressione "sustainable strategic fit" verrà inteso come la

corrispondenza tra il ruolo strategico della sostenibilità dichiarato dall’azienda e le pratiche

xxii

sostenibili effettivamente sviluppate dalla stessa. Sulla base delle considerazioni precedenti, è

possibile formulare il terzo gap della letteratura nel modo seguente:

Gap 3. In letteratura, ci sono pochi studi che trattano il tema del strategic fit tra le priorità

dei clienti di una strategia competitiva e le capacità offerte dalla supply chain. Inoltre, non

ci sono riferimenti alla controparte sostenibile del concetto di strategic fit che in questo

studio verrà indicata come "sustainable strategic fit"

Domande di ricerca Sulla base delle considerazioni precedenti e alla luce dei gap della Letteratura individuati, sono

state formulate le seguenti domande di ricerca:

RQ1: In che modo le aziende possono essere classificate in relazione al loro impegno per

l'attuazione di pratiche sostenibili?

RQ2: A parità di ruolo strategico della sostenibilità, quali sono le diverse pratiche

sostenibili implementate da produttori e fornitori

RQ3: Come impattano driver interni ed esterni all’azienda sulla disponibilità dell'azienda

ad implementare pratiche sostenibili?

RQ4: Come impatta il sustainable strategic fit tra il ruolo strategico della sostenibilità

dichiarato e le effettive pratiche sostenibili attuate sulla performance ambientali, sociali

ed economicche di una azienda?

Framework di ricerca Per rispondere a queste quattro domande di ricerca, un framework di ricerca è stato sviluppato. I

fondamenti per lo sviluppo del nuovo framework di ricerca sono stati ereditati da un precedente

lavoro di tesi in cui l'obiettivo era quello di identificare quali erano le pratiche sostenibili più

implementate sulla base del diverso ruolo strategico della sostenibilità dichiarato dalle imprese

(order winner, market qualifier, desirable attribute) e la posizione dell’azienda lungo la filiera

(Fig.3).

xxiii

Figure 3 - Framework di ricerca (Verderio, 2015)

Il nuovo Framework (Fig.4) conserva alcuni concetti chiave del modello precedente, come la

classificazione di sostenibilità in base ai concetti di order winner e market qualifier definiti da Hill

(2000), con l'aggiunta del concetto di "attributo desiderabile". La sostenibilità viene connotata

come desirable attribute quando non è considerata come fattore strategico, ma si limita ad essere

conforme a norme e regolamenti. Inoltre, anche nel nuovo framework viene riportato il rapporto

tra il ruolo strategico della sostenibilità e la conseguente attuazione di pratiche sostenibili, con

l'aggiunta dell’analisi dell'impatto che i driver possono avere sullo sviluppo delle pratiche. Come

già detto in precedenza, l'obiettivo di questo studio non è solo quello di individuare e analizzare le

pratiche messe in atto dalle aziende con diversi livelli di integrazione sostenibile, ma anche di

indagare se vi è una corrispondenza tra il ruolo strategico della sostenibilità dichiarato

dall’azienda e l'effettiva attuazione di una strategia sostenibile. Pertanto, la correlazione tra i

primi due elementi del framework è uno dei pilastri di questo nuovo lavoro. Un secondo

importante pilastro dello studio, è l'impatto che la posizione dell’azienda lungo la catena di

approvvigionamento ha sull'attuazione di pratiche di green e sociali. Pertanto, nel framework è

stata introdotta una variabile ad hoc che studiasse il comportamento di produttori e fornitori

riguardo l'attuazione di iniziative sostenibili. Infine, mentre nel lavoro precedente l'attenzione si

era concentrata sull'impatto che l’implementazione di pratiche sostenibili aveva sulle

performance aziendale, in questa analisi lo scopo è quello di individuare l'impatto che il

sustainable strategic fit precedentemente definito ha sulle perfomance aziendali.

xxiv

Figure 4 - Nuovo framework di ricerca

Metodologia La metodologia utilizzata per la realizzazione del lavoro è stata l’indagine di mercato. In primo

luogo, un questionario di ricerca è stato sviluppato sulla base della conoscenza acquisita dalla

revisione della letteratura. In seguito, con l'aiuto di SPSS, tre factor analyses esplorative su driver,

pratiche e performance sono state eseguite, inoltre i fattori di pratiche sono stati

successivamente classificati, grazie all’esecuzione di una cluster analysis. Infine, diverse analisi

ANOVA sono state eseguite sui fattori di driver e fattori di performance.

Era fondamentale, per lo scopo di questo studio, raccogliere dati quanto più reali e quantificabili

dal mercato. Lo sviluppo di un questionario di ricerca esplorativo è risultato essere il modo più

indicato per analizzare il settore dell’arredamento. In particolare, tra i diversi modi disponibili di

condurre un’indagine (questionari telefonici, questionari web, questionari per posta elettronica e

questionari mixed-model) (Forza 2012), il questionario inviato tramite posta elettronica si è

dimostrato essere lo strumento più appropriato.

xxv

Figure 5 – Fase di ricerca: invio dei questionari

Il questionario è stato sviluppato nel corso del mese di Marzo 2016 e, per facilitarne la

comprensione, è stato realizzato sia in italiano che in inglese. La prima occasione per testare il

questionario è stato il Salone del Mobile 2016 tenutosi a Milano dal 12 aprile al 17 aprile 2016.

Durante l'evento, il sondaggio è stato sottoposto ai partecipanti e alcune domandi riguardanti la

filiera del legno e il ruolo della sostenibilità nel settore del mobile sono state poste ai partecipanti.

Durante il Salone del Mobile, sono stati raccolti molti indirizzi e-mail e informazioni di contatto.

Subito dopo la conclusione della prima fase di test, infatti, è stato creato un database contenente

tutte le informazioni rilevanti delle aziende intervistate durante il Salone del Mobile e quelle

trovate navigando sul web. Con il supporto di SurveyMonkey, il questionario è stato caricato in

rete e successivamente inviato ad un gran numero di destinatari. Nel complesso, 1580 questionari

sono stati inviati, considerando il primo invio, solleciti e il secondo invio. Le aziende, sono state in

primo luogo contattate attraverso una e-mail che spiegava il progetto e che conteneva il link a

SurveyMonkey per la compilazione del questionario. Dopodiché, è stato fatto un sollecito alle

aziende che non avevano terminato il questionario dopo il primo invio. Le aziende che non

avevano risposto al primo invio di questionari, ma che risultavano particolarmente attente al

tema della sostenibilità, sono state contattate una seconda volta per telefono o via e-mail. La fase

di invio dei questionari è durata più o meno 4 mesi: da Maggio a Settembre 2016 (escluso Agosto

2016) e le modalità di risposta previste erano: o la compilazione del sondaggio via e-mail o

xxvi

tramite telefonata. Sono state ricevute 76 risposte in totale, di cui 18 erano incomplete, perciò le

risposte considerate valide per l’analisi erano 58.

Il questionario era composto da ventidue domande ed è stato suddiviso nelle seguenti sezioni:

PARTE 1: Struttura della supply chain: quali sono i clienti ei fornitori dell’azienda

PARTE 2: L'importanza della sostenibilità ambientale e sociale come fattori competitivi

PARTE 3: Driver e fattori che hanno spinto l'azienda verso l'adozione di pratiche sostenibili

PARTE 4: Sostenibilità e pratiche di supply chain sostenibili (design, acquisti, produzione,

distribuzione e sviluppo di nuovi prodotti)

PARTE 5: Performance

PARTE 6: Caratteristiche del prodotto e di processo

Dopo la conclusione della fase di raccolta dei dati, una quantità enorme di informazioni era stata

registrata. A quel punto era fondamentale trovare un modo intelligente ed efficace per gestire

tutti i dati raccolti e valorizzare le caratteristiche di fondo delle risposte. Si è convenuto che

l'esecuzione di una factor analysis su driver, pratiche e performance fosse il modo migliore per

gestire facilmente il gran volume di informazioni disponibili, in linea con i numerosi riferimenti

letteratura che hanno conseguito percorsi simili (Zhang et al, 2014;. Zhu et al ., 2008; Zhu et al,

2007;.. Macchion et al, 2015; Zhu e Sarkis, 2004;. Luthra et al, 2016). Il software scelto per

eseguire l'analisi è stato SPSS.

xxvii

Figure 6 – Fasi di ricerca: Factor analysis

Un'altra caratteristica interessante di SPSS, era la possibilità di eseguire una cluster analysis.

Questo passo è stato fondamentale ai fini di questa analisi, in quanto uno degli obiettivi che erano

stati fissati tramite le domande di ricerca, era di classificare le imprese secondo la loro abilità

nell’attuare pratiche sostenibili. Pertanto, l'esecuzione di un cluster analysis sulle pratiche

rappresentava il modo migliore per creare queste classi. L’analisi è stata condotta in linea con i

numerosi riferimenti della Letteratura che confermano questa possibilità (Chen et al, 2012;. Zhu e

Sarkis, 2004). In particolare, l'analisi è stata effettuata sui fattori pratiche, precedentemente

calcolati grazie all'analisi fattoriale. Utilizzare i fattori come input per la cluster analysis, ha

consentito di ridurre la dimensione del campione e di conseguenza la probabilità di ottenere

cluster poco affidabili.

xxviii

Figure 7 - Fase di ricerca - Cluster analysis

Il test ANOVA è stato fondamentale per verificare se vi era una differenza significativa in termini

di performance fra aziende appartenenti a diversi gruppi. Inoltre, la stessa analisi è stata eseguita

anche sui drivers per capire in che modo essi impattassero sulla decisione delle imprese di

implementare pratiche sostenibili, sulla falsa riga di quello che Salam (2008) ha fatto nel suo

articolo.

xxix

Figure 8 - Fasi di ricerca: ANOVA

Risposta alla RQ1 Una volta raccolte tutte le informazioni del sondaggio, la fase di analisi è cominciata. La prima

domanda di ricerca dell'analisi era la seguente:

RQ1: In che modo le aziende possono essere classificate in relazione al loro impegno per

l'attuazione di pratiche sostenibili?

L'obiettivo di questa domanda, era quello di verificare se c’erano aziende particolarmente capaci

a sviluppare pratiche di supply chain sostenibili e, al contrario, se esisteva una classe di aziende

che investiva poco nella realizzazione di iniziative ecologiche e sociali. Per ridurre l'elevato

numero di pratiche elencate nel questionario, in totale erano cinquanta, un'analisi riduzione

dimensionale sul campione di pratiche è stata eseguita. Al termine dell’analisi fattoriale, dodici

fattori sono stati identificati:

1. Green design (GD)

2. Green management (GM)

3. Green production (GP)

4. Pollution prevention and control (PPC)

5. Suppliers green monitoring (SGM)

6. Suppliers green assessment (SGA)

xxx

7. Green collaboration with suppliers (GCS)

8. Socially responsible purchasing (SRP)

9. Green customer management (GCM)

10. Design del network (DDN)

11. Sustainable packaging (SP)

12. Green logistics (GL)

A questo punto, l'obiettivo di riduzione dimensionale è stato raggiunto. Il campione non è più

composto da cinquanta pratiche, ma da dodici fattori che spiegano comunque la varianza totale

delle pratiche estese. Tuttavia, per rispondere alla domanda di ricerca iniziale (RQ1), è stato

necessario eseguire un'ulteriore analisi di classificazione. In particolare, una cluster analisi è stata

effettuata con il supporto di SPSS. L’output della two step cluster analysis eseguita sui fattori è

stato il seguente (Fig.9).

Figure 9 - Riassunto del modello

A questo punto, per caratterizzare ogni cluster e trovare quale delle tre classi di aziende fosse la

migliore nell’attuare pratiche di supply chain sostenibili, è stato necessario considerare un

ulteriore risultato della cluster analysis condotta con SPSS: la matrice dei centroidi (Table 1).

xxxi

Centroids

GD GM GP PPC SGM SGA GSC SRP GCM DDN SP GL

Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation

Cluster 1 1,0864 ,94766 ,9555 ,65642 ,5155 ,68661 ,8236 ,71410 1,4745 ,52288 ,9209 ,50439 1,2455 ,61862 1,2064 ,58805 1,2427 ,85379 ,9055 ,84354 ,6973 ,65712 1,3073 1,12749

2 -,0488 ,77880 ,0009 1,00062 ,2472 ,96788 ,2500 ,74767 -,0228 ,64884 ,2534 ,63966 ,0891 ,72522 ,0066 ,80117 ,0088 ,76932 ,1200 ,80244 ,3338 ,75867 -,1225 ,74953

3 -,6913 ,80054 -,6973 ,55573 -,9053 ,66656 -

1,1373 ,63964

-

1,0313 ,31753

-

1,2173 ,76420

-

1,1053 ,29046 -,8933 ,62879 -,9280 ,31779 -,9187 ,74704

-

1,2220 ,49804 -,6900 ,15834

Combined ,0003 ,99985 ,0014 1,00006 ,0000 1,00129 ,0000 1,00019 ,0003 1,00075 -,0003 1,00015 -,0005 ,99961 ,0014 ,99888 ,0005 ,99964 ,0003 1,00025 ,0003 ,99952 ,0019 ,99912

Table 1 - Matrice dei centroidi

Sulla base dei valori medi illustrati nella matrice dei centroidi, la seguente nomenclatura è stata

proposta:

– Highly Capable Companies: le medie del cluster uno, si sono dimostrate le più alte per

ogni fattore di pratiche, è evidente dalla matrice dei centroidi che le aziende appartenenti

al primo gruppo hanno i migliori risultati in termini di realizzazione di pratiche sostenibili

in quanto le aziende del gruppo uno hanno assegnato valori molto alti alla maggior parte

delle categorie di pratiche. Il primo gruppo è formato da undici imprese, di cui zero sono

fornitori. Questo è già una notevole caratteristica del cluster, nessuno dei fornitori

partecipanti allo studio ha mostrato di essere particolarmente capace nell'attuazione

pratiche sostenibili. Tuttavia, a questo livello di analisi, era prematuro concludere che i

fornitori non fossero interessati al tema della sostenibilità. Quello delle highly capable

companies è risultato essere il cluster più scarso, questo potrebbe essere interpretato

come sintomo di una scarsa conoscenza delle pratiche disponibili sul mercato o come un

basso interesse generale verso iniziative sostenibili nel settore dell’arredamento.

– Medium Capable Companies: guardando la matrice dei centroidi, il cluster due mostrava

valori di medie modesti, le aziende in questo gruppo implementano una quantità

moderata di pratiche sostenibili, pertanto esse sono state definite medium capable

companies. Il cluster due è composto da trentadue aziende, di cui nove sono fornitori di

componenti. Questo è il più grande dei clusters sia in termini di numerosità generale sia

per quanto riguarda quella specifica dei fornitori.

– Shortly capable companies: dalla matrice dei centroidi è emerso che il cluster tre aveva i

valori medi più bassi, questo è stato interpretato come un impegno minimo in termini di

attuazione di pratiche sostenibili, pertanto, le aziende appartenenti al gruppo tre sono

xxxii

state denominati come shortly capable companies. Questo cluster è formato da quindici

aziende di cui tre fornitori di componenti.

Risposta alla RQ2 Una volta che le aziende sono state classificate in base al loro impegno nell’attuare pratiche

sostenibili, si è cercato di valutare se ci fossero differenze nei comportamenti di fornitori e

produttori posizionati in classi diverse. In particolare, a parità di ruolo strategico della

sostenibilità, sono state studiate le differenze nel livello di attuazione di pratiche sostenibili di

fornitori e produttori.

RQ2: A parità di ruolo strategico della sostenibilità, quali sono le diverse pratiche sostenibili

implementate da produttori e fornitori

Per fare ciò, dopo che il posizionamento delle imprese nei tre gruppi (highly capable, medium

capable, shortly capable) è stato definito, produttori e fornitori di mobili sono stati analizzati

separatamente, per vedere se esistevano differenze sostanziali tra le loro classificazioni. In altre

parole, un focus sul gruppo dei fornitori è stato fatto al fine di rilevare l'eventuale concentrazione

di questi soggetti in un unico cluster. Tuttavia, questa possibilità è stata esclusa dalla cluster

analysis, i cui risultati mostravano chiaramente che i fornitori erano omogeneamente distribuiti

tra i tre gruppi. Pertanto, un'analisi qualitativa delle risposte fornite al questionario è stata

eseguita. È emerso che, in generale, i fornitori attribuiscono un maggior valore competitivo alla

sostenibilità sociale rispetto a quella ambientale. Al contrario, i produttori considerano la

sostenibilità ambientale come un market qualifier e la sostenibilità sociale come un nice to have.

Una possibile spiegazione di questa mancata corrispondenza della dichiarazione del ruolo

strategico di sostenibilità tra fornitori e produttori, poteva essere la dimensione, piuttosto

diversa, delle aziende appartenenti ai due gruppi. Il fornitore più piccolo del campione aveva

1.000.000 € di fatturato, mentre il più grande aveva 16.000.000 € di fatturato, il valore medio dei

ricavi dei fornitori era 6.125.000 €. Il gruppo dei produttori aveva caratteristiche molto diverse: il

valore massimo dei ricavi era 411.587.464 €, il valore minimo era 400.000 €, il valore medio era

di: 38.474.696 €. Perciò era ragionevole supporre che la discriminante per le diverse dichiarazioni

di ruolo strategico sostenibilità fosse la dimensione.

xxxiii

Pertanto, una porzione dei produttori è stata selezionata e ulteriormente analizzata. In

particolare, solo i produttori con caratteristiche di fatturato paragonabili a quelle dei fornitori

sono stati scelti. Nel complesso, tredici produttori sono stati considerati, il valore più basso dei

ricavi di questo nuovo campione era di 1.200.000 €, il valore più alto era di 14.000.000 €, il valore

medio era di 4.945.923 €. Perciò, sono stati selezionati valori molto più comparabili. A questo

punto è stata effettuata una valutazione comparativa tra il nuovo campione di produttori ed i

fornitori. I risultati ottenuti sono riportati nei seguenti grafici:

Nonostante il punto di vista dell’analisi sia diverso, è chiaro che c’è ancora una mancata

corrispondenza tra ciò che i fornitori hanno dichiarato circa il ruolo competitivo della sostenibilità

e ciò che i produttori, con una dimensione paragonabile, hanno affermato. Pertanto, si è concluso

che la dimensione non era la variabile differenziale per le diverse dichiarazioni di ruolo

competitivo di sostenibilità ambientale e sociale da parte di produttori e fornitori.

Dopo questa prima considerazione, è stata condotta un'analisi sulle pratiche attuate da produttori

e fornitori che dichiaravano il medesimo ruolo strategico della sostenibilità. I risultati di questa

analisi sono stati generalizzati come segue:

Quando la sostenibilità è un desirable attribute, la prevenzione dell'inquinamento e le pratiche di

riduzione dell’inquinamento sono tra le pratiche più implementate dei fornitori, mentre sono tra

le meno interessanti per i produttori. Analoga considerazione può essere fatta per la produzione

green: essa è spesso ampiamente sviluppata dai fornitori, ma è modestamente attuata dai

produttori. L’opposto può essere concluso per le pratiche di design del network che sono tra le

meno implementate dai fornitori, mentre sono di posizione abbastanza rilevante nella classifica

dei produttori. Per entrambi fornitori e produttori, suppliers’ green assessment and suppliers’

green monitoring sono pratiche di poco interesse, mentre le pratiche di logistica green sono di

interesse molto basso, indipendentemente dalla posizione dell’azienda lungo la filiera.

xxxiv

Quando la sostenibilità è un market qualifier, pratiche di prevenzione e controllo

dell'inquinamento e pratiche di valutazione dei fornitori sono due delle pratiche più

implementate da parte dei fornitori, sono anche modestamente implementate dai produttori.

Mentre pratiche di design del network e pratiche di logistica green sono tra le meno sviluppate

per i fornitori, esse sono di medio interesse per i produttori. Ci sono differenze significative tra

fornitori e produttori per le pratiche di produzione green che sono generalmente più sviluppate

dai fornitori che dai produttori. Somiglianze sono state trovate per le pratiche di collaborazione

con i fornitori e gestione dei clienti che sono modestamente implementate da fornitori e

produttori.

Quando la sostenibilità è un order winner, pratiche di produzione green vengono classificate tra le

pratiche sostenibili più diffuse da parte dei fornitori, mentre i produttori hanno ben poca

considerazione di questa categoria di pratiche. Sia produttori che fornitori dedicano risorse

comparabili per lo sviluppo di pratiche di logistica green, in quanto essa è considerata tra i primi

posti della classifica di entrambi. In media, pratiche di valutazione sostenibile dei fornitori sono

più attuate dai fornitori che dai produttori, mentre essi dedicano la stessa quantità di risorse a

pratiche di imballaggio sostenibili. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices and supplies’ green

assessment sono in genere medio-classificati da entrambi. Infine, pratiche di prevenzione

dell'inquinamento e di controllo dell'inquinamento sono, in generale, ritenute di maggior valore

dai fornitori che dai produttori

Risposta alla RQ3 A valle dell'analisi precedente sulle pratiche e sul ruolo che la posizione dell'azienda lungo la

catena di approvvigionamento ha sull’applicazione di pratiche sostenibili, lo studio si è spostato

ad analizzare l’eventuale impatto che drivers esterni e interni hanno su iniziative sostenibili delle

aziende.

RQ3: Come impattano driver interni ed esterni all’azienda sulla sua disponibilità ad implementare

pratiche sostenibili?

Una volta raccolte le risposte fornite dalle aziende, la modalità di analisi è stata di indagare se ci

fosse una relazione diretta tra i drivers e l’impegno per l’attuazione di pratiche sostenibili. Ancora

una volta, si è deciso di eseguire un'analisi di riduzione dimensionale sui nove driver, per ridurre la

numerosità del campione. Pertanto, un’analisi fattoriale esplorativa sui driver è stata condotta e

l’output è stato l'individuazione di tre fattori di driver:

1. Regulatory drivers (RD)

xxxv

1. Drivers of image (DI)

2. Stakeholders drivers (SD)

Una volta ottenuti i fattori, il modo più intuitivo per rilevare eventuali relazioni tra i drivers e la

scelta delle imprese di dedicare una certa quantità di risorse per lo sviluppo delle iniziative

sostenibili, era quello di eseguire un'analisi ANOVA sui fattori di driver. I seguenti schemi sono

stati sviluppati per spiegare graficamente i risultati ottenuti attraverso l'analisi ANOVA sui drivers.

I primi due grafici mostrano dove l'impatto dei driver normativi e driver di immagine è più alto.

Dall’analisi ANOVA, è risultato che le medie delle aziende highly capable e delle aziende medium

capable sono significativamente diverse da quelle di aziende shortly capable. Al contrario, per

quanto riguarda i driver degli stakeholders, non sono state rilevate significative differenze di

HIGHLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

SHORTLY CAPABLE

SHORTLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

HIGHLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

SHORTLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

HIGHLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

RD DI

SD

xxxvi

medie. Pertanto, il significato delle tre piramidi dovrebbe essere chiaro: il triangolo rosso

tratteggiato indica quali sono i gruppi di aziende più influenzati da un dato fattore di drivers. È

importante sottolineare che la conclusione di questa analisi, non è che solo le aziende highly

capable e medium capable sono influenzate dai driver normativi e driver di immagine. Anche le

aziende shortly capable sono spinte da driver di regolamentazione a sviluppare pratiche

sostenibili, dal momento che i regolamenti e le norme sono gli stessi per tutte le aziende del

settore. La conclusione che si può trarre da questa analisi è che, per i fattori di driver di immagine

e di regolamentazione, le aziende appartenenti al gruppo highly capable hanno valori medi

significativamente superiori a quelli delle aziende shortly capable, ma non significativamente

diversi da quelli di aziende medium capable. Le aziende medium capable hanno valori medi che

sono a loro volta superiori a quelli delle aziende shortly capable. Pertanto, si può concludere che i

driver di regolamentazione e driver di immagine sono particolarmente impattanti per quelle

aziende che sono già coinvolti con il tema della sostenibilità, ma esse non sono l’unica tipologia di

aziende interessate dai driver in discussione. Per ciò che riguarda drivers di stakeholder, invece,

non sono state riscontrate differenze significative fra i cluster, pertanto si può dire che i driver di

stakeholder interessano i tre clusters in ugual modo

Risposta alla RQ4 La risposta alla quarta ed ultima domanda di ricerca rappresenta anche il contributo più

innovativo che questo studio porta allo stato dell'arte nel campo dello sviluppo sostenibile della

supply chain. Come tale, è anche il passaggio più articolato del lavoro. L'ultima domanda di ricerca

di questa tesi è stata formulata nel modo seguente:

RQ4: Come impatta il sustainable strategic fit tra il ruolo strategico della sostenibilità dichiarato e

le effettive pratiche sostenibili attuate sulla performance ambientali, sociali ed economicche di

una azienda?

Mentre lo strategic fit definito da Chopra e Meindl (2012) indicava la coerenza tra le priorità dei

clienti e le capacità strategiche competitive della supply chain, in questa tesi il concetto di

sustainable strategic fit indica la corrispondenza tra il ruolo competitivo di sostenibilità dichiarato

e l'effettivo impegno delle aziende nella realizzazione di pratiche di supply chain sostenibili.

Questa prima considerazione è anche il pilastro più importante di questo lavoro, così come il

punto di partenza per rispondere alla RQ4. Dopo aver definito questo concetto, ci si è chiesti se le

aziende potessero essere meglio definite in base al loro sustainable strategic fit. Approfondendo il

lavoro di autori precedenti che hanno affrontato il problema della classificazione delle imprese

sulla base di una data variabile (Macchion et al, 2015;. Wu e Pagell, 2011), si è ipotizzato che i

xxxvii

soggetti dell'indagine potessero essere ulteriormente classificati in base al ruolo competitivo della

sostenibilità dichiarata. Combinando questa considerazione con la classificazione in cluster

ottenuta come risposta alla RQ1, si è ipotizzato di classificare le imprese in base al loro sustainable

strategic fit or misfit e il loro impegno nella realizzazione di iniziative green e sociali.

Considerando precedenti lavori di ricerca e, in particolare, il lavoro di tesi che ha preceduto quello

attuale, sono state trovate evidenze di come l'attuazione di alcune pratiche sostenibili abbia un

impatto positivo diretto sulle performance di triple bottom line. Per esempio, la tesi precedente

ha concluso che pratiche di gestione della produzione quali: uso di un sistema di gestione dei

rifiuti, l'uso di materie prime riciclate, l'uso di energia da fonti rinnovabili e la realizzazione di

imballaggi riciclabili / riutilizzabili, migliorano le prestazioni di costo della supply chain. Pratiche di

acquisto, quali: collaborazioni con i fornitori per migliorare le loro performance sostenibili, hanno

un impatto positivo sull'immagine verde dell’azienda e sulla sua reputazione. Infine, l'adozione di

certificazione ambientale e sociale, l’organizzazione di corsi di formazione per un corretto uso e

smaltimento dei prodotti per i clienti e dipendenti e la sponsorizzazione di iniziative ecologiche e

sociali di organizzazioni no-profit, migliorano in modo significativo il livello di soddisfazione delle

parti interessate e l'immagine verde aziendale. Inoltre, nella letteratura recente, esistono diversi

articoli che offrono una visione su possibili modelli di supply chain per migliorare le performance

ambientali (Florida, 1996a; Florida e Davison, 2001; Geffen e Rothenberg, 2000; Green et al,

1996;. Mano fi eld et al, 2002;. Sarkis, 1995). Infine, alla luce delle conclusioni tratte nel lavoro di

tesi precedente e in linea con una serie di articoli di ricerca che si occupano delle relazioni tra

l'attuazione di pratiche sostenibili e l'evidente miglioramento delle performance aziendali (Zhu e

Sarkis, 2004; Zhu et al ., 2007, Samal, 2008;. Zhu et al, 2008), considerando anche i risultati di

alcuni studi scientifici che dimostrano che le imprese implementano pratiche diverse a seconda

del diverso ruolo competitivo della sostenibilità nella loro strategia aziendale (Wu e Pagell, 2011;

Cabot et al., 2009), si è ipotizzato che: quando il sustainable strategic fit tra ruolo dichiarato di

sostenibilità e le pratiche effettivamente implementate è nella sua condizione ottimale, allora

l'azienda sperimenta il massimo livello di prestazioni di triple bottom line. Questo presupposto ha

portato alla formulazione della seconda ed ultima ipotesi di ricerca:

Hp1: Le aziende che soddisfano la condizione ottima di sustainable strategic fit, godono

del massimo incremento di performance di triple bottom line

Per convalidare l’ipotesi precedente sono state eseguite analisi multiple. In primo luogo, il

framework sviluppato da Chopra e Meindl (2012) è stato analizzato e studiato a fondo. A partire

dalla loro idea originale, un nuovo framework è stato sviluppato per permettere la classificazione

xxxviii

delle aziende sulla base del sustainable strategic fit tra il ruolo strategico della sostenibilità

dichiarato e le effettive pratiche sostenibili messe in atto. Dopodiché, la classificazione

inizialmente ottenuta come risultato della cluster analysis (highly capable, medium capable,

shortly capable), è stata combinata con le informazioni raccolte attraverso il questionario sul

ruolo competitivo di sostenibilità (desirable attribute, market qualifier, order winner). In questo

modo, una matrice con nove celle è stata costruita. La matrice, chiamata matrice di sustainable

strategic fit, rappresenta una versione personalizzata del framework di fit strategico di Chopra e

Meindl (2012), in quanto tale, permette di individuare facilmente quali sono le aziende che

corrispondono alla condizione sustainable strategic fit (quelle che si trovano sulla diagonale della

matrice). In questo modo, la prima ipotesi di ricerca è stata validata. Per dimostrare la validità

dell’ipotesi due, è stato adottato un approccio diverso. In primo luogo, è stato dimostrato che non

è sufficiente essere molto bravi nell'attuazione pratiche sostenibili per avere un miglioramento

significativo delle performance. In altre parole, un’analisi ANOVA tra le righe della matrice di

sustainable strategic fit è stata eseguita per trovare se vi erano differenze significative nei valori

medi per le performance di TBL. Successivamente, lo stesso tipo di analisi è stata eseguita per le

colonne della matrice. Si è inoltre indagato se ci fossero differenze significative nelle medie tra

aziende con diversi ruoli strategici della sostenibilità. I risultati di queste analisi hanno evidenziato

che non esiste una classe dominante per quanto riguarda le performance di triple bottom line.

Pertanto, sono state condotte ulteriori analisi. In particolare, a questo punto il focus delle analisi

si è spostato sulla singola cella della matrice ed è stata eseguita un'analisi ANOVA tra le celle della

matrice. Le aziende che si trovano sulla diagonale della matrice sono quelle che soddisfano la

condizione di sustainable strategic fit, quindi ci si aspettava che alcuni risultati significativi

emergessero dal loro confronto. È risultato che le aziende che corrispondono alla miglior

condizione di sustainable strategic fit avevano anche le performance più alte. A questo punto,

dopo aver confrontato le medie delle rimanenti celle ed aver appurato che le aziende che si

trovavano nella condizione di sustainable strategic fit migliore avevano le performance in

assoluto migliori, si è potuto concludere che anche l’ipotesi due era rispettata: le aziende che

soddisfano la condizione di sustainable strategic fit ottimale, performano meglio rispetto a tutte

le altre aziende. Lo schema seguente riassume i passaggi dell'analisi (Fig.10).

xxxix

Figure 10 - Passi dell'analisi per rispondere alla RQ4

Durante lo sviluppo della sustainable strategic fit matrix, sono stati fatti molti riferimenti al lavoro

di Chopra e Meindl (2012). Il loro framework è stato il punto di partenza per costruire un nuovo

framework personalizzato sul concetto sustainable strategic fit. La zona di fit strategico, è

diventata la zona di sustainable strategic fit, mentre gli assi hanno cambiato nome ed sono

diventati ruolo strategico della sostenibilità (asse x) e cluster (asse y) (Fig. 11).

xl

Figure 11 - framework di fit strategico sostenibile

Per la costruzione di questo modello, varie informazioni sono state raccolte grazie anche alle

analisi precedentemente condotte. La definizione dei cluster sviluppata sulla base dell'impegno

che le imprese mettono nell'attuazione di pratiche sostenibili è stata la prima informazioni utile e

necessaria, la dichiarazione del ruolo strategico della sostenibilità è stato il secondo dato

importante. Combinando queste informazioni, due sustainable strategic fit matrices sono state

ottenute.

xli

STRATEGIC ROLE OF Environmental SUSTAINABILITY

CLUSTERS 1 2 3 4 5 6

DESIRABLE ATTRIBUTE MARKET QUALIFIER ORDER WINNER

HIGHLY CAPABLE COMPANIES

PR26

PR29

PR39

PR12

PR14

PR21

PR44

PR45

PR20

PR19

PR46

MEDIUM CAPABLE COMPANIES

FOR12

PR1

PR5

PR9

PR15

PR33

PR36

PR37

PR41

PR6

FOR1

PR4

FOR6

PR11

FOR8

FOR9

PR30

PR25

PR42

FOR3

FOR5

FOR10

PR17

FOR11

PR22

PR28

PR43

PR8

PR13

PR18

PR27

PR40

SHORTLY CAPABLE COMPANIES

FOR4

PR10

FOR7

PR23

PR31

PR32

PR34

PR35

PR38

PR7

PR24

PR2

PR16

FOR2

PR3

Table 2 - Matrice di fit strategico sostenibile ambientale

STRATEGIC ROLE OF Social SUSTAINABILITY

CLUSTERS 1 2 3 4 5 6

DESIRABLE ATTRIBUTE MARKET QUALIFIER ORDER WINNER

HIGHLY CAPABLE COMPANIES

PR20

PR44

PR39

PR45

PR19

PR29

PR21

PR26

PR14

PR46

PR12

MEDIUM CAPABLE COMPANIES

PR6

FOR3

FOR5

PR11

FOR10

FOR11

PR22

PR30

FOR12

PR9

PR15

PR33

PR41

PR42

PR8

PR13

PR28

PR43

FOR1

PR4

PR5

FOR6

PR27

PR37

PR25

PR40

PR1

PR18

FOR8

FOR9

PR17

PR36

SHORTLY CAPABLE COMPANIES

PR2

FOR2

FOR4

FOR7

PR16

PR23

PR32

PR35

PR7

PR24

PR3

PR10

PR31

PR38

PR34

Table 3 - Matrice di fit strategico sostenibile sociale

xlii

Questo framework, ha permesso di classificare le imprese in gruppi secondo il loro sustainable

strategic fit or misfit: sono stati definiti complessivamente nove gruppi. Come nel framework

sviluppato da Chopra e Meindl (2012), le imprese posizionate sulla diagonale sono quelle che

soddisfano la condizione di fit strategico sostenibile. Le imprese che si pongono al di sopra o al di

sotto della diagonale sono quelli che non rispondono alla condizione di sustainable strategic fit,

quindi in queste situazioni si dirà che vi è un sustainable strategic misfit.

I nove gruppi di imprese classificate con questo criterio, sono stati nominati etichette. Le etichette

della matrice, saranno indicati con i numeri da 1 a 9:

1. Highly capable companies – sustainability is a desirable attribute

1. Highly capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier

2. Highly capable companies – sustainability is an order winner

3. Medium capable companies – sustainability is a desirable attribute

4. Medium capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier

5. Medium capable companies – sustainability is an order winner

6. Shortly capable companies – sustainability is a desirable attribute

7. Shortly capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier

8. Shortly capable companies – sustainability is an order winner

L’Etichetta tre, come previsto, è composta dalle aziende più attive. Le aziende appartenenti a

questa etichetta performano meglio degli altri in termini di attuazione pratiche sostenibili. Le

aziende appartenenti a questa etichetta, dedicano in generale una maggiore quantità di risorse

per l'attuazione di pratiche sostenibili rispetto alle altre aziende. Questo è vero per l'etichetta tre

di entrambe le matrici.

Le aziende appartenenti all’etichetta cinque sono aziende mediamente prolifere. Esse

riconoscono la sostenibilità come un market qualifier e implementano un livello proporzionato di

pratiche. Una considerazione simile a quella fatta con l’etichetta tre può essere fatta anche per

questo secondo gruppo di aziende. Questa etichetta è composta da aziende medium capable che

considerano la sostenibilità un market qualifier. Pertanto, ci si aspetterebbe un livello di

attuazione di pratiche sostenibili medio e così è.

Le imprese incluse nell’etichetta sette sono le aziende più lente nell’attuare pratiche sostenibili.

Esse attribuiscono una bassissima importanza alla sostenibilità e non fanno nulla per migliorarla.

xliii

Per le aziende appartenenti alle etichette uno, due e quattro il sustainable strategic fit non è

soddisfatto. Tuttavia, esse possono essere considerate «aziende virtuose», perché, anche se non

riconoscono la sostenibilità come un order winner, attuano una notevole quantità di pratiche, così

possiamo ragionevolmente pensare che esse siano sulla strada giusta per includere la sostenibilità

nei loro fattori competitivi al più presto. In particolare, l'etichetta uno è formata da aziende che

dedicano grandi sforzi allo lo sviluppo di iniziative sostenibili, ma non riconoscono la sostenibilità

come fattore strategico competitivo. Questo potrebbe essere interpretato in modi diversi: queste

aziende potrebbero essere ancora in una fase embrionale dello sviluppo di una strategia

sostenibile, pertanto non sono pronte ad includere la sostenibilità tra i fattori di competitività

aziendali (cioè costi, qualità, tempi di consegna), ma hanno già cominciato ad impegnarsi con

misure green e sociali al fine di migliorare la propria posizione. D'altra parte, queste aziende

potrebbero non essere interessate a dichiarare il livello strategico della loro sostenibilità, in ogni

caso potrebbero essere coinvolte dalla questione ambientale per altri motivi, e quindi lavorano

duramente per portare il loro contributo positivo all’ambiente. Considerazioni analoghe possono

essere fatte per le aziende highly capable, che considerano la sostenibilità un market qualifier

(etichetta due). Queste imprese sono già orientate verso una posizione più coerente: dedicano

molte risorse alla realizzazione di iniziative sostenibili, tuttavia considerano la sostenibilità come

condizione necessaria per competere sul mercato, ma non come il vantaggio competitivo che

consente loro di vincere le offerte. Anche in questo caso, le aziende potrebbero essere sulla

strada giusta per trasformare la sostenibilità in una caratteristica vincente, però, attualmente,

stanno sottovalutando la sua importanza. Infine, le imprese appartenenti all’etichetta quattro

potrebbero ancora essere considerate aziende virtuose, in quanto implementano una buona

quantità di pratiche, ma hanno una considerazione molto bassa della sostenibilità come fattore

strategico. Anche in questo caso vi è un misfit strategico sostenibile tra il ruolo della sostenibilità

nella strategia aziendale e il livello di attuazione delle pratiche green e sociali.

Per le aziende appartenenti alle etichette sei, otto e nove il sustainable strategic fit non è

rispettato. A differenza della situazione precedente queste aziende stanno sopravvalutando il

ruolo della sostenibilità, mentre investono molto poco sullo sviluppo di pratiche sostenibili.

Quindi, possiamo definire queste aziende come «società viziose». L’etichetta sei, è composta da

imprese che sovrastimano la posizione strategica della sostenibilità. Queste aziende infatti,

performano modestamente in termini di attuazione di pratiche di sostenibilità, ma dichiarano che

la sostenibilità è un order winner. Anche in questo caso, vi è un misfit, tuttavia questo potrebbe

essere il caso di aziende che stanno progressivamente incrementando i loro sforzi verso

l'attuazione di pratiche sostenibili, ma sono ancora in una fase di work-in-progress. Pertanto,

xliv

anche se sono elencate all'interno delle aziende viziose, nel medio termine esse potrebbero

sviluppare un buon livello di pratiche sostenibili. L’etichetta otto comprende aziende che sono

poco interessate ad implementare pratiche sostenibili, ma che considerano la sostenibilità un

market qualifier. Questi soggetti stanno leggermente sopravvalutando il ruolo della sostenibilità

nella loro strategia di business, come commentato per l'etichetta quattro, per queste aziende le

condizioni di fit strategico sostenibile sono carenti, tuttavia, ridimensionando la loro dichiarazione

di ruolo strategico della sostenibilità, o aumentano gli sforzi dedicati allo sviluppo di pratiche

sostenibili, queste aziende potrebbero rientrare nelle condizioni di sustainable strategic fit. Infine,

la situazione peggiore possibile, è quella delle aziende che dichiarano che la sostenibilità è un

order winner, ma che hanno un rendimento molto scarso in termini di attuazione di pratiche

sostenibili (etichetta nove). Questo potrebbe essere il caso di aziende che sfruttano la

sostenibilità per scopi di marketing: per esempio, esse potrebbero creare campagne pubblicitarie

molto efficaci dichiarando la sostenibilità come missione aziendale, ma concretamente queste

aziende non fanno nulla per realizzare i loro slogan. L'aspetto positivo è che dall'analisi effettuata,

solo una società per entrambe le matrici si trova in questa condizione. Si tratta di un'osservazione

incoraggiante, in quanto indica che in generale le aziende evitano di trovarsi in condizioni di forte

misfit negativo.

La costruzione di questo framework ha permesso di classificare le imprese in base alla loro

condizione di sustainable strategic fit. Alla luce di questo risultato, si può concludere che Ipotesi 1

è supportata e l'analisi può continuare.

Una volta che le etichette sono state formate ed analizzate, il rapporto tra il sustainable strategic

fit o misfit, e le performance di triple bottom line può essere approfondito. In primo luogo,

un’analisi fattoriale esplorativa sulle performance è stata eseguita, ed è risultato che tutte le

sedici performance incluse nel questionario possono essere ben spiegate da cinque fattori:

1. Productive performance (PP)

2. Service performance (PSE)

3. Environmental performance (PA)

4. Social performance (PS)

5. Performance of image (PI)

Una volta ridotta la dimensione del campione di risposte, alcune ulteriori analisi sono state

eseguite. Inizialmente, la sustainable strategic fit matrix è stata analizzata per righe e per colonne.

xlv

Anche se questa analisi specifica non fornisce direttamente una risposta a RQ4, contribuisce a

definire correttamente i confini dell'analisi. In particolare, le seguenti analisi sono state eseguite

con l'obiettivo di dimostrare che non è sufficiente dichiarare che la sostenibilità è un order winner

per ottenere buone performance, non è sufficiente neanche dedicare una quantità enorme di

risorse per l'attuazione di pratiche sostenibili per ottenere risultati positivi. Nonostante questa

specifica analisi ANOVA non sia inclusa in una domanda di ricerca, è stata comunque significativa

in quanto dimostra che in nessun’altra condizione, ad eccezione di quella di misura strategica

ottimale sostenibile, il miglioramento della performance è massimizzato.

Dopo queste analisi iniziali, alcune conclusioni parziali sono state tratte. Ci sono evidenze

statistiche che le performance sono diverse tra i tre gruppi di società: highly capable, medium

capable, shortly capable e tra le imprese che dichiarano diverso ruolo strategico della

sostenibilità: desirable attribute, market qualifier, order winner. Tuttavia, non è possibile

affermare che, in generale, le performance delle aziende highly capable sono in assoluto le più

alte, come, al contrario, non è detto che le prestazioni delle aziende shortly capable sono le

peggiori. Le stesse considerazioni si possono trarre per le aziende che definiscono la sostenibilità

come un order winner o un desirable attribute. Pertanto, non è sufficiente essere molto efficienti

nell'implementare pratiche sostenibili per ottenere il massimo risultato e non è sufficiente

nemmeno dichiarare che la sostenibilità è un order winner per ottenere le migliori prestazioni

possibili.

Per trovare quali sono le condizioni in cui si raggiungono le massime performance, il punto di vista

dell’analisi ANOVA doveva cambiare. In particolare, si è deciso di analizzare se differenze

significative nei valori medi esistevano tra le celle della matrice. Ogni cella, chiamata etichetta,

racchiudeva un diverso gruppo di aziende. Le aziende appartenenti a diverse etichette avevano

caratteristiche diverse: per esempio, le imprese appartenenti alla diagonale della matrice erano

quelle che soddisfacevano la condizione di sustainable strategic fit, mentre quelle fuori dalla

diagonale erano quelle che non rispondevano a questa condizione. Quando esiste sustainable

strategic fit, significa che il ruolo competitivo dichiarato di sostenibilità e l'impegno per

l'attuazione di pratiche sostenibili sono allineati (vale a dire le aziende highly capable per cui la

sostenibilità è un order winner, le aziende medium capable per cui la sostenibilità è un market

qualifier, le aziende shortly capable per cui la sostenibilità è un desirable attribute). Alla luce di

questa osservazione, considerando anche i risultati ottenuti nella tesi precedente e dalla recente

letteratura (Florida, 1996a; Florida e Davison, 2001; Geffen e Rothenberg, 2000;. Green et al,

1996;. Mano fi eld et al, 2002, Sarkis, 1995), è ragionevole aspettarsi che le aziende che

corrispondono alla condizione ottimale di sustainable strategic fit (Highly capable companies –

xlvi

sustainability is a desirable attribute) ottengano miglior miglioramento delle performance. In altre

parole, le seguenti analisi sono finalizzate a convalidare la l’ipotesi di ricerca 2.

Dalle considerazioni precedenti, è emerso che le celle appartenenti alla diagonale della matrice

sono le più interessanti da analizzare, in quanto rappresentano la zona di sustainable strategic fit.

Pertanto, come prima cosa un’analisi ANOVA sulle tre etichette appartenenti alla diagonale delle

matrici è stata eseguita.

Figure 12 - Risultati ANOVA sulla diagonale

Queste analisi hanno evidenziato come, in quasi tutti i casi, l'etichetta tre performa meglio delle

altre due etichette (cinque e sette). Le aziende appartenenti all’etichetta tre sono quelle

corrispondenti al sustainable strategic fit ottimale: highly capable companies with sustainability as

order winner. Le imprese appartenenti all’etichetta cinque (medium capable companies –

sustainability is a market qualifier), invece, non hanno mostrato differenze significative nei valori

medi con il cluster sette per prestazioni ambientali, e performance sociali, mentre le loro

performance di immagine sono solo leggermente migliori di quelli delle aziende del gruppo di

sette. In tutti i casi analizzati aziende che corrispondono alla condizione peggiore di fit strategico

xlvii

sostenibile (shortly capable companies – sustainability is a desirable attribtue) hanno mostrato le

peggiori performance sia in termini di immagine che ambientali.

A questo punto, è stato dimostrato che le aziende corrispondenti al sustainable strategic fit

ottimo, conseguono il migliore rendimento (performance di immagine e ambientali) rispetto alle

aziende che rispettano la condizione di sustainable strategic fit, ma non nella sua forma più alta. I

risultati di questa analisi sono stati significativi in quanto hanno dimostrato che non è sufficiente

the sustainable strategic fit condition per avere buoni risultati di performance, è necessario che la

condizione sustainable strategic fit ottimale sia soddisfatta per vedere vantaggi significativi.

Detto questo, l'ultimo passo necessario per convalidare l'ipotesi due, è stato quello di dimostrare

che le aziende corrispondenti al sustainable strategic fit, nella sua forma più alta, performano

meglio anche delle aziende che non matchano la condizione di sustainable strategic fit, ossia

quelle fuori dalla diagonale della matrice. Pertanto, un'ulteriore analisi ANOVA sulle performance

è stata effettuata per vedere se c'erano differenze significative nei valori medi fra otto delle nove

etichette. La nona etichetta infatti era composta da una sola impresa; quindi, non era adatta per

un'analisi ANOVA.

L'analisi ha mostrato che l'etichetta tre include le aziende con le migliori prestazioni ambientali, le

prestazioni sociali e le prestazioni di immagine. Le aziende che corrispondono alla condizione

ottimale di sustainable strategic fit sono anche quelle che ottengono le prestazioni più elevate.

Alla luce di queste considerazioni, si può concludere che l’ipotesi uno è supportata, le basi su cui si

fonda RQ4 sono verificate e la domanda può essere considerata risolta.

Conclusioni Questa tesi aveva lo scopo di studiare l'effetto che un sustainable strategic fit ha sulle prestazioni

triple bottom line aziendale. I risultati ottenuti nel corso del progetto di lavoro, sono sintetizzati

dalla seguente mappa concettuale (Fig. 13):

xlviii

Figure 13 - Mappa concettuale: Messaggi chiavi dell'analisi

La mappa dimostra ciò che è stato già statisticamente dimostrato nel capitolo sei. Indubbiamente

l’etichetta tre (Highly capable companies – sustainability is an order winner) ottiene il maggior

miglioramento delle performance in termini di prestazioni ambientali, le prestazioni sociali e le

prestazioni economiche. Ciò che è interessante notare, è che non è sufficiente soddisfare la

condizione di sustainable strategic fit per ottenere il massimo guadagno, le aziende devono

corrispondere necessariamente alla condizione ottimale altrimenti il miglioramento delle

performance non è garantito. Per esempio, le imprese appartenenti all’etichetta cinque (Medium

capable – sustainability is a market qualifier) corrispondono alla condizione di sustainable

strategic fit, ma non nella sua forma più alta, infatti esse hanno performance di immagine e

ambientali medie. Le aziende, appartenenti all’etichetta sette (peggiori condizioni di sustainable

strategic fit, shortly capable – sustainability is a desirable attribtue) sperimentano performance

molto basse, come previsto. Ciò che è interessante, è che le aziende dell’etichetta sei (medium

capable companies – sustainability is an order winner) sono superiori i termini di performance alle

aziende del label quattro (medium capable companies- sustainability is adesirable attribute).

Nonostante l'etichetta sei sia stata originariamente annoverata tra le celle "viziose", essa mostra

xlix

performance superiori rispetto a quelle della cella quattro, che era elencata tra le "virtuose".

Questo è ragionevolmente spiegato dal fatto che, le aziende dell’etichetta sei attualmente

sopravvalutano il ruolo competitivo della sostenibilità, tuttavia esse possono essere

ragionevolmente considerate “raising companies”, ovvero aziende che stanno migliorando il

proprio impegno per l'attuazione di pratiche sostenibili nel medio-breve termine. Se questo

dovesse accade, esse sarebbero buone candidati per spostarsi nell’etichetta tre e corrispondere

alla condizione di sustainable strategic fit ottimale.

Implicazioni manageriali Il presente lavoro ha l'ambizione di fornire ai manager una guida per orientare la loro decisione

verso l'attuazione di una strategia di supply chain sostenibile. Il contributo portato al

management non sta solo nell'identificazione di quali sono le pratiche sostenibili più

implementate nel mercato dell’arredamento, ma anche nell’identificazione delle pratiche

maggiormente implementate dalle highly capable companies, medium capable companies e

shortly capable companies. Questa informazione potrebbe dare ai manager indicazioni su dove

investire, a seconda del livello di risorse disponibili per un dato progetto. Inoltre, questo lavoro

separa le pratiche messe in atto dai fornitori da quelle attuate dai produttori, quindi questo studio

può essere utile a tutte le aziende che operano nel settore dell’arredamento, indipendentemente

dalla loro posizione lungo la catena di approvvigionamento. I manager inoltre potrebbero avere

anche un’idea abbozzata di quali sono i driver che incidono di più sull’attuazione di iniziative

sostenibili, guardando i risultati delle ANOVA sui driver condotta in questo lavoro. Infine, il

contributo più interessante che questo lavoro porta al manager, è un’approssimazione di come le

performance aziendali cambieranno a seconda della posizione dell’azienda rispetto alla

condizione sustainable strategic fit.

l

Executive Summary Introduction Companies’ growing sensitiveness towards environmental issues, the need to comply with the

more and more frequent regulations, the need to increase the quality of the products and, at the

same time, to reduce production costs, new market opportunities, improvement of corporate

image and reputation and, finally, increasing concerns about climate changes, are just some of the

variables enhancing the interest of companies towards the role of sustainability in the definition

of the corporate strategy (Chiesa and Utizi, 2014). The growing pressures from the market, caused

also by the scarcity of natural resources and increased pollution, have brought the sustainable

supply chain theme among the most important business decisions. Managers face the

sustainability challenge in their daily activities and are growingly becoming aware of the fact that

there is a link between green and social practices and businesses’ success (Chiesa and Utizi, 2014).

Sustainability is no longer a purely environmental concept, while it is becoming a strategic

component.

This thesis’s aim, is to investigate the challenging theme of sustainability along the supply chain

that is considered of extreme interest and actuality. To do so, a wide Literature review on the

topics of sustainability and sustainable supply chain have been performed. This analysis revealed

that scarce integration exists between sustainability and supply chain management disciplines.

However, some hints that the market is gradually moving towards a more sustainable way of

doing business emerged. The Literature review included also an overview of the factors driving

companies to develop sustainable initiatives. Moreover, a wide part of the Literature analysis

interested the most diffused sustainable practices on the market, with a special focus on those

implemented by companies operating in the wood and furniture industry. Finally, a review of the

triple bottom line performance was run.

This thesis partially fills the Literature shortcomings, by developing a new research framework.

The model has been built based on the considerations drawn after the Literature review and

considering the framework developed in a previous thesis work where the goal was to identify

which were the most implemented sustainable practices according to the different strategic role

of sustainability (order winner, market qualifier or desirable attribute) and the position of the

company along the supply chain. The new framework, is an useful tool both for Scholars and

li

Practitioners, as it faces several themes that are scarcely faced in Literature such as: the definition

of unambiguous guidelines for the correct integration of sustainability into the corporate strategy

as a competitive factor, or the fact that in Literature there are few studies dealing with the topic

of the strategic fit between customer priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain

capabilities. Moreover, there are no references to the sustainable counterparty of the strategic fit

concept which in this study will be defined as “sustainable strategic fit”. On the other hand, the

framework and the relative findings are also a powerful instruments for managers operating in

the furniture industry and in general for companies operating in low product complex contexts

and low process complex contexts. The present work, indeed, has the ambition to provide

managers with a guide to orient their decision towards the implementation of a sustainable

supply chain strategy.

The steps taken during the development of this thesis, are synthetized in the following scheme.

Figure 14 - Structure of the thesis

lii

Literature review In chapter one, the themes of sustainability and sustainable development were deepened.

Different definitions of sustainable development emerged from the Literature, among which the

most noteworthy was the one defined by World Commission on Environment and Development

(WCED): ”The development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability

of future generations to meet their own needs”. Afterwards an excursus on the most diffused

definitions of sustainability was performed. According to Shrivastava (1995a), sustainability

consisted in “offering the potential for reducing long-term risks associated with resource

depletion, fluctuations in energy costs, product liabilities, and pollution and waste management”,

to Dovers and Handmer (1992) sustainability is the “ability of a human system, natural or mixed,

to resist or adapt to endogenous or exogenous change indefinitely”. For Elkington (1994), creator

of the Triple Bottom Line, sustainability is “the balance between the three pillars: environmental,

economic and social”. Many other contributions were proposed in the dedicated chapter.

The second chapter dealt with the strategic competitive role of sustainability. In particular, this

section focused on the evolution of the strategic role of sustainability and suggested some

interesting tool for the integration of sustainability in the business activities. Afterwards, an

overview of the most diffused environmental corporate strategies was performed, among those

reported in the chapter, we can mention the classification made by Lee and Rhee (2007) who

categorized companies according to their approaches towards environment, they detected a four-

type model for environmental strategies: reactive, focused, opportunistic, reactive, or the historic

categorization proposed by Wilson (1975), who identified four possible business models which

reflect the ways in which companies address sustainable issues: reactive, defensive,

accommodative, proactive. The last part of chapter two was dedicated to better shape the

concept of sustainability as a competitive factor. In this part the definitions of order winner and

order qualifier coined by T. Hill (2000) were introduced, as these two concepts were fundamental

for the construction of the research framework. Terry Hill (2000) argued that the criteria required

in the marketplace can be divided into two groups: order qualifiers and order winners. He defined

order qualifier as: “a characteristic of a product or service that is required in order for the

product/service to be considered by a customer” and order winner as “the product’s

characteristic that will allow the winning of the bid or will determine the customer’s purchase” (T.

Hill, 2000). The Literature contributions to the topic of sustainability as an order winner or a

market qualifier are quite limited. However, Wu and Pagell (2010) identified the business model

of different organizations emphasizing how each organization incorporated environmental

concerns in strategic decision-making. In particular, the Authors managed to realize

liii

configurations of environmental behaviors, social behaviors and social strategy and they called

them “environmental postures”. They came out with four environmental postures: the

environmental first posture, the equal footing posture, the opportunity first posture and the

community first postures. The description that the Authors made of these categories is

comparable to the order winner and order qualifier attributes of sustainability.

Chapter three introduced the sustainable supply chain topic. In particular, after a general

overview on the supply chain topic, some definitions of sustainable supply chain topics were

provided. Among the most interesting contributions there was the definition of Carter and Rogers

(2008), who defined SSCM as “the strategic, transparent integration and achievement of an

organization’s social, environmental, and economic goals through the systemic coordination of

key inter organizational business processes for improving the long-term economic performance of

the individual company and its supply chain”. Another interesting definition of sustainable supply

chain was provided by S. Seuring and M. Müller (2008) who considered it as “the management of

material, information and capital flows as well as cooperation among companies along the supply

chain while taking into accounts goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development such

as economic, environmental and social, which are derived from customer and stakeholder

requirements”. In the same chapter, also drivers and barriers to the implementation of SSCM,

strategies for the development of sustainable supply chain and concerning benefits and

drawbacks, are widely illustrated.

Chapter four focused on the furniture supply chain. Specifically, a general introduction to the

furniture industry was provided, afterwards the supply chain of the wood and furniture sector

was explained and commented. However, the core part of this chapter was the review of the

most diffused sustainable practices adopted in the furniture industry. In particular, the categories

of practices reviewed were: green design practices, sustainable production practices, sustainable

purchasing practices, sustainable collaboration with customers’ practices, supply chain network

design practices and green logistics practices. Moreover, it was performed an overview of the

most impacting driving factors for the development of sustainable supply chain. Both internal and

external drivers were included in the analysis. Finally, a list of the most widespread triple bottom

line performance was drafted: environmental practices, social practices and economic practices

were the three main areas of interest.

Literature gap identification From the main Literature review two main gaps emerged:

liv

Gap 1. There are not defined and unambiguous guidelines for the correct integration of

sustainability into the corporate strategy as a competitive factor. Moreover, there is a lack

of frameworks showing how this integration impacts on sustainable supply chain

practices.

Despite the attention towards the sustainable theme is undoubtedly raising, companies that

managed to develop a fully sustainable corporate strategy are still rare. The difficulty that firms

face when they try to integrate sustainability into their business strategy, is the lack of a

structured framework that clearly guide them in the decision-making process. For instance, in

Literature it is possible to find many references to different strategic tools. Nevertheless, there is

not a systematic tool able to provide the general guidelines for the implementation of a

sustainable corporate strategy.

Gap 2. The impact that the implementation of sustainable practices in businesses has on

TBL performance (environmental, social and economic) is not shaped by a defined model.

Moreover, there is not an unambiguous version of the nature of this relationship.

The Literature review showed that there are many studies analyzing the link between the

implementation of sustainable practices and the change TBL performance and as many different

theories on the kind of relationship between them. Some Authors, such as Caniato et al. (2012),

analyzed the relationships among drivers, practices and performance using a regression analysis.

In particular, for the analysis conducted on performance, the Authors noticed different

relationships: for example, green purchasing and customer cooperation have significant impact

only on environmental performance, but not on the other performance aspects, investment

recovery has a negative impact on economic performance while eco-design showed no impact for

all the performance aspects. Azevedo et al. (2011) analyzed the relationship between sustainable

practices and performance with the aim to explore and understand the influence that GSCM

practices have on SC performance. The study results showed that environmental cost, quality and

efficiency are the performance measures with the most significant relationships with green

practices. However, the positive direct link between the green practice and the firm’s

performance is not always immediate. Many other papers faced the same topic, however the

conclusions drawn were always quite different. Therefore, the presence of Gap 2 is justified by a

lack of homogeneity in the results obtained in previous studied.

Finally, a third Literature gap emerged after having deepened the topic of the strategic fit. Chopra

and Meindl (2012) defined strategic fit as a concept that indicate the consistency between

customer priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain capabilities specified by the supply

lv

chain strategy. The Authors specified that strategic fit happens when competitive and supply

chain strategies have the same goals, thus a company may fail because of a lack of strategic fit or

because its processes and resources do not provide the capabilities to execute the desired

strategy. The Authors specified that strategic fit happens when competitive and supply chain

strategies have the same goals, thus a company may fail because of a lack of strategic fit or

because its processes and resources do not provide the capabilities to execute the desired

strategy. Chopra and Meindl (2012) provided a procedure for the achievement of strategic fit:

first, a company should understand the customer and supply chain uncertainty, then it should

focus on its supply chain, finally the firm should ensure that what the supply chain does well is

consistent with target customer’s needs.

The Authors bring the example of strategic fit between demand uncertainty and supply chain

strategy (responsive or efficient). To achieve strategic fit, the greater the implied uncertainty, the

more responsive the supply chain should be. Increasing implied uncertainty from customers and

supply sources is best served by increasing responsiveness from the supply chain. This

relationship is represented by the "zone of strategic fit" illustrated in Fig. 15. For a high level of

performance, companies should move their competitive strategy (and resulting implied

uncertainty) and supply chain strategy (and resulting responsiveness) toward the zone of strategic

fit.

Figure 15 - Finding zone of strategic fit (Chopra and Meindl, 2012)

Unfortunately, this is one of the rare contributes to the theory of strategic fit available in

Literature, it is very hard to find scientific papers dealing with this topic, while it is impossible to

find references to the sustainable strategic fit concept, because it is a brand-new idea. In this

lvi

work, the expression “sustainable strategic fit” will be referred to as the match between the

strategic role of sustainability stated by the company and the effective implemented sustainable

practices. Thus, starting from the previous considerations it is possible to formalize the third

Literature gap with the following sentence:

Gap 3. In Literature, there are few studies dealing with the topic of the strategic fit

between customer priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain capabilities.

Moreover, there are no references to the sustainable counterparty of the strategic fit

concept which in this study will be defined as “sustainable strategic fit”

Research questions Based on the previous considerations and on the Literature gaps, the following research questions

have been formulated:

RQ1: How companies can be classified according to their commitment in implementing

sustainable practices?

RQ2: Being the strategic role of sustainability equal, what are the different sustainable

practices implemented by manufacturers and suppliers

RQ3: How the external and internal drivers impact on the company’s commitment to

implement sustainable practices?

RQ4: How the sustainable strategic fit between the stated strategic role of sustainability

and the actual implemented sustainable practices impacts on the environmental, social

and economic performance of a company?

Research framework To answer these four research questions, a research framework was developed. The basis for the

research framework have been inherited by a previous thesis work where the goal was to identify

which were the most implemented sustainable practices according to the different strategic role

of sustainability stated by firms (order winner, market qualifier or desirable attribute) and the

position of the company along the supply chain (Fig. 16).

lvii

Figure 16 - Research Framework (Verderio, 2015)

The new framework (Fig. 17) maintains some key concept of the previous model such as the

classification of sustainability according to the Hill’s order winner and market qualifier definitions

with the addition of the “desirable attribute” concept. Moreover, also in the new framework is

reported the relationship between the strategic role of sustainability and the subsequent

implementation of sustainable practices with the addition of the analysis of the impact that

drivers may have on the practices’ development. As already stated before, the goal of this study is

not only to identify and analyze the practices implemented by companies with different levels of

sustainable integration, but also to detect whether there is a match between the strategic role of

sustainability stated by the company and the effective implementation of a sustainable strategy.

Therefore, the correlation between the first two elements of the framework is one of the pillars of

this new work. A second important pillar of the study, is the impact of the company’s position

along the supply chain on the implementation of green and social practices. Thus, the variable

“role of the company along the supply chain” has been introduced to study the behavior of

manufacturers and suppliers with respect to the implementation of sustainable initiatives. Finally,

while in the previous work the focus was on the practices’ implementation’s impact on corporate

performance, in this analysis the purpose is to identify the impact on performance of the

sustainable strategic fit previously detected

lviii

Figure 17 - Research Framework

Methodology The research methodology used for this work was the survey. A research questionnaire was

developed based on the knowledge gained from the Literature review. Afterwards, with the help

of SPSS, three explorative factor analyses on drivers, practices and performance were performed,

moreover factors of practices were subsequently classified thanks to the running of a cluster

analysis. Finally, several ANOVA analyses were performed on factors of drivers and factors of

performance.

It was crucial, for the aim of this study, to collect real and quantifiable data from the field. The

elaboration of an exploratory questionnaire resulted the most indicated way to survey the

furniture market. In particular, among the different survey’s modes available (telephone

questionnaires, web questionnaires, mail questionnaires and mixed-model questionnaires) (Forza,

2012), the mail questionnaire showed to be the most appropriate tool for this study.

lix

Figure 18: Research phase: questionnaire's sending

The survey was built during the month of March 2016 and, for a matter of comprehension, it was

realized both in Italian and in English. The first occasion to test the survey was the Salone del

Mobile 2016 held in Milan from April the 12th to April the 17th. During the event, the survey was

submitted to the participants and some questions regarding the wood supply chain and the role

of sustainability in the furniture industry were asked. During the Salone del Mobile, many e-mail

addresses and contact information were collected. Right after the conclusion of the first-test

phase, indeed, a database containing all the relevant information of the companies interviewed

during the Salone del Mobile and those found by surfing the web was created. With the support

of Survey Monkey the questionnaire has been uploaded and subsequently sent to a large number

of recipients. Overall, 1580 mail questionnaires were sent, considering first sending, reminders

and second sending. The companies, were firstly contacted through an e-mail explaining the

project and containing the link to Survey Monkey for the fulfillment of the questionnaire. Then, a

reminder was sent to those companies that didn’t ultimate the questionnaire the first time.

Companies that didn’t reply to the first call, but resulted particularly involved with the

sustainability issue were approached a second time either by telephone or by e-mail. The phase of

questionnaires sending lasted more or less 4 months: from May to September 2016 (excluding

August 2016) and the response modes were either by filling the survey sent by e-mail or by

lx

arranging a telephone call. The total answers received were 76 of which 18 were incomplete, thus

the answers considered valid for the study were 58.

The survey was composed by twenty-two questions and was divided in the following sections:

PART 1: The supply chain structure: which are the firm’s customers and suppliers

PART 2: The importance of environmental and social sustainability as competitive factors

PART 3: Drivers and factors that pushed the company towards the adoption of

sustainable practices

PART 4: Sustainability and Supply Chain practices (about design, purchasing, production,

distribution and new product development)

PART 5: Performance

PART 6: Product and process features

After the conclusion of the data collection phase, a huge amount of information was recorded. It

was fundamental to find a smart and efficient way to manage all the data collected and valorize

the underlying features. It was agreed that running a factor analysis on drivers, practices and

performance was the best way to easily handle the large volume of information available, in line

with the several Literature references that pursued similar paths (Zhang et al., 2014; Zhu et al.,

2008; Zhu et al., 2007; Macchion et al., 2015; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Luthra et al., 2016). The

software chosen to run the analysis was SPSS.

lxi

Figure 19 - Research phase: Factor analysis

Another interesting feature of SPSS was the possibility of perform a cluster analysis. This was a

key step in the study because one of the targets that were set at the end of the data collection

phase, was to try to classify companies according to their goodness in implementing sustainable

practices. Therefore, running a cluster analysis on practices represented the best way to create

categories in line with the Literature references found that confirm this theory (Chen et al., 2012;

Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). Specifically, the analysis was performed on the practices factors, previously

computed thanks to the factor analysis. Using the factors as input for the cluster analysis allows to

reduce the sample size and consequently the likelihood of obtain wrong clusters

lxii

Figure 20 - Research phase: Cluster analysis

The ANOVA test was fundamental to investigate whether there was a significant difference in

performance of companies belonging to different classes of sustainable strategic fit. Moreover, it

was also applied to drivers to understand which were the most impacting on firms’ decision to

implement sustainable practices, similarly of what ANOVA Salam (2008) did in his paper.

lxiii

Figure 21 - Research Phase - ANOVA

Answer to RQ1 Once collected all the relevant information from the survey, the analysis phase began. The first

research question of the analysis was the following:

RQ1: How companies can be classified according to their commitment in implementing

sustainable practices?

The ultimate goal of this question, was to investigate whether there were firms particularly good

in developing sustainable supply chain practices and, by contrast, if there was a class of

companies that invested little efforts in the implementation of green and social initiatives. To

reduce the high number of practices listed in the questionnaire, in total they were fifty, a

dimension reduction analysis on the total sample of practices was run. At the end of the multiple

factor analyses, twelve factors were determined:

13. Green design (GD)

14. Green management (GM)

15. Green production (GP)

16. Pollution prevention and control (PPC)

17. Suppliers green monitoring (SGM)

18. Suppliers green assessment (SGA)

lxiv

19. Green collaboration with suppliers (GCS)

20. Socially responsible purchasing (SRP)

21. Green customer management (GCM)

22. Design del network (DDN)

23. Sustainable packaging (SP)

24. Green logistics (GL)

At this point, the objective of dimension reduction was met. The sample was no more composed

by fifty practices, but by twelve factors that were still explaining the total variance of the

extended practices. However, to answer the initial research question (RQ1), it was necessary run a

classification analysis. Specifically, a cluster analysis was performed with the support of SPSS. The

output of the two-step cluster analysis performed on factors’ scores was the following:

Figure 22 - Model summary

At this point, to characterize each cluster and find which of three classes of companies was the

best in implementing sustainable supply chain practices and which was the worst, it was

necessary to look at a further output of SPSS two-step cluster analysis: the centroids matrix (Table

4).

lxv

Centroids

GD GM GP PPC SGM SGA GSC SRP GCM DDN SP GL

Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation

Cluster 1 1,0864 ,94766 ,9555 ,65642 ,5155 ,68661 ,8236 ,71410 1,4745 ,52288 ,9209 ,50439 1,2455 ,61862 1,2064 ,58805 1,2427 ,85379 ,9055 ,84354 ,6973 ,65712 1,3073 1,12749

2 -,0488 ,77880 ,0009 1,00062 ,2472 ,96788 ,2500 ,74767 -,0228 ,64884 ,2534 ,63966 ,0891 ,72522 ,0066 ,80117 ,0088 ,76932 ,1200 ,80244 ,3338 ,75867 -,1225 ,74953

3 -,6913 ,80054 -,6973 ,55573 -,9053 ,66656

-

1,1373 ,63964

-

1,0313 ,31753

-

1,2173 ,76420

-

1,1053 ,29046 -,8933 ,62879 -,9280 ,31779 -,9187 ,74704

-

1,2220 ,49804 -,6900 ,15834

Combined ,0003 ,99985 ,0014 1,00006 ,0000 1,00129 ,0000 1,00019 ,0003 1,00075 -,0003 1,00015 -,0005 ,99961 ,0014 ,99888 ,0005 ,99964 ,0003 1,00025 ,0003 ,99952 ,0019 ,99912

Table 4 - Centroids matrix

Based on mean values illustrated in the centroids matrix, the following nomenclature was

proposed:

– Highly Capable Companies: means of cluster one are the highest for each factor of

practices, it is evident from the centroid matrix that companies belonging to the first

cluster are also the best performing ones in terms of sustainable practices

implementation, as they resulted the group that assigned the highest value to all

categories of practices. The first cluster is formed by eleven firms, of which zero suppliers.

This is already a notable characteristic, no one of the suppliers participating to the study

showed to be particularly capable in implementing sustainable practices. However, at this

level of analysis it is premature to conclude that suppliers are not deeply engaged in

sustainability. Highly capable companies are the scarcest cluster and this could be

interpreted as symptom of a scarce knowledge in the sector of the practices available on

the market or of a low general interest towards sustainable initiatives in the furniture

industry.

– Medium Capable Companies: looking at the centroid matrix, cluster two show modest

mean values, companies laying in this group are averagely implementing sustainable

practices, thus they have been defined as medium capable companies. Cluster two is

composed by thirty-two companies of which nine are components suppliers. This is the

biggest cluster both in terms of numerousness and for what concerns suppliers’ position.

– Shortly capable companies: from the centroid matrix it emerged that cluster three had

the lowest mean values, this has been interpreted as a bad performance in terms of

sustainable practices implementation, so companies belonging to cluster three have been

lxvi

named as shortly capable companies. It is formed by fifteen companies of which three are

components’ suppliers.

Answer to RQ2 Once companies have been classified according to their commitment in implementing sustainable

practices, it was noteworthy assess if some differences in behaviors existed between suppliers

and manufacturers listed in the different classes. Specifically, being the strategic role of

sustainability the same, the differences in the level of implementation of sustainable practices of

suppliers and manufacturers were investigated.

RQ2: Being the strategic role of sustainability equal, what are the sustainable practices

implemented by manufacturers and suppliers?

To do so, after the positioning of companies in the three clusters (highly capable, medium capable

and shortly capable) has been defined, furniture producers and suppliers have been treated

separately to see if substantial differences existed among their classification. In other words, a

focus on the suppliers’ group was made in order to detect eventual concentration of these

subjects in a single cluster. However, this possibility has been excluded from the cluster analysis,

that clearly showed that suppliers were homogenously distributed among the three clusters.

Therefore, a qualitative analysis of the answers provided to the questionnaire was performed. It

emerged that in general, suppliers attributed higher competitive value to social sustainability with

respect to environmental one. Conversely, producers considered a more strategic factor

environmental sustainability and a nice to have the social sustainability. One possible explanation

of this mismatch of sustainability’s strategic role declaration between suppliers and producers,

could be the different sizes of the companies belonging to the two groups. The smallest supplier

of the sample had 1.000.000 € of revenues, while the biggest one had 16.000.000 € of revenues,

the average value of revenues of suppliers was 6.125.000 €. The overall producers’ group had

quite different features: the maximum value of revenues was 411.587.464 €, the minimum value

was 400.000 €, the average value was: 38.474.696 €. Thus, it was reasonable to suppose that the

discriminating factor for the different declarations of sustainability strategic role was size.

Therefore, a section of the producers was selected and further analyzed. Specifically, only

producers with sales features comparable with the suppliers’ ones were chose. Overall, thirteen

producers were considered, the lowest value of revenues of this new sample was 1.200.000 €, the

highest value was 14.000.000 €, the average value was 4.945.923 €. Thus, much more comparable

values were selected. At this point a benchmarking between the new producers’ sample and the

suppliers’ group was performed. The results obtained are shown in the following charts:

lxvii

Despite a different point of view is adopted, it is clear there is still a mismatch between what

suppliers stated about the competitive role of sustainability and what producers with a

comparable dimension affirmed. Therefore, it can be concluded that size is not the variable

discerning between the different role of environmental and social sustainability.

After this first consideration, an analysis on the practices implemented by manufacturers and

suppliers that declared the same strategic role of sustainability was conducted. The results of this

analysis have been generalized as follows:

When sustainability is a desirable attribute, pollution prevention and pollution control practices

are among the most implemented practices of suppliers, while it they are among the least

interesting for producers. A similar consideration can be made for green production: it is often

widely developed by suppliers, but is modestly implemented by producers. The opposite

consideration can be made for network design practices that are among the lasts for suppliers,

while they are of quite relevant position in the producers’ ranking. For both suppliers and

producers, suppliers’ green assessment and suppliers’ green monitoring are mildly attractive,

while green logistics practices are of very low interest regardless of the position of the company

along the supply chain.

When sustainability is a market qualifier pollution prevention and pollution control practices and

suppliers’ green assessment are two of the most implemented practices by suppliers, they are

also modestly implemented by producers. While network design practices and green logistics

practices are among the least developed initiatives for suppliers, they are of medium interest for

producers. There are significant differences between suppliers and producers for green

production practices that are generally more developed from suppliers than from producers.

Similarities are found for green collaboration with suppliers practices and green customer

management that are mildly implemented by both suppliers and producers.

When sustainability is an order winner green production is ranked among the most widespread

sustainable practices from suppliers, while producers have very little consideration of this

lxviii

category of practices. Both producers and suppliers dedicate consistent resources to the

development of green logistics practices, as it is considered among the first positions of the

ranking by both. On average, suppliers’ green assessment practices are more implemented by

suppliers than by producers, while they dedicate the same amount of resources to sustainable

packaging practices, suppliers’ green monitoring practices and supplies’ green assessment that

are generally a medium-ranked by both. Finally, pollution prevention and pollution control is in

general higher ranked by suppliers than by producers

Answer to RQ3 After the previous analysis on practices and on the role of company’s position along the supply

chain in practices implementation, the study moved to analyze if external and internal driving

factors had some influence on companies’ sustainable initiatives. In other words, research

question three was faced and answered.

RQ3: How external and internal drivers impact on companies’ commitment for the

implementation of sustainable practices?

Once collected the answers provided by companies, the scope was to investigate whether there

was a direct relation between drivers and companies’ efforts for sustainable practices’

implementation. Once again, it was decided to perform a dimension reduction analysis on the

nine drivers to reduce the numerousness of the sample. Therefore, an exploratory factor analysis

on drivers was conducted and the output was the identification of three factors of drivers:

3. Regulatory drivers (RD)

4. Drivers of image (DI)

5. Stakeholders drivers (SD)

Once obtained the factors, the most intuitive way to detect eventual relationships between

drivers and companies’ decision to dedicate a certain amount of resources to the development of

sustainable resources was to perform an ANOVA analysis on drivers’ factors. The following charts

have been developed to graphically explain the results obtained through the ANOVA analysis on

drivers’ factors.

lxix

The first two charts, show where the impact of regulatory drivers and drivers of image is higher.

As resulted from the ANOVA analysis, the means of highly capable companies and medium

capable companies are significantly different to those of shortly capable companies for regulatory

drivers and drivers of image. Conversely, for what concerned stakeholders’ drivers, no differences

in groups’ means where detected by SPSS. Therefore, the meaning of the three charts should now

be clear: the sketched red tringle indicates which are the clusters of firms more influenced by that

given driver. It is important to highlight that the conclusion of this analysis, is not that only highly

HIGHLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

SHORTLY CAPABLE

SHORTLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

HIGHLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

SHORTLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

HIGHLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

RD DI

SD

lxx

capable companies and medium capable companies are influenced by regulatory drivers and

drivers of image. Also shortly capable companies are pushed by regulatory drivers to develop

sustainable practices, since regulations is the same for all the companies of the sector. The

conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that, for regulatory drivers’ factor and for

stakeholders’ drivers’ factor, companies belonging to highly capable cluster have mean values

that are significantly higher than those of shortly capable companies, but not significantly

different from those of medium capable companies. Medium capable companies have mean

values that are in turn higher than those of shortly capable companies. Therefore, it can be

concluded that regulatory drivers and drivers of image are particularly impacting for those firms

that are already committed with the sustainability issue, but these is not the unique type of

companies interested by the drivers under discussion. For what concerned stakeholders’ drivers

instead, no significant differences were found in the clusters’ mean values, thus it can be said that

stakeholders’ drivers impact on all clusters in the same way.

Answer to RQ4 The answer to the fourth and last research question is most groundbreaking contribute that this

study brings to the state of art in the field of sustainable supply chain development. As such, it is

also the most articulate passage of the work. The last research question of this thesis was

formulated as follows:

RQ4: How the sustainable strategic fit between the stated strategic role of sustainability and the

actual implemented sustainable practices impacts on the environmental, social and economic

performance of a company?

While strategic fit defined by Chopra and Meindl (2012) indicated the consistency between

customer priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain capabilities specified by the supply

chain strategy, in this thesis the concept of sustainable strategic fit indicates the match between

the declared competitive role of sustainability and the actual commitment of companies in

implementing sustainable supply chain practices. This first consideration is also the most

important pillar of this work, as well as the starting point to answer RQ4. After having defined this

concept, it was wondered whether companies could be better defined according to their

sustainable strategic fit. Deepening the work of previous Authors who faced the problem of

companies’ classification on the basis of a given variable (Macchion et al., 2015; Wu and Pagell,

2011), it was assumed that survey’s subjects could be further categorized according to their

declared competitive role of sustainability. Combining this assumption with the clusters’

classification obtained by dividing companies according to their commitment in implementing

lxxi

sustainable practices (answer to RQ1), it was assumed to classify companies according to their

sustainable strategic fit or misfit and their commitment in implementing green and social

initiatives.

Considering previous research works and in particular the thesis work that preceded the current

one, there are evidences that the implementation of certain sustainable practices has direct

positive impact on triple bottom line performance. For instance, the preceding thesis concluded

that production management practices such as: use of a waste management system, the use of

recycled raw materials, the use of energy from renewable sources and the realization of

recyclable/reusable packaging, improve internal supply chain costs performance. Purchasing

practices such as: collaborations with suppliers to improve their sustainable performance have a

positive impact on the firm’s green image and reputation. Finally, the adoption of environmental

and social certification, organization of training courses for a correct use and disposal of products

for customers and employees and the sponsorship of green and social initiatives of no-profit

organizations, significantly improve stakeholders’ satisfaction level and corporate green image.

Moreover, in the recent Literature there are several papers offering insight on potential patterns

of supply chain relations for improving environmental performance (Florida, 1996a; Florida and

Davison, 2001; Geffen and Rothenberg, 2000; Green et al., 1996; Handfield et al., 2002; Sarkis,

1995). Finally, in the lights of the conclusions obtained in the preceding thesis work and in line

with a number of research papers that dealt with the relationships between implementation of

sustainable practices and the evident improvement of corporate performance (Zhu and Sarkis,

2004; Zhu et al., 2007, Samal, 2008; Zhu et al., 2008), considering also the results of some

scientific studies showing that companies implemented different practices according to the

different competitive role of sustainability in their corporate strategy (Wu and Pagell, 2011; Cabot

et al., 2009), it was reasonable to postulate that: when the sustainable strategic fit between

stated role of sustainability and effective implemented practices is in its optimal condition, then

the company experiences the highest level of triple bottom line performance. This assumption led

to the formulation of the following research hypothesis:

Hp1: Companies that match the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition, are expected to

experience higher performance than all other companies.

To validate the previous Hypothesis, multiple analyses have been performed. First, the framework

developed by Chopra and Meindl (2012) has been deeply analyzed. Starting from their original

idea, a new framework was developed to allow the classification of companies based on the

sustainable strategic fit between their stated strategic role of sustainability and the actual

lxxii

implemented sustainable practices. Then, the classification initially obtained as a result of the

cluster analysis (highly capable companies, medium capable companies and shortly capable

companies), was combined with the information collected through the survey regarding the

competitive role of sustainability (desirable attribute, market qualifier and order winner). In this

way, a matrix with nine cells was built. The matrix, named sustainable strategic fit matrix,

represented a customized version of the strategic fit framework of Chopra and Meindl (2012), as

such it allows to easily identify which are the firms matching the sustainable strategic fit condition

(the ones laying on the matrix’s diagonal). However, to prove the validity of Hypothesis one,

several more steps were necessary. First, it was proved that it is not sufficient to be very good in

implementing sustainable practices to have positive performance improvement. In other words,

an ANOVA analysis between the sustainable strategic fit matrix’s rows was performed to find

whether there were significant differences in mean values. Afterwards, the same type of analysis

was run for matrix’s columns. It was investigated whether there were significant differences in

means between companies with different strategic roles of sustainability. The results of these

analyses showed there wasn’t’ a dominant class of companies over the others for what concerned

performance. Therefore, further analyses were conducted. In particular, at this point the focus of

the analyses move on the matrix’s single cell and an ANOVA analysis between matrix’s cells was

performed. Companies laying on the matrix’s diagonal were those meeting the sustainable

strategic fit condition, thus it was expected that some significant results emerged from their

comparison. It resulted that companies matching the best possible sustainable strategic fit

condition were the best performing ones. At this point it could be concluded that Hypothesis one

was supported: companies that match the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition, are

expected to experience higher performance than all other companies. The following scheme

summarizes the passages of the analysis (Fig 23.).

lxxiii

Table 5 - Steps of the analysis to answer RQ4

During the development of the sustainable strategic fit matrix, many references to the work of

Chopra and Meindl (2012) were made. Their framework was the starting point to build a new

framework customized on the sustainable strategic fit concept. The zone of strategic fit, became

the zone of sustainable strategic fit, while the axes changed name and became strategic role of

sustainability (x axis) and clusters (y axis).

lxxiv

Figure 23 - Sustainable strategic fit framework

For the construction of this model, several information collected thanks to the previous analyses

were necessary. The clusters composition developed based on companies’ commitment in

implementing sustainable practices was the first relevant information needed, the declaration of

the strategic role of sustainability was the second important datum. Combining these two

components, two sustainable strategic fit matrices were obtained: one that joined clusters with

the strategic role of environmental sustainability and one that joined clusters with the strategic

role of social sustainability

lxxv

STRATEGIC ROLE OF Environmental SUSTAINABILITY

CLUSTERS 1 2 3 4 5 6

DESIRABLE ATTRIBUTE MARKET QUALIFIER ORDER WINNER

HIGHLY CAPABLE COMPANIES

PR26

PR29

PR39

PR12

PR14

PR21

PR44

PR45

PR20

PR19

PR46

MEDIUM CAPABLE COMPANIES

FOR12

PR1

PR5

PR9

PR15

PR33

PR36

PR37

PR41

PR6

FOR1

PR4

FOR6

PR11

FOR8

FOR9

PR30

PR25

PR42

FOR3

FOR5

FOR10

PR17

FOR11

PR22

PR28

PR43

PR8

PR13

PR18

PR27

PR40

SHORTLY CAPABLE COMPANIES

FOR4

PR10

FOR7

PR23

PR31

PR32

PR34

PR35

PR38

PR7

PR24

PR2

PR16

FOR2

PR3

Figure 24 - Environmental sustainable strategic fit matrix

STRATEGIC ROLE OF Social SUSTAINABILITY

CLUSTERS 1 2 3 4 5 6

DESIRABLE ATTRIBUTE MARKET QUALIFIER ORDER WINNER

HIGHLY CAPABLE COMPANIES

PR20

PR44

PR39

PR45

PR19

PR29

PR21

PR26

PR14

PR46

PR12

MEDIUM CAPABLE COMPANIES

PR6

FOR3

FOR5

PR11

FOR10

FOR11

PR22

PR30

FOR12

PR9

PR15

PR33

PR41

PR42

PR8

PR13

PR28

PR43

FOR1

PR4

PR5

FOR6

PR27

PR37

PR25

PR40

PR1

PR18

FOR8

FOR9

PR17

PR36

SHORTLY CAPABLE COMPANIES

PR2

FOR2

FOR4

FOR7

PR16

PR23

PR32

PR35

PR7

PR24

PR3

PR10

PR31

PR38

PR34

Figure 25 - Social sustainable strategic fit matrix

lxxvi

This framework, allowed to classify companies in groups according to their sustainable strategic

fit, or misfit: overall nine groups were defined. As in the framework developed by Chopra and

Meindl (2012), firms laying on the diagonal are those meeting the sustainable strategic fit

condition. The firms laying above or under the diagonal are those mismatching the sustainable

strategic fit, thus in these situations we will say that there is a sustainable strategic misfit.

The nine groups of firms classified with this criterion, were named labels. Labels of the matrix, will

be referred to with numbers from 1 to 9:

9. Highly capable companies – sustainability is a desirable attribute

10. Highly capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier

11. Highly capable companies – sustainability is an order winner

12. Medium capable companies – sustainability is a desirable attribute

13. Medium capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier

14. Medium capable companies – sustainability is an order winner

15. Shortly capable companies – sustainability is a desirable attribute

16. Shortly capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier

17. Shortly capable companies – sustainability is an order winner

Label three, as expected, is composed by the most active firms. Companies belonging to this label

are overperforming the others in terms of sustainable practices implementation. As forecasted,

companies belonging to this label, dedicated in general a higher amount of resources to the

implementation of sustainable practices with respect to the other companies. This is verified for

label three of both matrices (the one referred to strategic role of environmental sustainability and

the one referred to strategic role of social sustainability).

Companies belonging to label five are modestly performing companies. They recognize

sustainability as a market qualifier and they implement a proportionate level of practices. A

consideration similar to the one made with label three can be drawn even for this second group

of companies. This label is composed by medium capable firms that consider sustainability a

market qualifier. Therefore, one would expect a mildly level of implementation of sustainable

practices and so it is.

lxxvii

Firms included in label seven are the worst performing companies. They attribute a very little

importance to sustainability and do nothing to improve it. These are the situations in which the

sustainable strategic fit is met.

For companies belonging to labels one, two and four the sustainable strategic fit is not met.

However, they can be considered «virtuous companies» because, even if they don’t recognize

sustainability as an order winner, they implement a significant amount of practices, thus we can

reasonably think they are on the right track to include it among their competitive factors soon.

Specifically, label one is formed by companies that put a lot of efforts for the development of

sustainable initiatives, but they don’t recognize sustainability as a competitive strategic factor.

This could be interpreted in different way: these firms are still at an embryonic phase of the

development of a sustainable strategy, so they are not ready to include sustainability among the

corporate competitive factors (i.e. cost, quality, delivery time), but they already start to engage

with green and social measures in order to improve their social position. On the other hand, these

companies could be not interested in declaring their sustainability’s strategic level, anyway they

could be pretty concerned about environmental issue, thus they actively work to bring their

contribution. Similar considerations can be drawn for highly capable companies that believed

sustainability is a market qualifier (label two). These firms are already oriented towards a more

coherent position: they devote many resources for the implementation of sustainable initiatives,

however they consider sustainability as a necessary condition to compete on the market, not the

competitive advantage that allow to win bids. Even in this case, companies could be on the right

track to transform sustainability in a future order winner characteristic, however, currently, they

are underestimating its importance. Finally, firms laying in label four could still be considered

virtuous companies, as they spend medium efforts for the sustainable practices’ development,

but they have very low consideration of sustainability as a strategic factor. Here again there is a

sustainable strategic misfit between the role of sustainability in corporate strategy and the level

of implementation of green and social practices.

For companies belonging to labels six, eight and nine the sustainable strategic fit is not met

neither. Differently to the previous situation these companies are overestimating the role of

sustainability as they perform very little when implementing sustainable practices. Thus, we can

define these companies as «vicious companies». Label six, is composed by firms overestimating

the strategic position of sustainability. These companies indeed, are modestly performing in

terms of sustainable practices’ implementation, but they declare that sustainability is an order

winner to them. Again, there is a misfit, however this might be the case of companies that are

progressively incrementing their efforts towards the implementation of sustainable practices, but

lxxviii

they are still at a work-in-progress phase. Therefore, even if they are listed within the vicious

companies, in the mid-term they could develop a good level of sustainable practices. Label eight

include firms that are poorly interested in implementing sustainable practices, but that consider

sustainability a market qualifier. These subjects are slightly overestimating the role of

sustainability in their business strategy, as commented for label four, these companies are lacking

the sustainable strategic fit condition, however, if they resize their sustainability’s strategic

position declaration, or they increase the efforts dedicated to the development of sustainable

practices, they could fit in the fifth or seventh labels. Finally, the worst situation possible, it the

one of firms stating that sustainability is an order winner, but that are very poorly performing in

terms of sustainable practices’ implementation. This could be the case of companies that exploit

sustainability for marketing purposes: for instance, they could create very effective advertising

campaigns declaring sustainability as their corporate mission, but concretely they do nothing to

realize those slogans. The positive aspect, is that from the analysis performed, only one company

for both matrices matched this condition. This is an encouraging remark, as it indicates that in

general companies avoid situations of strong negative misfit.

Once the labels have been formed and deeply analyzed, the relationship between the sustainable

strategic fit, or misfit, and the triple bottom line corporate performance can be investigated. First,

an exploratory factor analysis on performance was run, and the result show that all the sixteen

performance could be well explained by five factors:

1. Productive performance (PP)

2. Service performance (PSE)

3. Environmental performance (PA)

4. Social performance (PS)

5. Performance of image (PI)

Once reduced the dimension of the performance’s answers sample, some further analyses could

be performed. Initially, the sustainable strategic fit matrix was analyzed by rows and by columns.

Even if this specific analysis is not directly providing an answer to RQ4, it contributes to correctly

define the boarders of the analysis. In particular, the following analyses have been run with the

aim to prove that it is not sufficient to declare that sustainability is an order winner to obtain

good performance, neither it is enough to devote a huge amount of resources to the

implementation of sustainable practices to get positive results. Despite this specific ANOVA

lxxix

analysis was not included in a research question, it was still meaningful as it proves that in no

other conditions, except those of optimal sustainable strategic fit, the performance’s

improvement is maximized.

After these initial analyses, some partial conclusions were drawn. There are statistical evidences

that performance are different between the three clusters of companies: highly capable, medium

capable, shortly capable and between companies declaring different strategic role of

sustainability: desirable attribute, market qualifier and order winner. However, it is not possible

to affirm that, in general, performance of highly capable companies are the highest, as, by

contrast, it is not said that performance of shortly capable companies are the worst. The same

considerations can be drawn for companies that define sustainability as an order winner or a

desirable attribute. Therefore, it is not sufficient be very efficient in implementing sustainable

practices to get the maximum results, neither it is enough declaring that sustainability is an order

winner to obtain the best performance possible.

To find which are the conditions under which the highest performance are reached, the point of

view of the ANOVA test should change. In particular, it was decided to analyze if significant

differences in mean values existed between matrix’ cells. Each cell, previously named label,

included a different group of companies. Companies belonging to different labels have different

characteristics: for instance, the firms laying on the matrix’s diagonal were those meeting the

sustainable strategic fit condition, while those outstanding the diagonal were lacking the

sustainable strategic fit condition. When the sustainable strategic fit exists, it means that the

stated competitive role of sustainability and the commitment for sustainable practices

implementation are aligned (i.e. highly capable companies – sustainability is an order winner,

medium capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier, shortly capable companies –

sustainability is a desirable attribute). In the lights of this observation, considering also the results

obtained in the previous thesis and from the recent Literature (Florida, 1996a; Florida and

Davison, 2001; Geffen and Rothenberg, 2000; Green et al., 1996; Handfield et al., 2002; Sarkis,

1995) that both confirm that there is a relationship between sustainable supply chain practices

implementation and positive improvement in corporate performance, it is reasonable to expect

that those companies matching the optimal condition of sustainable strategic fit (highly capable

companies – sustainability is an order winner) would obtain the best performance improvement.

In other words, the following analyses are aimed at validate research hypothesis one that

postulated: companies that match the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition, are expected to

experience higher performance than all other companies

lxxx

From the previous considerations, it emerged that cells belonging to the matrix’ diagonal are the

most interesting to analyze, as they represent the zone of sustainable strategic fit. Therefore, as

first thing ANOVA analysis on the three labels belonging to the diagonal of the matrices have been

run.

Figure 26 - Results of ANOVA: matrix's diagonal

These analyses focused on the diagonal of the matrices evidenced how, almost in all cases, label

three is performing better than the other two labels (five and seven). Companies belonging to

label three are those matching the optimal sustainable strategic fit: highly capable companies and

sustainability as order winner. Firms belonging to label five (medium capable companies and

sustainability as a market qualifier) instead, showed no significant differences in mean values with

cluster seven for environmental performance, and social performance, while their performance of

image are only slightly better than those of companies laying in cluster seven. In all the analyzed

cases firms that match the worst condition of sustainable strategic fit (shortly capable companies

and sustainability is a desirable attribute) have the worst performance both in terms of

environmental performance and performance of image.

lxxxi

At this point, it has been proved that companies matching the best sustainable strategic fit

condition experience better performance (environmental performance and performance of

image) with respect to firms that match the sustainable strategic fit, but not in its highest form.

The results of this analysis were meaningful as they prove that it is not sufficient to meet the

sustainable strategic fit to have good performance results, it is necessary that the optimal

sustainable strategic fit condition is met in order to see significant advantages.

Having said this, the last step necessary to validate Hypothesis one, was to prove that companies

matching the sustainable strategic fit, in its highest form, are overperforming also companies that

are mismatching the sustainable strategic fit condition, thus the ones outstanding the matrix’s

diagonal. Therefore, a further ANOVA analysis on performance was performed to see if there

were significant differences in mean values of eight of the nine labels. The ninth label indeed was

composed by only one firm; thus, it was not suitable for an ANOVA analysis.

The analysis showed that label three includes companies with the highest environmental

performance, social performance and performance of image. Firms matching the optimal

condition of sustainable strategic fit (highly capable companies that consider sustainability an

order winner) are also those encountering the highest performance. In the light on these

considerations, it can be concluded that Hypothesis one is supported, thus the basis on which

RQ4 is founded is verified and the question can be considered answered.

Conclusions This thesis had the aim to investigate the effect that a sustainable supply chain strategic fit has on

corporate triple bottom line performance. The results obtained during the project work, are

synthetized by the following conceptual map (Fig. 27):

lxxxii

Figure 27 - Conceptual map: The key messages of the analysis

The map is clearly showing what was already statistically proved in Chapter six. Undoubtedly label

three (the one matching the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition) experiences the best

performance improvement in terms of environmental performance, social performance and

economic performance. What it is interesting to note, is that it is not sufficient to meet the

sustainable strategic fit condition to obtain the maximum gain, companies must necessarily match

the optimal condition, otherwise the performance improvement is not guaranteed. For instance,

firms belonging to label five (medium capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier) are

matching the sustainable strategic fit condition, but not it its higher form, indeed they have

average performance of image and environmental performance values. Companies laying in label

seven (the worst sustainable strategic fit condition: shortly capable companies – sustainability is a

desirable attribute) are experiencing very low performance, as expected. What is interesting, is

that companies of label six (medium capable companies – sustainability is an order winner) are

outperforming firms of label four (medium capable companies – sustainability is a desirable

attribute). Despite label six was originally counted among the “vicious” cells, it shows higher

performance than label four, that was listed among the “virtuous” ones. This is reasonably

lxxxiii

explained by the fact that, even in companies of label six are currently overestimating the

competitive role of sustainability, they are likely raising firms, hopefully they will improve their

commitment in implementing sustainable practices in medium-short term. If this happens, they

are good candidates to move in label three and match the optimal sustainable strategic fit

condition.

Managerial implications The present work has the ambition to provide managers with a guide to orient their decision

towards the implementation of a sustainable supply chain strategy. The contribution brought to

management lies not only in the identification of which are the current most implemented

sustainable practices in the furniture market, but also in the specification of which are the

initiatives preferred by highly capable companies. This information could give managers

indications on where to invest, according to the level of resources available for a given project.

Moreover, this work separates practices implemented by suppliers by those implemented by

producers, thus this study can be useful to all companies operating in the furniture industry,

regardless their position along the supply chain. Managers could have also a draft idea of which

are the drivers impacting on their decision on the implementation of sustainable initiatives, by

looking at the results of the ANOVA on drivers conducted in this work. Finally, the most

interesting contribution that this work brings to managers, is a proxy of how their performance

will change according to their position with respect to the sustainable strategic fit condition.

1

2

1 Introduction

3

Companies’ growing sensitiveness towards environmental issues, the need to comply with the

more and more frequent regulations, the need to increase the quality of the products and, at the

same time, to reduce production costs, new market opportunities, improvement of corporate

image and reputation and, finally, increasing concerns about climate changes, are just some of the

variables enhancing the interest of companies towards the role of sustainability in the definition

of Supply Chain strategy.

The growing pressures from the market, caused also by the scarcity of natural resources and

increased pollution, have brought the sustainable supply chain theme among the most important

business decisions. Managers face the sustainability challenge in their daily activities and are

growingly becoming aware of the fact that there is a link between green and social practices and

businesses’ success. Sustainability is no longer a purely environmental concept, while it is

becoming a strategic component.

Both Scholars and Practitioners are dedicating much efforts on the development and

improvement of instruments for the integration of sustainability in the daily business activities.

Customers are becoming more and more aware of their purchasing behavior and their buying

decisions are increasingly led by the general environmental and social concerns. Therefore,

companies are somehow forced to review their products’ range in order to provide to customers

what they demand. Despite the attention towards the sustainable theme is undoubtedly raising,

companies that managed to develop a fully sustainable corporate strategy are still rare. The

difficulty that firms face when they try to integrate sustainability into their business strategy, is

the lack of a structured framework that clearly guide them in the decision-making process.

These considerations have been drawn after a wide Literature review phase, this activity

highlighted that there are not defined and unambiguous guidelines for the correct integration of

sustainability into the corporate strategy as a competitive factor. Moreover, there is a lack of

frameworks showing how this integration impacts on sustainable supply chain practices.. The

impact that the implementation of sustainable practices in businesses has on TBL performance

(environmental, social and economic) is not shaped by a defined model. Moreover, there is not an

unambiguous version of the nature of this relationship. Finally, from the Literature review it

emerged that there are few studies dealing with the topic of the strategic fit between customer

priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain capabilities. Moreover, there are no references

to the sustainable counterparty of the strategic fit concept which in this study will be defined as

“sustainable strategic fit”.

4

This thesis project’s aim, is to investigate the challenging theme of sustainability along the supply

chain that is considered of extreme interest and actuality. Moreover, some contributions to the

state of the art were brought by the validations of four key question How companies can be

classified according to their commitment in implementing sustainable practices? Being the

strategic role of sustainability equal, what are the sustainable practices implemented by

manufacturers and suppliers? How the external and internal drivers impact on the company’s

commitment to implement sustainable practices How the sustainable strategic fit between the

stated strategic role of sustainability and the actual implemented sustainable practices impacts on

the environmental, social and economic performance of a company? These are the research

questions that will be answered in this thesis.

This work is focused on the wood and furniture industry and analyzes which are the most

implemented green and social practices by components suppliers and furniture manufacturers.

This thesis also aims at investigating what are the impacts that drivers have on sustainable

practices implemented by companies. Moreover, this study introduces and defines an innovative

theoretical concept: “sustainable supply chain strategic fit”. This expression has been developed

starting from the definition provided by Chopra and Meindl (2012) of “strategic fit”. While

strategic fit indicates the consistency between customer priorities of competitive strategy and

supply chain capabilities specified by the supply chain strategy, sustainable supply chain strategic

fit identifies the match between the declaration of strategic role of sustainability and the

implementation of a coherent amount of sustainable practices. Finally, this thesis project analyzes

which are the effects that the presence, or the lack, of a sustainable strategic fit has on corporate

triple bottom line performance.

5

2 Sustainability

6

2.1 Sustainable Development Definition In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) introduced for the first

time the concept of sustainable development in the report entitled “Our common future” also

known as the Brundtland Report. In particular, sustainable development was defined as:

The development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs.

The previous one is the most common and widely accepted definition of sustainable development

and it highlights primarily two concepts: the first refers to the basic needs among the world’s

poorest, while the second refers to the technological and social organizational constraints that

affect the ability of the environment of meeting the present and future needs. This definition

allowed the Commission to link together the concepts of poverty alleviation, environmental

improvement and social equitability through sustainable economic growth.

The need for the definition of a new concept of development, stems from the fact that yet many

of us live beyond the world's ecological means, hence sustainable development requires that

societies meet human needs both by increasing productive potential and by ensuring equitable

opportunities for all. Moreover, human activities and interventions on ecosystem are becoming

more and more drastic and invasive and they are seriously threatening the natural regenerative

capacity of the Earth. Sustainable development aim is not to endanger the natural systems that

support life on Earth, while ensuring a resources consumption in line with the Earth’s carrying

capacity in order to foreclose as few future options as possible. In essence, according to the

Brundtland Report, sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of

resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development and

institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet

human needs and aspirations.

Since the publication of the Brundtland Report, sustainable development has increased its

importance and it has gradually become a central topic of the daily business activities. However,

the definition provided by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) has

been frequently criticized and regarded as ambiguous and open to interpretation and this led to a

proliferation of different interpretations of the concept. One of the major critic moved to the UN

definition, is the one made by Taylor (2002). In his work, the Author stated that the needs of the

future generations are difficult to forecast and they could differ from the needs of the presents.

7

Moreover, he added that the needs’ perception of the developed countries is completely

different to the one of the developing countries.

According to Holmberg (1994), by 1994 there were already more than 80 different definitions and

interpretations of sustainable development fundamentally sharing the core concept of the

WCED’s definition. Even today, nearly after twenty years from the draft of the Brundtland Report,

Scholars still do not agree on an unambiguous definition of sustainable development. As stated by

Daly (1996), although there is an emerging political consensus on the desirability of something

called sustainable development, this term—touted by many and even institutionalized in some

places—is still dangerously vague. Goldin and Winters (1995) defined the concept as “elusive”,

while Tryzna (1995) described it as “an oxymoron” and Holmberg (1994) stated that sustainable

development as a concept has become devalued to the point where, to some, it is now just a

cliche´ (Desta Mebratu ,1998).

Nonetheless, today we commonly agree in considering the Report “Our Common Future” the

starting point for the current debate on sustainable development, even if still many other

definitions and interpretations of the concept are present in Literature. One for all, can be

mentioned the version of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

which claims that:

Sustainable development involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental

quality and social equity. Companies aiming for sustainability need to perform not against a

single, financial bottom line but against the triple bottom line.

As stated in the charter of WBCSD: business leaders are committed to sustainable development,

to meet the needs of the present without compromising the welfare of future generations. This

concept recognizes that economic growth and environmental protection are inextricably linked,

and that the quality of present and future life rests on meeting basic human needs without

destroying the environment upon which all life depends (Schmidheiny 1992). We can consider the

interpretation provided by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) as a

direct extension of the WCED definition, moreover it asserts that economic growth will be an

essential ingredient for the future sustainability and the requirement for clean, equitable

economic growth remains the greatest difficulty within the larger scope of sustainable

development.

8

2.2 The Triple Bottom Line

The concept of the Triple Bottom Line (Fig. 28) mentioned in the WBCSD’s definition of

sustainable development, derives from the work of John Elkington (1997) entitled “Cannibals with

Forks” in which the Author introduces a very innovative approach to the measurement of

sustainability.

Figure 28 – Sustainability: the Triple Bottom Line (Craig R. Carter and Dale S. Rogers, 2008)

In the late 1990s, John Elkington coined the expression Triple Bottom Line and he defined is as

A framework for measuring the performance of the business and the success of the organization

using three lines: economic, social, and environmental.

It has been conceived as a sustainability-related construct, but while sustainability is quite an

established concept that may be dated back to over 130 years ago, the TBL concept became very

popular only after the definition of sustainable development in the Brundtland Report in 1987.

The TBL concept goes beyond the traditional financial aspect of a company and focuses also on

the impact of the company’s activities on the surrounding environment. In other words, it goes

beyond the traditional measures of profits, return on investment and shareholder’s value and it

includes also environmental and social dimensions. Consequently, companies adopting this

approach must improve not only their economic performance, but also their ecological (or

environmental) and social ones.

9

In his interpretation of the Triple Bottom Line, Elkington used together the terms: people, planet,

and profit (the three Ps). He argued that TBL expresses the expansion of the environmental

agenda in a way that integrates the economic and social lines (Elkington, 1997). In this study, the

economic, social, and environmental lines referred to profit, people, and planet respectively.

- The Environmental dimension: Environmental sustainability refers to the fact that we

must live respecting the natural Earth’s regeneration capacity. In order to do so, we must

be sure to consume the planet’s natural resources such as materials, energy fuels, land

and water at a sustainable rate which is at least equal to the Earth regeneration capacity.

Not all the resources have the same rate of depletion, some are more abundant and long-

lasting than others, therefore we need to consider material scarcity and the damage

caused to environment from the extraction of some materials. An environmentally

sustainable system must guarantee a stable resource base, avoiding an over-exploitation

of renewable resources and ensuring the depletion of nonrenewable resources only when

the investment requires it. The conservation of natural resources and ecosystems and the

preservation of the diversity of species is essential for sustainable economic production,

while market mechanisms often do not act in an environmentally friendly way, but they

tend to deplete and degrade natural capital.

Thus, the environmental line of TBL refers to engage in practices that do not compromise

the environmental resources for future generations. It pertains to the efficient use of

energy recourses, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and minimizing the ecological

footprint. (Goel, 2010).

- The Social dimension: Organizations, communities and, in general, societies must not only

be environmentally sustainable, but they must be also socially sustainable. B. Chabowski

et al. (2011) stated that social sustainability should be seen as a process for creating

sustainable, successful places that promote wellbeing, by understanding what people

need from the places they live and work.

With the term social sustainability, we mean the ability of a social system to achieve and

maintain over the long run a social well-being. Social well-being can be considered

completely matched when all its five dimensions are satisfied: social integration, social

contribution, social coherence, social actualization and social acceptance. Speaking in

general terms, a socially sustainable system must ensure an adequate provision of social

services including health and education, gender equity and political accountability and

10

participation. All the previous ones are crucial elements of development and all of them

are interrelated with environmental sustainability. In terms of sustainability, a moderate

level of consumption, together with strong social institutions and a healthy environment,

represents a better ideal than ever-increasing consumption (Durning, 1992). Thus, the

concept of sustainability goes beyond the limits on populations or restraints in

consumption, it means that the choice of goods and technologies must be oriented to the

requirements of ecosystem integrity and species diversity as well as to social goals.

All the previous considerations lead to conclude that the social line of TBL refers to

conducting beneficial and fair business practices to the labor, human capital, and to the

community (Elkington, 1997). In other words, the social dimension refers the company’s

impact on its employees and the social system within its community.

- The Economic dimension: Economic sustainability consists in the efficient use of a

business’ resources to consistently produce an operational profit that allow the company

to sustain its activities in the long term. Economic sustainability encompasses various

aspects of supply chain management: it focuses on healthy cash flow, good profit margins

and proper return on investment, business performance improvement and competitive

advantage (K. McCormack et al., 2008; D. J. Ketchen et al, 2011). The costs for

environmental protection are usually not so onerous and, in many cases, the cost savings

from using resources more wisely and the reputational advantage in attracting customers

from being known as a “green” organization, increases organizational profitability (A.

Bernstein, 2008; J. Pfeffer, 2010).

Thus, it can be concluded that the economic line of TBL framework refers to the impact of

the organization’s business practices on the economic system (Elkington, 1997). When

talking about economic dimension of a company we are typically referring to company’s

financial performance, the flow of capital, and their economic involvement in society. In

the vision of the Elkington (1997), the economic aspect is considered one of the

subsystems of sustainability able to survive and evolve into the future and ensure a

sustainable future for the generations to come. In other words, the economic line

represents the link between the organizational growth and the growth of the economy

and how well the first is contributing to the development of the second by strengthening

its capability to support future generations.

11

2.3 Criticism to the definition of Triple Bottom Line

By defining the Triple Bottom Line, John Elkington introduced a brand-new way for businesses and

nonprofits to measure their performance, he allowed organizations to apply the TBL concept in a

manner suitable to their needs and to evaluate the consequences of their decisions from a truly

long-run perspective. By the way, the Triple Bottom Line definition provided by Elkington still

presents some mismatches: for instance, if we consider the contributions of the three

components as independent of each other, they cannot be algebraically summed. This is because

it’s quite hard to measure the contributions of environmental sustainability in monetary terms,

which is indeed the way in which social and economic sustainability are measured. It is

fundamental to highlight how those dimensions are strictly related between each other and so

they should not be considered as independent elements, but they should be analyzed in

systematic vision, as elements that together contribute to achieve the common goal. (Payman Ahi

et Cory Searcy, 2014). This means that each intervention should consider the mutual connections.

In case the planning options prioritize only one or two of the three dimensions, then the

sustainable development condition is not met.

A further, politically-oriented, criticism that has been moved to the three-pillars theory, is the one

claiming that this approach would likely reinforce the status quo, by legitimizing the existing goals

of the society, rather than moving towards a more dynamic future scenario. Another more

conceptual critique to the TBL theory states that, by keeping such a clear distinction between the

economic and the social dimensions of sustainable development, the model contributes to

strengthen the idea that economy can be treated as a separate sphere, detached from the social

context, within which all human activities are embedded. This radical critique considers the three

pillars representation as a false consensus, which reflects fundamental flaws in the relations

between human societies and their environment. (Passet, 1996; Le Bot, 2002). A third criticism to

the Triple Bottom Line states that, due to the structural and conceptual differences between the

three dimensions, it is possible that conflicts occurred. The model does not explain how to solve

those eventual conflicts, moreover it is not clear which is the qualitative importance of each of

the three dimensions and how they should be collocated in a hierarchy.

Despite, even today, the TBL model is openly criticized by a portion of Academics, it is still

considered by businesses, nonprofits and societies the most effective tool for the measurement

of corporate financial, social and environmental performance and the only way companies have

to correctly involve all the costs in the creation of firm’s business.

12

2.4 The social dimension of the TBL Among all the three dimensions of sustainable development, the social one is still the weakest

and has been somewhat neglected in past discussions in comparison to the other two pillars.

What emerged from the Literature review, is how the major part of the sustainability studies

focus primarily on the environmental sphere. Until recently indeed, sustainable development was

mainly perceived as an environmental issue, concerning the integration of environmental aspects

into economic decision-making. Conversely, in past, there has been a lack of attention towards

the economic and the social spheres. As witnessed by several Authors, among which we can

remember Jennings e Zandbergen (1995), Shrivastava (1995a) and Starik e Rands (1995), the

models and the indicators related to the social and environment dimensions of SD are very often

qualitative and approximate.

It is not possible to analyze social aspects with the same analytical tools that are commonly used

for ecological and economic features. As noted by M. Lehtonen (2004) in his work, the reflexivity,

multidimensionality and relational character of the social aspect are the source of the difficulty, if

not impossibility, to quantify most social phenomena. Despite the interest towards this aspect of

sustainability is increasing in the last years, it is far more difficult to quantify social aspects than

economic growth or environmental impact and consequently, the social sphere, is still the most

neglected element of triple bottom line reporting. Seuring (2013) found that a large share of

papers dealing with sustainable development do not mention at all the social aspect, while most

of the studies declaring to deal with Corporate Social Responsibility (CRS) in their titles, then

usually model environmental issues, but not social impacts related ones.

Anyhow, in the last decade, the interest towards the social dimension of sustainable development

has been awakened also thanks to the structural changes that have affected the modern society.

Recently there has been an increase in the number of papers addressing the social dimension by

investigating various social aspects: community issues, corporate governance, diversity

consideration, employee relations, human rights and diversity, educational and ethical

considerations, training and development (B. Chabowski et al., 2011; A. Scott, 2011). Moreover,

the Academic Literature is paying increasing attention to the role of institutions, governance and

social capital in the development process.

2.5 Sustainability Definition The concept of sustainability has been interpreted in a variety of ways, from an inter-generational

philosophical position to a multi-dimensional term for business management. In the very first

13

studies on the theme, the term sustainability was mainly associated with the environmental issue

but, recently, sustainability initiatives are increasingly adopting a triple bottom line

(environmental, economic and social) approach. This approach involves a higher number of

interacting factors; thus, a higher degree of complexity can be expected.

In 1972 a group of academics and diplomats got together in the so-called Rome Club to discuss

about the limited natural resources availability. In that occasion the theme of sustainability was

addressed for the first time in an exhaustive and detailed way. Some years later, after the

publication of the Brundtland Report (1987), sustainability started gaining greater and greater

popularity and an increasing number of scholars tried to find an appropriate definition and model

for it.

Today, it is acknowledged that the original definition of sustainable development is the one

provided by the World Commission on Environment and Development: the development that

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs. It is also known that the idea of sustainability is strictly related to the concept of

sustainable development, but, despite the large number of studies facing the sustainability

theme, there is not yet an unambiguous interpretation of the concept, indeed in Literature there

are over 200 definitions of the term.

Originally, the term sustainability was just a mere subject of business disciplines’ papers, (i.e.

management and operations), as time went on, it increasingly became a theme of central

relevance also for organizations and industries and, only recently, companies are beginning to

fully accept and integrate sustainability in their corporate activities. From a study conducted by

KPMG resulted that in 2004 68 percent of the Global 250 firms generated a separated

sustainability report including environmental, social and economic issues. This can be considered

a very good result if we consider that in 1999 most of those companies only produced an

environmental report. Despite the previous figures are positive, an overall review of the Literature

on the sustainability theme shows that this argument has been inconsistently addressed and

applied in the extant research.

Starik and Rands (1995) defined sustainability as the ability of one or more entities, either

individually or collectively, to exist and flourish (either unchanged or in evolved terms) for lengthy

timeframes, in such a manner that the existence and flourishing of other collectivities of entities is

permitted at related levels and in related systems. According to Shrivastava (1995a), sustainability

consisted in offering the potential for reducing long-term risks associated with resource depletion,

14

fluctuations in energy costs, product liabilities, and pollution and waste management. To Dovers

and Handmer (1992) sustainability is the ability of a human system, natural or mixed, to resist or

adapt to endogenous or exogenous change indefinitely. For Elkington (1994), creator of the Triple

Bottom Line, sustainability is the balance between the three pillars: environmental, economic and

social. Drummond and Marsden (1999) indicated that, in environmental terms, sustainability is

more narrowly related to the resilience of ecosystems: that is their ability to withstand varying

types of stress. Ideally, sustainability is achieved where an activity occurs without damaging its

supporting ecological system(s). Shiva (1992) went further by stating that true sustainability

demands that ecological principles are incorporated into production processes to reshape them

and that conservation has to be both the basis and the foundation of production.

Sustainability is therefore a term that can have different and often opposed meanings when

applied to economic, social or environmental situations.

2.6 Literature inconsistencies

Surveying the Literature revealed an inconsistent use of the expression sustainable development.

Several studies, indeed, claim to address the SD issue, but then they actually deal with just one or

two of the three known pillars of sustainability (economic, social, environmental). Moreover, in

Literature, there are several works in which the concepts of sustainable development and triple

bottom line are wrongly used interchangeably. This confusion is mainly given by the lack of a rigid

framework for sustainable development that consequently lead to a non-consistent definition of

the term. Conversely the expression triple bottom line is nearly always properly used and the

definition coined by John Elkington is the most widely accepted in Literature.

In 2015 Hanan Alhaddi faced the problem of the conceptual discrepancy between the SD and the

TBL concepts. By analyzing several works dealing with both topics, the Author noticed how some

studies, that claimed to address the triple bottom line issue, actually focused only on one of the

three lines composing the complete concept of TBL. For example, Bibri (2008), in his study on the

corporate value creation resulting from the implementation of sustainability/CSR communications

practices, used the term sustainability to refer only to the social line. In 2009 Yan, Chen, & Chang

refer to sustainable development exclusively as environmental sustainable development, not

considering the social and economic contributes. Finally, some of the sustainability papers

analyzed by Hanan Alhaddi (i.e. Dewangga, Goldsmith, & Pegram, 2008; Frame & Newton, 2007),

considered only two of the three characterizing pillars of triple bottom line. Just a handful of the

15

investigated studies (i.e. Collins, Steg, & Koning, 2007; Kirchgeorg & Winn, 2006) correctly include

the economic, social and environmental aspects in their discourse on sustainable development.

In the following table (Table 6) is reported the summary of the studies analyzed by Hanan Alhaddi,

highlighting which are the lines of TBL on which the different papers focused more about.

Table 6 - Summary of Sustainability Studies (Hanan Alhaddi, 2015)

In Literature, there is no real consensus about the definition of sustainability and, although of

quite different meaning, sometimes the concepts of sustainable development and sustainability

are erroneously used interchangeably. It is important to understand the difference between

them, and how the two concept interact between each other.

There are either some commonalities or significant differences between the concepts of

sustainability and sustainable development. Both acknowledge that there is a limit to biophysical

and human resources because the planet does not have an endless supply of matter and energy

(Brown et al. 1987; Cairns 2000; Huesemann 2004; Pulselli et al 2009). As with sustainability,

sustainable development is also recognized to have interconnected elements, but for SD this is

usually reduced to three pillars model: social, environmental and economic (Elkington 1998).

Sustainability is often put forward as a goal, while sustainable development can be considered as

the guide for our behavior as humans if the achievement of sustainability is the aim (Goodlan and

Daly 1996).

16

It is the addition of the term “development” that results in the greatest difference between

sustainable development and sustainability. This is the reason why sustainable development is

different from sustainability, it does not imply growth. Even if often the concepts of sustainability

and sustainable development are wrongly used in an interchangeable way, sustainable

development is still preferred over the idea of sustainability by international development and

conservation organizations, as well as national governments (Robinson 2004).

Sustainability Sustainable Development

System of focus All systems, natural social and

economic

Primarily economic, then social

and political

View on economic growth

Economic growth cannot occur

without damage to the

environment (Meadows et al.

1972; Jackson 2009)

Economic growth can be

achieved without environmental

damage (Beder 2002)

Concerns

Persistence and nourishment of

the global system

Alleviating poverty while

achieving industrialization, and

entrance to a cash economy

(Sachs 2007)

Table 7 - Comparison of Sustainability and Sustainable Development (Helena Bender, 2012)

At its embryonic phase, sustainability was only related to nature, biological resources and physical

resources, so originally the term sustainability was referred only to the environmental sphere.

Nowadays the notion has been extended to include the social and economic aspects, where the

goal in not a sustained level of physical stock or physical production from an ecosystem over time,

but some sustained increase in the level of societal and individual welfare (Dixon and Fallon, cited

in Craig. 1989). Some Scholars considered sustainable development as a term that ultimately gave

priority to development, while the idea of sustainability as primarily linked with the environment.

So, what is the relationship between sustainability and sustainable development? Sustainability

can be considered as the ultimate goal or the destination to reach, in order to achieve this

objective there is need for a framework or a process: the framework of sustainable development

is the mean to achieve sustainability.

17

3 Sustainability as a

competitive factor

18

3.1 Introduction to the theme of sustainability as a

strategic competitive factor So far, sustainability has been presented with its historical meaning: a necessary condition to

reduce long-term risks associated with resource depletion, change in energy costs, pollution

management and waste generation. Until few years ago, the public opinion was that the attention

towards environmental issues was just a branch of corporate social responsibility, with

implications purely ethical and moral (Chiesa and Utizi, 2014). Sustainability was not intended as a

business’ related concept. However, in recent years practitioners have realized that sustainability

is becoming a constant in their daily business decision. Moreover, companies are increasingly

realizing that sustainability, when correctly integrated in the corporate strategy, can be source of

competitive advantage. Therefore, today sustainability is no longer conceived as a merely

environmental theme, but it is included among the traditional business competitive factors. In the

following sections, the evolution of the strategic role of sustainability will be further detailed,

moreover an overview of the most diffused environmental strategies is proposed, finally the

theme of sustainability as a competitive factor is addressed.

3.2 Evolution of the strategic role of Sustainability

Until recently, the concepts of strategy and sustainability were considered two different worlds

with no interactions between each other and corporate performance were defined and perceived

exclusively in terms of profitability. As environmental concerns have proliferated, various

approaches to sustainable management have been developed. In some cases, companies claim

their environmental strategies without putting real efforts in green initiatives: they just include

some environmentally friendly slogan in their advertising campaigns, but actually they do nothing

to improve their sustainable position. In some other cases instead, the environmental effort of

companies is real, but it is not apparent from the products or service they are delivering.

Seung-Kyu Rhee and Su-Yol Lee (2003) focused on the relationship between what corporations

say externally or internally – the rhetoric of environmental strategy – and what corporations do –

the reality of environmental strategy. The Authors defined rhetoric as a company’s environmental

intention declared externally or internally in formal arguments, including written and published

symbolic statements, declarations and slogans about environmental management. They defined

reality as realized decisions to deploy resources and commitment to environmental management,

and the specific elements of environmental management in practice. Even if in the last decade the

growing importance of environmental and social issues have driven many companies to

19

implement specific environmental or social management systems, rarely these systems have been

fully integrated with the general management system of the firm. Consequently, often

environmental and social management is not directly linked to the economic success of the firm.

Corporate performance, are no longer perceived by companies exclusively in terms of

profitability, they are also measured through environmental and social performance. Although

these latter do not substitute financial performance as a corporate objective, they still represent a

core part of the strategy of the firm firms (Pava and Krausz, 1996; Griffin and Mahon, 1997;

Wagner, 2001; Schaltegger and Synnestvedt, 2002). According to executives, indeed,

sustainability is becoming a more strategic and integral part of businesses. In past, when in

research surveys the reasons for pursuing sustainability where asked, companies’ managers

mainly mentioned cost cutting reasons or reputation management. For instance, when in 2008

McKinsey spread a questionnaire asking what executives thought about climate change, the 60%

of respondents answered that they believed it was strategically important, but slightly more than

a third were actually doing something real about it. This gap could be referred to the fact that the

theme was quite new and complex and executives needed to start engaging with environmental

activities. In 2014 McKinsey disclosed the results of a survey performed to define the

sustainability strategic worth (Fig. 29), it showed that the 43 percent (and the largest share) of the

respondents said that their companies seek to align sustainability with their overall goals, mission,

values; up from 30 percent who said so in 2012.

20

Figure 29 - More and more companies are addressing sustainability to align with their business goals

(McKinsey, 2014)

Companies that have already appreciated the benefit in developing aggressive sustainability

strategies, managed to dramatically decrease their costs, they reduced their environmental risks

and created profitable sustainability initiatives with new products, markets and even entire

business models. They understood that sustainability is a core strategic focus they must integrate

into their broader corporate strategy.

Despite a growing number of firms is understanding the potential of sustainability as a

competitive advantage, its integration into business principles is still a hard challenge for

companies. The major reason behind this difficulty, is that firms have few knowledge about the

strategic management tools available to integrate sustainability into corporate strategy. One of

the methodologies that in Literature is proposed for this purpose, is the development of a

sustainable balanced scorecard. The Balanced Scorecard of Kaplan and Norton is an effective

management tool that supports the successful implementation of corporate strategies. It claims

to identify the major strategically relevant issues of a business and to describe and depict the

causal contribution of those issues that contribute to a successful achievement of a firm’s strategy

(Kaplan and Norton, 1997). As such, it is also a promising candidate tool to incorporate

environmental and social aspects into the main management system of a firm. Balanced

scorecard indeed overcomes the shortcomings of conventional approaches to environmental and

social management systems by integrating the three pillars of sustainability into a single and

global strategic management tool.

The balanced scorecard assists the identification and the management of simultaneous

improvements of environmental, social and financial business goals. One of the characteristics

that make BSC a particularly suitable arrangement for the integration of all three sustainability

dimensions, is the possibility to consider also soft factors which cannot be monetized such as

environmental and social aspects (Senn, 1986). There are basically three ways to integrate the

social and environmental aspects into the balanced scorecard: first, environmental and social

aspects can be integrated in the existing four standard perspectives. (Second, an additional

perspective can be added to take environmental and social aspects into account. Third, a specific

environmental and/or social scorecard can be formulated (Deegen, 2001, p. 50; Epstein, 1996, p.

73; Figge et al., 2001a, 2001b; Sturm, 2000, p. 374).

21

A derived environmental or social scorecard can only be formulated after at least one of the two

first variants has been realized for the core scorecard system. The first step to build up a

Sustainable Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) is always the integration of the strategically relevant

environmental and social aspects into the core BSC. After that, the second step consists in the

formulation of a derived environmental/social scorecard. The first two alternatives of structuring

an SBSC are not mutually exclusive. Given the characteristics of the two alternatives, as outlined

above, it is clear that the difference lies mainly in the characteristics of the strategically relevant

environmental and social aspects. For example, it is straightforward to integrate those

strategically relevant environmental or social aspects that are already in the market system (e.g.

environmental costs). Conversely if environmental and social aspects go beyond the market

environment (e.g. complaints of neighbor groups), then an additional, non-market perspective is

necessary.

3.3 The change in Environmental Corporate Strategy

Companies have been led to consider natural environment as part of their strategic management

by the external pressures coming from public opinion, regulations, green movements and

financial enterprises and by the internal drivers related to the change in employees’ awareness

(Azzone et al., 1997). Academics and practitioners have attempted to improve understanding of

firms’ environmental strategies by characterizing their environmental actions. The corporate

environmental strategy of a firm can be determined by which environmental management areas a

company emphasizes and what level of resources it puts into those chosen areas. These

differences of choice, are shown to be distinctive environmental strategic types. Lee and Rhee

(2007) defined environmental strategy as a firm’s selection of the width and depth of

environmental-friendly practices and activities. The width and the depth of a corporate

environmental strategy are defined as the range of decision areas where environmental issues are

considered, and the degree of environmentally adopted responses, respectively. The

environmental decision areas that firms must consider in their environmental management

include: product, process, organization and systems, supply chain and recovery, and the external

relationship related decision area (Rhee and Lee, 2003).

As the above definition states, a firm’s environmental strategy may differ according to the width

and the depth dimensions. For example, if a company deals with environmental practices in

different areas, its choice is considered wide. Conversely if a company decides to concentrate a

large amount of resources on a single area, its choice is shown to be deep.

22

Lee and Rhee (2007) categorized companies according to their approaches towards environment,

they detected a four-type model for environmental strategies:

- Reactive: Reactive strategies are applied for low levels of environmental responsiveness,

Companies that have this type of strategy often ignore their environmental issues. Their

major concern is the pollution control and compliance with regulations

- Focused: Focused strategies are applied for high levels of environmental management,

companies adopting this strategy decide to focus their efforts in narrow decision areas,

but they usually put many resources in those areas.

- Opportunistic: Opportunistic strategies are applied for a medium level. Companies can be

classified as having an opportunistic strategy if they devote resources to all decision

areas, but do not try to develop their level of environmental management in all decision

areas at the same time.

- Proactive: Proactive strategies are applied to the latest environmental practices, those

companies that have environmental concerns in all management decision areas and

deploy the most advanced environmental practices can be put into the proactive strategic

group.

Most Literature studies on environmental management prove that corporate environmental

strategies change over time. In general, this change has been approached in two ways:

institutional perspectives and resource-based perspectives (Bansal, 2005). The first acts at a

macro level of analysis, in brief it tries to reveal how corporations and societal players build the

consensus around emerging environmental issues and how they develop and diffuse

“environmentally sound” associated concepts or practices (Marshall et al., 2005). The resource-

based view (RBV) is typically used in the field of environmental management to explain the

environmental strategic change. It argues that differences in firms’ behaviors and performance

can be understood from the specific resources and capabilities that they have (e.g. Barney, 1991;

Amit and Schoemaker, 1993).

Lee and Rhee (2007) proposed a new framework (Fig. 30) to explain the environmental strategic

change by integrating the institutional change at a macro-level and resource-based argument at a

firm level. The model has two dimensions:

1. The environmental strategy

23

2. The time

The choice of these two dimensions is given by the fact that companies may adopt different

environmental strategies in different moments, according to their internal corporate factors (Lee

and Rhee, 2005). The time dimension has been included considering the fact that a company can

change its environmental strategic type as time goes on. Based on this framework, the Authors

elaborated two propositions regarding the change in environmental strategy:

P1a. Environmental strategy of firms changes over time

P1b. There is a tendency moving towards a more proactive position in the change of

environmental strategy

Figure 30 - Framework on the change in corporate environmental strategy

In recent decades, the costs of environmental exploitation are growing fast, both on the input

side (i.e. raw materials and energy, because of resource scarcity) and on the output side (the

environment is less and less able to absorb rising emissions). Therefore, a growing attention is

paid to environmental protection, emphasizing the need for orienting the business towards more

sustainable models. The importance of the environment has grown as a strategic variable,

highlighting also opportunities and advantages arising from the implementation of sustainable

strategies. In order to exploit such benefits, the concept of environmental sustainability has to be

fully integrated into the business strategy. In Literature, there are different taxonomies and

classifications of sustainable strategies, one of the most widespread and widely accepted is the

one proposed by Wilson (1975). Wilson identified four possible business models which reflect the

24

ways in which companies address sustainable issues: Reactive, Defensive, Accommodative,

Proactive.

- Reactive: According to this approach, every action undertaken by the firm to reduce the

environmental impact should be implemented only if it means an economic return

(Walton, 1998). The firm perceives the sustainability as a constraint that must be

respected, the implementation of this type of strategy does not require the involvement

of the top management, nor a specific training for the employees. The firm allocates a

limited amount of resource to the implementation of sustainable initiatives; it limits itself

to comply with norms and regulations.

- Defensive: This second approach foresees a limited integration of sustainability in the

business strategy. The defensive behavior is usually the reaction to the costs' constraints,

managers devote few time to the sustainability issues, but compared to the reactive

strategy the firm allocates a higher amount of resources to the environmental

management tasks (Henriques e Sadorsky, 1999). For example, unlike in the reactive

case, in this case there is a piecemeal involvement by the top management and also a

little need for employees' environmental training and involvement. The underlying reason

for the implementation of this strategy is not to reach a competitive advantage through

sustainability, but to comply to the existing rules: for this reason, the defensive strategy is

also called “compliance strategy” (Roome, 1992). Defensive strategy aim to guarantee the

business continuity and the profit generation (Bettis and Prahaland, 1995). The search for

efficiency and the costs reduction are often disclosed to minimize the risk of penalties and

to enhance the company's reputation (Schaltegger et al., 2011).

- Accommodative: This approach implies a significant integration of sustainability into the

firm. It means limited changes to the internal processes, but it considers also the social

and environmental objectives such as: the environmental protection, eco-efficiency and

the employees' health and safety. The environmental management is a worthwhile

function and managers are available to the possibility of an organizational change, thus

some environmental and social trainings are provided to employees. In general,

accommodative strategies integrate environmental and social aspects in the major part of

the business processes, without questioning the profit generation as a company's final

goal of the core business of the company (Schaltegger et al., 2011).

25

- Proactive: This is the higher level of integration of sustainability into the business

strategy. Proactive strategies integrate environmental and social objectives into the firm's

strategy in order to contribute to the sustainable development of the company and of the

society. The core business, all the internal activities and processes and the overall

products range are geared towards a sustainable approach to business. The definitions of

core concepts, such as costs and corporate risks, are modified to integrate possible

negative externalities (i.e. costs and environmental or social impacts). The search for

efficiency, the ability to innovate and the customer's satisfaction are oriented towards

sustainability. According to this approach, sustainability is a source for competitive

advantage and a crucial aspect for the majority of the firm's stakeholders.

While the reactive strategy ignores the environmental and social aspects, only the other three

approaches are useful to analyze the relation between sustainability and business strategy and

integrate the social and environmental objectives into the core business of companies

(Schaltegger et al., 2011).

Handfield et al. (1997) detected six different modes or phases of response to sustainability:

- Resistant adaptation: the typical response of firms to regulation in the period between

1970 and 1985 has been described by Walley and Whitehead (1994) as “resistant

adaptation”. This approach consisted in finding the cheapest way to comply with

environmental regulations and adopting it. Companies characterized by this attitude

towards environmental legislation generally do not internalize sustainability nor develop

business strategies to deal with environmental or social questions. They comply with

regulatory framework just because a noncompliance would mean severe financial

penalties.

- Embracing without innovating: Walley and Whitehead (1994), placed a different line of

thought of response to regulation in the period between 1985 and the early 1990. They

defined it as the period characterized by companies “embracing environmental issues

without innovating”: meaning that organizations were able to achieve significant

improvements in waste management without fundamentally changing the pollution-

generation process.

- Reactice: Winsemius and Guntram (1992) defined the advanced mode of corporations to

respond to environmental issues as “reactive”. It is characterized by minimal efforts to

26

find solutions aimed at treating the waste generated by existing system and little effort to

prevent the waste from occurring. These approach is also often referred to as “end-of-

pipe” (Winsemius and Guntram, 1992; Porter and van der Linde, 1995a) and provides the

company with a sense of social legitimacy (Wood, 1991; Corbett and Van Wassenhove,

1993), but often leads to narrow, incremental solutions (Porter and van der Linde, 1995a).

Usually companies with a reactive mode to sustainable issues don’t recognize the

competitive implications of environmentally-friendly manufacturing aside from penalty

avoidance.

- Receptive: after the release of the Brundtland Report, environmental considerations in

business started gaining importance and being recognized by companies as a source of

competitive advantage (Bonifant et al., 1995; Gupta, 1995; Porter and van der Linde,

1995a; Sarkis and Rasheed, 1995). In 1994 Drnmwright introduced the concept of “policy

entrepreneur” which he defined as a person willing to invest time, energy, money,

reputation, etc., in the hope of future returns such as environmental policy changes and

promotions. This figure is linked to the sustainability context because Drnmwright showed

that policy entrepreneurs often bring a socially responsible vision into the organization

and consequently moves the organization’s response to environmental initiatives away

from reactive compliance towards a more receptive approach (Winsemius and Guntram,

1992).

This stage is characterized by firms integrating environmentally-friendly technologies and

techniques with the currently used systems to optimize the existing manufacturing

process. With this approach the environmentally-friendly practices are coordinated

through line managers or mid-level policy entrepreneur (Winsemius and Guntram, 1992;

Drnmwright, 1994) and it is usually associated with companies willing to move from a

social legitimacy toward public responsibility (Corbett and Van Wassenhove, 1993).

- Constructive: the constructive mode of response to environmental issues has also been

defined as the “competitive environmental approach” by Porter and van der Linde

(1995a). It focuses on the value embodied by the product and the process (Walley and

Whitehead, 1994), and relies upon companies adopting a resource-productivity

framework to maximize benefits attained from environmental initiatives. The efforts in

this stage consists in the cooperation with other members of the organization's industry

with the objective being a quantum leap in environmental measures through radical

27

changes in product or process technology and/or organizational structure (Winsemius and

Guntram, 1992). Most of the current leading companies are currently in this phase (i.e.

3M).

- Proactive: according to this perspective, all principal stakeholders must have an active

role in environmental, and more generally sustainable, management. With this proactive

response to sustainable issues, firms aim at creating a new vision of the organizations’

short and long-term environmental responsibilities. However, still few companies fully

managed to consider environmental concerns as part of quality management. Firms that

have achieved this level of responsiveness to sustainability issues, are those that

successfully internalize environmental challenges and optimize the firm’s processes to

meet customer needs and handle environmental issues (Winsemius and Guntram, 1992;

Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993). It has been suggested that a proactive company will thrive

only when it acts as a whole system that includes not just executives and workers, but

customers, suppliers, and neighbors by integrating total quality environmental

management (TQEM) into its planning and operations processes (Makower, 1994).

3.4 Sustainability as a Strategic Competitive Factor:

Order Winner, Order Qualifier The different approaches introduced in the previous section, show different levels of integration

of sustainability into corporate strategy. For some, sustainability is a strategic competitive factor,

for example, companies adopting a proactive strategy integrate environmental and social

objectives into the firm's strategy, in this way they contribute to the sustainable development of

the company and of the society. Some others, consider sustainability an important characteristic,

but not a strategic one. Firms adopting a receptive behavior, for instance, have this vision of

sustainability. However, there are also firms that still consider sustainability a non-strategic factor,

for example companies embracing a reactive approach towards sustainability correspond to this

description. Companies that consider sustainability a competitive factor, have managed to fully

integrate sustainable aspects into business strategy. The process of how internal operational

capabilities are converted to criteria that may lead to competitive advantage and market success

has been a topic of wide interest for Scholars, but specifically Terry Hill (2000) dealt with this topic

and provide his higher contribution to the Literature by coining the expressions “order winner”

and “order qualifier”.

28

Terry Hill, professor at the London Business School, first coined the expressions “Order winner”

and “Order qualifier”. Hill emphasized how operations people are responsible for providing the

order-winning and order-qualifier criteria, that enable products to win orders in the marketplace.

Thus, according to the Author, the interaction and cooperation between operations and

marketing is crucial for the success of the Company. The operations strategy of a corporation is

shaped by different factors: the increasing need for globalizing products and operations, thus

reducing the unit cost, creating a technology leadership position, introducing new inventions,

taking advantage of mass customization, using supplier partnering and looking for strategic

sourcing solutions.

Terry Hill (2000) argues that the criteria required in the marketplace can be divided into two

groups: order qualifiers and order winners. He defined order qualifier as:

A characteristic of a product or service that is required in order for the product/service to be

considered by a customer (T. Hill, 2000)

And order winner as:

The product’s characteristic that will allow the winning of the bid or will determine the customer’s

purchase (T. Hill, 2000)

Companies must provide the qualifiers to get into or to stay in a market. To do so, they need to be

as good as their competitors, conversely, to provide order winners, firms must outperform their

competitors. Order winners are not necessarily more important than order qualifiers, they are

just two different concepts. Order winners and qualifiers are both market-specific and time-

specific. They act in different ways according to the market of application and the customers

addressed.

In the late 1990s, delivery speed and product customization were frequently considered order

winners, while product quality and price, which previously were often regarded as order winners,

tended to become order qualifiers. Knowing that there are some trends that are not stable over

time, firms need to develop different strategies to support different marketing needs and these

strategies will change over time. It is important that companies study and understand the ways in

which customers behave rather that what they claim, because customers’ stated needs not

always reflect their actual buying habits. If the perception of the firms about order winners and

qualifiers matches the one of the customers, then a “fit” between the two perspectives exists.

When this happens, a positive sales performance is expected. Unfortunately, Sven Horte and

29

Hakan Ylinenpaa published a research in which they stated that for many firms there is a

substantial gap between managers and customers’ opinions regarding the reasons why they did

business together. Researchers concluded that whenever there is a fit between firm’s perception

of the strengths of a product and customer’s perception of the product, a favorable sales

performance came about. By contrast, if customers and the firm have different opinions about

the firm’s competitive strength, then sales performance has shown to be negative.

Hill (2000) provided an order-winners framework to help managers to better comprehend the

evolution of their market and to prioritize the investments and developments to support the

needs (order-winning and qualifying criteria) of current and future markets (Hill, 2000). The

framework assists in the selection of a coherent set of choices in manufacturing strategy, using a

product profiling approach that compares market and manufacturing decisions across multiple

dimensions (Voss, 1995; Bozarth and Berry, 1997). The profiles included in the framework

comprehend aspects of markets (i.e. order winner priorities), products (i.e. product type and

manufacturing and investment (i.e. level of capital investment). Each profile corresponds to one

of the five process choices of project, jobbing, batch, line and continuous processing.

Operations strategy has been defined both by Slack and Lewis (2003) and by Hill (1993) as the

reconciliation of market requirements and operations resources. The market requirements are

expressed in terms of performance objectives categorized into quality, speed, dependability,

flexibility, degree of customization, innovation and cost. These performance objectives constitute

a link between the market determined competitive factors and the operations resources that

influence performance. Hill (1993), through the provision of its order-winning and order-

qualifying framework, offered a way to assess the relative importance of the competitive factors.

The main idea behind the Hill’s approach is that operations parameters must be set in order to fit

a specified level of performance. The Author explained that it is crucial to define the criteria that

are important to customer decision at a business strategy level, otherwise managers will

determine their own standard for the business. According to Hill (1993), order qualifiers are those

criteria that the company must comply with to be considered as a possible supplier. Yet, it is not

sufficient to have a good performance in these criteria to win orders and even exceeding the

threshold limit for these factors is not enough to influence the customer final decision. The order

winner criteria are those that make up the company differentiation in comparison to the

competitors and allow suppliers that hold them to win the orders. The higher a suppliers’ scores

in these factors, the higher the chances of winning the order. Both order qualifiers and order

winners are essential to the business success: companies must guarantee the meeting of the

30

qualifying criteria in order to stay in a market place, while performance in the order winning

criteria is the key to win the customers’ preference. It is crucial that the concepts of order

qualifiers and order winners are periodically reviewed and that marketing and operations

participate in this process, otherwise unrealistic requirements can emerge.

There are also other factors that could affect order winning and qualifying criteria, for example

social and cultural changes contributed to make environmental issues a public concern over the

first decade of the twenty-first century. Medhi Shahbazpour and Rainer Seidel argued that

sustainable and environmentally sensitive practices needed to become an integral part of the

manufacturing process.

Sustainability can be either an order winner or order qualifier. As Shahbazpour and Seidel noted:

whether sustainability is categorized as order winner or order qualifier depends on the specific

market, industry and society the firms operates in.

In Literature, there are several studies confirming that the implementation of a sustainable

strategy and the adoption of a social responsible behavior lead to improve competitiveness

(Menguc, B. and L.K. Ozanne, 2005; Burke, L. and J.M. Logsdon, 1996; Waddock, S.A. and S.B.

Graves,1997). Unfortunately, it is not that easy to find papers in the field of manufacturing

strategy and performance, which include sustainability as one of the competitive manufacturing

objectives. For instance, Brown, S., K. Blackmon (2005) and Leachman, C et al. (2005) in their

publications listed quality, delivery, flexibility, innovation and cost as competitive objectives of the

manufacturing function, but they didn’t pay attention to sustainability.

New C. (1992) divided the manufacturing objectives into hygiene factors and competitive-edge

factors, which are very similar to Hill’s order qualifying and order winning categories. Order

qualifiers and hygiene factors can be both defined as criteria that are fundamental for the

customers to consider the product, while order winners or competitive-edge factors are those

that win the orders. It has been already suggested that sustainability categorization as an order

winner or an order qualifier depends on the specific market, industry and society in which the

firm operates. A manufacturing company located in an environmentally conscious country, will

probably classify sustainability as a hygiene factor, while for a company located in a developing

country, where there is an absence of effective environmental legislation, sustainability will

probably be considered a non-strategic element, or just a strategic move towards differentiation.

Shahbazpour and Seidel (2006), after an accurate Literature review aimed at structuring the

sustainability concept, concluded that sustainability as a manufacturing objective can be a trade-

31

off with other competitive objectives, when and where the relationship between sustainability

and system parameters such as resources, energy, material, waste and emissions is in

contradiction with the relationship between other objectives and these parameters. Even if, in

general, studies facing the issue of sustainability as an order winner or a market qualifier are not

numerous.

An important contribution to the overall Literature has been brought by Wu and Pagell (2010),

when they identified the business model of different organizations emphasizing how each

organization incorporated environmental concerns in strategic decision-making. In particular, the

Authors managed to realize configurations of environmental behaviors, social behaviors and

social strategy and they called them “environmental postures”. The description that the Authors

made of these categories is comparable to the order winner and order qualifier attributes of

sustainability previously described. In total Wu and Pagell (2010) defined four environmental

postures:

1. The environmental first posture: companies laying in this category are motivated by

strong environmental values and drivers for this strong commitment with sustainable

theme are often coming from within the company’s four walls. These organizations, are

able to improve their environmental performance, consequently clients can benefit from

the products’ higher quality and healthier environment. Managers of companies

belonging to this class, are concerned with environment in first place, their firms are able

to differentiate themselves from competitors and they are able to charge price premium.

However, in the environment first posture the social aspect of the triple bottom line is

deemphasized relative to economic and environmental aspects.

2. The equal footing posture: companies corresponding to this target, have always done

sustainable initiatives, their environmental and social efforts directly benefit employees,

suppliers and local communities. For these firms, environmental and social issues are

highly integrated and equally important. Equal footing posture’s companies are willing to

internalize the environmental costs even when not required by regulations, to improve

their employees, suppliers and communities environment. Despite these organizations

are leaders under environmental and social perspectives, they have restrained economic

growth.

3. The opportunity first posture: this posture is quite different from the previous two.

Customers of firms laying in this group are generally concerned about specific attributes

such as: low prices and quality, they are not appreciating sustainability as a value-added.

These companies are environmental leaders only when they can leverage to create

32

economic opportunity, but they are not significantly differentiating themselves from

competitors, for social outcomes.

4. The community first posture: Companies belonging to this group address environmental

issues only to react to threats to their socially sustainable values and branding. An

aggressive communication of their environmental and social initiatives characterizes

these firms. However, not all of their environmental efforts directly benefit customers.

These organizations are social leaders and good environmental performers, but their

reactive behavior towards external threats can be expensive.

33

4 Sustainability in

the Supply Chain

Management

34

4.1 Introduction to Sustainable Supply Chain

Management

In the last decade, the integration of sustainability in the supply chain’s phases has been one of

the crucial issue faced both by academics and practitioners. The reason that encouraged this

recent interest towards sustainability, is largely attributable to the pressures coming from various

stakeholders like for example: government regulators, community activists, non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) and global competition. Notwithstanding this growing attention to the

theme, today the supply chains that we can define entirely sustainable are still rare. Some

companies indeed, are still hesitant to commit to sustainability measures as long as they are not

forced to do so by the law, some others do not take seriously the integration of sustainable

practices into their organization and they are limited to superficial commitments such as including

the motto “Think before you print” in the electronic mail, but actually they do not impose any

compulsory practice.

4.2 Supply Chain Management: a brief overview

All the definitions, the models and the frameworks pertaining to Sustainable Supply Chain

Management derive from the oldest and most affirmed concepts of Supply Chain and Supply

Chain Management. In order to fully understand the following sections, it is necessary to make a

step backwards and have a brief revision of these arguments.

Supply chain can be related to system theory where resources as inputs, transformation as

process through which products and services (outputs) are obtained and delivered to the

customers. And SCM provides an opportunity for organizations to continuously improve the

internal operations and at the same time integrating different suppliers (reducing operating costs)

and customers (increasing customer satisfaction) thereby increasing the profitability of a company

(Chaffey, 2002).

The most widespread and famous version of the definition of Supply Chain (Fig. 31) is the one

provided by Hau L. Lee and Corey Billington in 1995, they identified the SC as

A network of facilities that produce raw materials, transform them into intermediate goods and

then final products, and deliver products to customers through a distribution system

35

Figure 31 – the Supply Chain

The core element of a supply network, or supply chain, is the focal company which is commonly

considered the company governing over the supply chains, providing direct contact to end

customers, and having bargain power over other actors in the supply chain. The network structure

is usually given by the length of the chain, which is represented by the number of tiers across the

supply chain, the width that is the number of suppliers/customers represented within each tier

and the company’s position within the supply chain. These are the so-called three structural

dimensions of the supply chain (Fig. 32).

Figure 32 - Supply Network Structure (Sianesi & Spina, 2010)

Further to the definition coined by Hau L. Lee and Corey Billington, in Literature there are several

papers reporting different versions of the supply chain concept. For instance, according to La

Londe and Masters (1994), a set of firms that pass materials forward […] raw material and

component producers, product assemblers, wholesalers, retailer merchants and transportation

companies are all members of a supply chain. Similarly, Christopher (1992) defined the supply

chain as a network of organizations that are involved, through upstream and downstream

36

linkages, in the different processes and activities that produce value in the form of products and

services delivered to the ultimate consumer. While for Mentzer et al. (2001) the SC is a set of

entities (organizations and individuals) directly involved in the upstream and downstream flows of

products, services, finances, and/or information from a source to a customer. Chopra and Meindl

(2007) defined a supply chain as all parties involved in fulfilling a customer order. This last

definition stresses the fact that more than one decision maker is involved in managing resources,

information, and/or processes that may not be entirely under the control of their company.

Finally, Chen and Paulraj (2004) affirmed that supply chain is basically the combination of three

elements: (i) supply: the information about raw materials are supplied to the focal company, (ii)

manufacturing: the raw materials are transformed into finished goods, (iii) distribution: the

finished goods are delivered to customers through sequence of network such as distributors,

warehouses and retailers.

The activities occurring between the focal company and the suppliers are usually referred to as

upstream supply chain or buy-side commerce. The transactions that are carried out between the

organization and the end-customers are termed as downstream supply chain or sell-side

commerce (Chaffey, 2002). For many years, organizations only paid attention to what was

happening within their “four walls”, but since globalization has become a real issue encompassing

all the supply chain’s phases, companies realized that the firm was no longer a stand-alone entity,

but it was part of a network of interconnected firms.

Therefore, in the early 1980s the idea of Supply Chain Management began to take shape. Since

then, it has been used to describe the planning and control of materials, information flows, and

the logistics activities internally within a company and externally between companies (Cooper et

al., 1997). Initially, SCM focused on material flows. More recent researches emphasize additional

aspects of SCM, such as risk (Colicchia and Strozzi, 2012), performance (Hassini et al., 2012), and

integration (Fabbe-Costes and Jahre, 2007). There is also a growing emphasis on information

flows, internal and external networks of relationships (Stock et al., 2010), and governance of

supply networks (Pilbeam et al., 2012).

SCM boundaries are not limited to suppliers and buyers but also include the supplier’s supplier

and the buyer’s buyer which are respectively referred to as second-tier supplier and second-tier

customer. On the upstream side, the purchasing and supply management activities refer to the

involvement of suppliers in transactions with the core company. On the demand side, physical

distribution management regard the distribution of goods to the immediate customers, while

37

logistics refers to the whole distribution. Materials management refers to the flow of materials

through the immediate supply chain (Slack, Chambers, & Johnston, Operations Management,

2004).

According to WiseGeek (2010), the role of Supply Chain Management is to manage the three

flows of operations: product flow regards the movement of goods from suppliers to customers

and customer service maintenance, information flow includes ordering and delivering

information, financial flow involves payment and credit terms. Handfield RB, Nichols EL. in 1999

gave their interpretation of the Supply Chain Management starting from the concept of supply

chain, they stated that the supply chain encompasses all activities associated with the flow and

transformation of goods from raw materials stage (extraction), through to the end user, as well as

the associated information flows. Material and information flow both up and down the supply

chain. Supply chain management (SCM) is the integration of these activities through improved

supply chain relationships to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The concept of Supply

chain management has been defined by Mentzer et al. (2002) as the systemic, strategic

coordination of the traditional business functions and the tactics across these business functions

within a particular company and across businesses within the supply chain, for the purposes of

improving the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply chain as a

whole and by Lambert et al. (2006) as, the integration of key business processes from end-user

through original suppliers, that provides products, services, and information that add value for

customers and other stakeholders.

As one can see, the growing interest towards SCM has led to a proliferation of conceptual

definitions. In the following table (Table 8) is reported the summary of representative definitions

of SCM performed by Payman A. et al. in 2013 during their broad analysis of the Literature.

38

Table 8 - Representative definitions of supply chain management (Payman A. et al., 2013)

From the definitions represented in the previous table, it appears that supply chain management

is primarily focused on managing flows of materials, services and information. It is clear that, to

correctly manage all these activities, it is necessary that all the firms belonging to the chain

cooperate and coordinate themselves. Furthermore, many definitions of SCM put emphasis on

the need to meet the stakeholders’ requirements, especially those expressed by customers, and

on the need to correctly manage both internal and external relationships. The key outcomes of all

the activities composing the supply chain are to create value, improve efficiency, and improve

overall performance.

Anyway, the official definition of SCM is commonly considered the one provided by the Supply

Chain Council who defined Supply Chain Management as follows

39

Managing supply and demand, sourcing raw materials and parts, manufacturing and assembly,

warehousing and inventory tracking, order entry and order management, distribution across all

channels, and delivery to the customer

4.3 Sustainable Supply Chain Management Definition Changes in external environment and the growing globalization, have led a mutation in the field

of sustainability research, indeed Scholars started to look for the optimization of the entire supply

chain rather than focusing on the single organization. Moreover, as already mentioned before,

sustainability has become a lasting movement that impact on both products manufacturers,

suppliers and customers. Since sustainability has become a global concern, organizations have

started to renovate their traditional supply chain operations taking into consideration the

environmental and social impacts of their supply chains (N. Capaldi, 2005; A. Chaabane et al.,

2012). This has led to a rise of academic interest towards new concepts linking sustainability and

SCM such as Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) and Sustainable Supply Chain

Management (SSCM) (A. Ashby et al., 2012). In their comparative literature analysis of definitions

for green and sustainable supply chain management, P. Ahi and C. Searcy (2013) found that the

integration sustainability into SCM began by focusing on merging “green” considerations with

SCM practices. Thus, SSCM can be considered an extension of the GSCM concept.

The concept of Sustainable Supply Chain Management has become of central relevance in the last

twenty years, especially due to the increasing concern for the scarcity of the non-renewable

resources and the social issues affecting the modern supply chains. In Literature, there are many

studies dealing with this issue and many Academics tried to define the Sustainable Supply Chain

concept.

According to Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), SSCM is the integration of sustainable development and

supply chain management, whereby sustainable development is often described as containing

three dimensions–integrating and economic issues for human development–which also affects

the corporate strategy and action. Carter and Rogers (2008) defined SSCM as “the strategic,

transparent integration and achievement of an organization’s social, environmental, and

economic goals through the systemic coordination of key inter organizational business processes

for improving the long-term economic performance of the individual company and its supply

chain”. Still in 2008, S. Seuring and M. Müller referred to SSCM as “the management of material,

information and capital flows as well as cooperation among companies along the supply chain

while taking into accounts goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development such as

40

economic, environmental and social, which are derived from customer and stakeholder

requirements”.

Despite the theme of SSCM is fairly new, it has grown rapidly over the last years, consequently the

available definitions of the term have multiplied quickly. In 2013 Payman Ahi and Cory identified

12 unique definitions for Sustainable Supply Chain Management. A summary of the definitions

detected by the Authors is provided in the following table (Table 9). Some of the reported

definitions present differences from the statement of Carter and Rogers (2008) and Seuring and

Muller (2008), for example Ciliberti et al. (2008) proposed a simpler version of sustainable supply

chain management and identify it as “the management of the supply chain where all the three

dimensions of sustainability, namely: economic, environmental and social ones are taken into

account”. Wolf (2011) focused more on the collaboration among supply chain players and defined

SSC as “the degree to which a manufacturer strategically collaborates with its supply chain

partners and collaboratively manages intra and inter-organization processes for sustainability”.

Teuteberg and Wittstruck (2011) proposed a straightforward definition of sustainable supply

chain as “an extension to the traditional concept of supply chain management by adding

environmental and social/ethical aspects”.

41

Table 9 - Definitions of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) (Payman Ahi and Cory, 2013)

Teuteberg and Wittstruck (2010) proposed the ‘‘House of Sustainable Supply Chain’’ (Fig. 33),

built on the three dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line, which are viewed as the key pillars

necessary to keep the building in balance whereas risk and compliance management form the

building’s foundation. SSCM also requires the establishment of values and ethics throughout the

organization, an efficient and flexible ‘‘green’’ IT environment as well as the alignment of

corporate strategy focusing on sustainable development. By taking these measures, it will

effectively protect the network against environmental and social threats and risks.

42

Figure 33 - ‘‘House of Sustainable Supply Chain, Teuteberg and Wittstruck (2010)’’

4.4 Drivers to the development of a Sustainable

Supply Chain Management

Many studies have tried to provide an extensive analysis of the drivers for the implementation of

SSCM, Bansal and Roth (2000), for example, listed three motivating factors for firms to take on

ecologically responsive initiatives: (i) Legitimization, meaning the desire to comply with existing

set of regulations, norms and values, (ii) Moral responsibility, the desire to respect the economic,

social and natural environments surrounding the firms and (iii) Competitiveness, the desire to

build a competitive advantage thanks to sustainability.

In 1998, Reinhardt observed that environmental quality could only be ensured through

governmental regulation as it is a public good, thus companies were not available to spend more

resources than what required by the law to improve their environmental performance. The main

goal of companies was, and still is, the maximization of economic profit, but, until recently, the

implementation of green practices was often not just a matter of choice because it was required

by the law. Today, sustainability is no longer seen just as a requirement imposed by national

legislation, but it is considered a competitive factor from a growing number of firms. Modern

consumers are increasingly becoming aware of their purchasing decisions, in particular they are

encouraged to act responsibly by the recent rising environmental concerns. In response, firms are

gradually implementing measures in order to offer green substitutes for traditional products and

43

services. Nonetheless, the transition towards Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) is

not straightforward since organizations will face on one hand many driving factors that will lead

them towards a sustainable management approach, but on the other hand they will also meet

obstacles that will hinder their road to sustainability.

When a company decides to go green, it should consider the conflicts of diverse stakeholders such

as: customers, employees, suppliers, regulators, governmental agencies and stockholders and

their reactions to green initiatives. Each of these actors establishes conflicting priorities for

management’s policies, high return on investments, high quality products and prolonged

profitability (S. Feldman, 1997). Thus, organizations face barriers and drivers to Sustainable Supply

Chain Management (S. Seuring and M. Müller, 2008), and these can be either internal or external

challenges to the organization (A. Hervani et al., 2005; H. Walker et al. 2008). The main worries of

Management concern the fact that green initiatives could reduce profitability at the expense of

actual environmental performance (N. Ahmed, 2003). On the other hand, Managers’ commitment

to environmental investments in greener markets will provide the firm with the innovation to gain

a competitive advantage quickly (N. Ahmed, 2003).

The reasons that lead a firm to engage in a SSCM are various, some firms could be driven from

within by their top management to engage in sustainable supply issues, while others could

respond reactively to external influences such as stakeholder pressures or customer requirements

(H. Walker and N. Jones, 2012). When the incentives to engage in a SSCM come from within the

company, they are usually indicated as internal drivers. Top management commitment and a

supportive culture (C. R. Carter and M. Jennings, 2004; A. Hughes, 2005) are an example of the

most challenging internal drivers, according to M. D. Hanna et al. (2000), also the involvement of

employees is beneficial, including middle management. The adoption of an Environmental

Management System (EMS) is another way to promote the adoption of a SSCM (C. C. Chen, 2005;

R. Handfield et al., 2005). External drivers come from a range of stakeholders: for example, large

customers may influence smaller suppliers to meet SSCM practices (J. Hall,2001; J. Hall, 2000; S.

Walton, 1998), and exert pressure in the supply chain (R. Handfield et al., 1997). Pressures coming

from governments, NGOs and regulations are some of the most cited external drivers in Literature

(M. Forman and J. Sogaard, 2004; L. Preuss, 2007; C. R. Carter and L. M. Ellram, 1998; J. D. Linton

et al., 2007).

Trowbridge (2001) identified two main classes of drivers for the implementation of a green supply

chain in the chip manufacturing industry: internal and external drivers. According to Trowbridge,

44

internal drivers include the willingness to improve risk management due to potential interruptions

in the supply chain, and the collaboration with suppliers to find alternative materials and

equipment that minimize environmental impacts. Conversely external drivers include customers,

investors and non-governmental organizations. Bowen et al. (2001b) indicated some other drivers

for implementing a sustainable supply policy, such as strategic purchasing and supply, corporate

environmental proactivity and supply management capabilities. The implementation of green

initiatives for a company is surely an expensive cost that involves all the firm’s levels (S. Hussain,

1999). Thus, environmentally conscious consumers and companies have to be more willing to pay

premium price for green alternatives (M. Laroche et al., 2001). Walker et al. (2008), after an

accurate review of the Literature and referring to interviews conducted at seven different private

and public sector organizations, identified which are the factors that drive or hinder organizations

to implement green management initiatives along the supply chain. These include internal drivers

such as organizational factors, and external drivers such as regulations, customers, competitors,

society and suppliers. Lee (2008) identified the main drivers for companies to participate in GSCM

practices as buyer influence, government involvement and green supply chain (GSC) readiness.

Wee and Quazi (2005) identified seven critical factors in their research into environmental

management: top management commitment; total involvement of employees; training; green

products/process design; supplier management; measurement; and information management.

Rao and Holt (2005) observed that acting on different phases of the supply chain to integrate

green initiatives, can lead to the development of an integrated green supply chain, which in turn

leads to competitiveness and better economical and operational performance.

Figure 34 - Green supply management chain (Holt & Ghobadian, 2009)

In recent decades, the public concern regarding the environmental question has drastically

increased, consequently the customer’s purchasing decision has been more and more influenced

by the company’s environmental reputation (Drumwright,1994). Consumers are asking for more

45

environmentally friendly and social conscious products (Handfield et al., 1997). Together with

customers, also competitors represent a huge incentive for companies to undertake sustainable

initiatives. Competitors, indeed, may be able to influence governmental regulators and lead their

decision on norms and/or legal mandates, consequently they also have the power to drive

environmental innovation (Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999). Thus, having a proactive

environmental strategy, can help firms to gain competitive advantage through the development

of supply management capabilities (Ferguson and Toktay, 2006; Sarkis, 2003; Sharma and

Vredenburg, 1998). Activist campaigners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and green

pressure groups are also contributing to pushing firms to review their environmental supply

practices (Hall, 2001; Trowbridge, 2001; C. R. Carter and L. M. Ellram, 1998; P. Teuscher et al.,

2006; I. Maignan, 2002). Finally, increased environmental awareness could represent also an

opportunity for companies to win new customers by dealing in an exemplary way with

environmental issues.

Walker et al. (2008) listed also suppliers among the external driving factors for the development

of environmental supply chain management practices. In past studies, suppliers have generally

never been considered as driving forces (Carter and Dresner, 2001), this might be due to the lack

of previous empirical resources or to the fact that suppliers actually do not contribute to the

environmental supply practices development. However, it has been proved that collaboration

among supply chain members can support a more effective environmental management and can

enhance a correct implementation of SSCM (Klassen and Vachon, 2003; Theyel, 2001; Vachon and

Klassen, 2006; S. Seuring and M. Müller, 2007; K. Verghese and H. Lewis, 2007). It was found that

greater supply chain integration can benefit environment management in operations. As the

supply base was reduced, the extent of environmental collaboration with primary suppliers

increased.

Finally, in his list of external drivers, Trowbridge (2001) included customers, investors and non-

governmental organizations. Lee (2008) identified the main drivers for companies to participate in

GSCM practices as buyer influence, government involvement and green supply chain readiness.

Wee and Quazi (2005) indicated seven critical factors in their research into environmental

management: top management commitment, total involvement of employees, training, green

products/process design, supplier management, measurement and information management.

46

4.5 Barriers to the development of a Sustainable

Supply Chain Management

The aspects which are more frequently mentioned in Literature as barriers for the

implementation of a sustainable supply chain are three: (i) Higher costs, (ii) Coordination effort

and complexity, (iii) Insufficient or missing communication in the supply chain. Unfortunately,

these are some of the obstacles that an organization can face when developing SSCM.

In his study on the small and medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain initiatives, S. Y. Lee

(2008) makes a clear distinction between firms of different size. In general size is one of the most

important firm’s characteristics that influences the adoption of green initiatives, for instance it is

more likely that large firms engage in SSCM because they are more structured and they have

larger availability of resources. S. Y. Lee (2008) found that firm size is an influence factor for firm

to practice on SSCM, the bigger the size the more the firm is willing to participate in green supply

chain initiatives. Likewise for drivers, also for barriers it is necessary to distinguish between those

that are coming from within the company (internal barriers) and those that are coming from the

external environment (external barriers). Internal barriers include for example lack of supportive

corporate structures and processes (H. Walker et al., 2008; S. Seuring, 2008), lack of management

commitment (H. Min and W. P. Galle, 2001; C. R. Carter and M. Dresner, 2001) and the reliance on

traditional accounting methods, which do not facilitate reporting on the triple bottom line (P. Rao

and D. Holt, 2005). Walker et al. (2008), identified the barriers to the development of a

sustainable supply chain, the internal barriers they identified are for example cost and lack of

legitimacy, as well as external barriers such as regulation, poor supplier commitment and industry

specific barriers.

Considering then the purchasing and supply functions, SSC implementation can be hindered by

the lack of training (F. E. Bowen et al., 2001) or having other SCM priorities (V. Tummala, 2006).

Many firms believe that a greater commitment to environmental programs increases total

purchasing costs and subsequently decreases their competitiveness. Consequently, the strong

involvement of a firm in environmental initiatives results in added costs, which put the firm at an

economic disadvantage if compared to other less environmentally responsible firms (H. Min and

W. P. Galle, 2001). Green purchasing is one of the most sophisticated green practices that a

Company can adopt, indeed green purchasing may reduce the pool of qualified suppliers due to

the stricter environmental quality standards (H. Min and W. P. Galle, 2001).

47

The external barriers generally correspond to the pressures coming from the firm’s external

stakeholders. Customers may make demands for lower prices, which generally collide with the

possibility to provide greener substitutes to products and services (R. J. Orsato, 2006). R. W.

Cooper et al. (2000) indicated the competitive pressure as one of the factor that could hinder the

development of SSCM, but also other factors could inhibit the attractiveness of environmental

management such as governmental regulation (Q. Zhu and J. Sarkis, 2006), lack of commitment

amongst suppliers (H. Walker, 2008; I. Wycherley, 1999) and industry type (H. Min and W. P.

Galle, 2001; Q. Zhu and J. Sarkis, 2006).

4.6 Implementation of a Sustainable Supply Chain (a

framework of SSCM) Companies today are more than ever forced to rethink their strategies to ensure the sustainability

of their operations due to the growing constraints relatively to the availability of non-renewable

resources. One of the most widespread way for integrating sustainability in the supply chain, is

the development of a closed-loop supply chain (Lieckens and Vandaele, 2007; Barker and

Zabinsky, 2008; Srivastava, 2008; Pochampally et al., 2009), but there are also other means such

as: product design (Hugo and Pistikopoulos, 2005), production planning and control for

remanufacturing (Jayaraman et al., 1999; Luo et al., 2001), inventory management (Ferretti et al.,

2007), product recovery (Jayaraman 2006), reverse logistics (Sheu et al., 2005; Sheu, 2008) and

carbon emissions reduction (Ramudhin et al., 2008). These actions, however, may guarantee only

a short-term sustainability and in some cases, could also lead to an increase in the operating costs

and in greenhouses gases emissions (GHG) which threaten long-term sustainability.

Since sustainable development has been recognized as a global issue, the need for an integrated

approach that links supply chain decisions to the three pillars of sustainability has been

advocated. Over the course of time there have been many attempts to develop a model able to

integrate social, environmental and economic aspects in the supply chain processes, for instance

Hugo and Pistikopoulos (2005) developed a mathematical programming-based methodology with

explicit inclusion of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) criteria as part of the strategic investment

decisions related to the design and planning of supply chain network. Nagurney et al. (2006)

presented a model in which manufacturers can produce homogenous products in different

manufacturing plants with different environmental emissions. Frota Neto et al. (2008) invented a

framework for designing and evaluating sustainable logistic networks where activities affecting

the environment and cost efficiency in logistic networks are considered. Guillen-Gosalbez and

48

Grossmann (2009) developed a supply chain network design model able to define the supply

chain configuration maximizing the net present value and minimizing the environmental impact.

Subramanian et al. (2008) proposed a non-linear mathematical programming model for the

integration of environmental consideration in the managerial decision making process. The model

allows the incorporation of traditional operations planning considerations (capacity, production

and inventory) with environmental considerations (design, production and end-of-life).

The complete integration of sustainability in the company’s processes occurs when an

organization explicitly and comprehensively incorporate social, environmental and economic

goals in developing strategic vision and long-term strategic objectives. As specified by Craig R.

Carter and Dale S. Rogers (2008), environmental and social aspects of sustainability can extend

beyond an organization’s boundary to include supply chain activities. Integrating social and

environmental objectives together with the economic objectives into corporate strategy, can

actually create a long-lasting and less imitable set of process.

Author stated that companies able to maximize all the three aspects of sustainability are able to

outperform companies that are focused just on the maximization of economic goal or

organizations that are very much concerned with the achievement of social and environmental

goals, but do not care about economic performance. Consequently, the Authors concluded that

the highest level of economic performance will occur at the intersection of environmental, social

and economic performance.

By combining four distinct, but complementary disciplines: resource dependence theory,

transaction cost economics, population ecology and the resource-based view of the firm, Craig R.

Carter and Dale S. Rogers (2008) realized a theoretical framework to frame the Sustainable Supply

Chain Management issue. The population ecology perspective affirms that the limited availability

of environmental resources could constrain populations (Hannan and Freeman, 1977), thus if

firms want to survive they must control limited environmental resources. The resource

dependence perspective asserts that the organizational capability to survive depends on the

maximization of the power through the acquisition of scarce and valuable resources in a stable

and low-cost way (Pfeffer and Salancik,1978). Transaction cost theory claim that companies

attempt to acquire resources in a low cost and stable manner (Williamson, 1975). Pfeffer and

Salancik argue that as dependence on resources rises, firms should attempt to increase vertical

coordination.

49

There is then a correlation between resource dependence and vertical integration. This implies

that the more a firm uses scarce and valued resources in its production process, the more it will

collaborate with other supply chain’s members to acquire access to strategic suppliers or by

forming partnerships and strategic alliances.

Collaboration activities and strategic partnership to improve environmental and social aspects of

suppliers are time-consuming operations. However, when correctly implemented, these activities

can lead to a strong positive impact of suppliers’ performance and can reduce operating costs in

supply chain relationship (Carter, 2005). Supply chains that fully integrate social and

environmental aspects in their activities are also more difficult to copy, especially if suppliers

decide to make asset-specific investments to engage the customer in the design for disassembly

and reuse activities (Carter and Carter, 1998) or if they decide share strategic information and

consequently build a strong reliable relationship with the focal company (Gulati, 1999).

Transaction costs within an organization could derive from a wrong behavior of the components.

Consequently, regulations and written requirements should be spread among suppliers’ members

to minimize the threat of opportunism behavior Transaction cost theory, differently from

transaction cost economics, focuses on more arms-length relationships (Rindfleisch and Heide,

1997).

Speaking in general terms, not only referred to the sustainability integration issue, inertia is the

main reasons why companies fail to adapt to new situations. Inertia can be generated from the

inside (i.e. sunk costs, communication structures, internal politics and institutional norms) as well

as from external factors (i.e. barriers to entry and exit, bounded rationality and social legitimacy).

4.7 Strategies for the development of Sustainable

Supply Chain Management The correct way to develop a Sustainable Supply Chain has been one of the crucial topics faced by

Scholars in the last years: in Literature, indeed, one can find various papers dealing with this issue

offering solutions for the implementation of SSCM. In 2008 Seuring and Muller identified two

main strategies for the development of a sustainable supply chain: “Supplier management for risk

and performance” and “Supply chain management for sustainable products”.

- Supplier management for risk and performance: the growing international competition

and the increasing pressures coming from external environment and from within the four

walls of the company, have pushed firms to introduce supplier evaluation schemes which

50

integrate environmental and social criteria besides the traditional supply chain’s criteria

(Trowbridge P., 2001; Koplin J et al., 2007; Beske P et al., 2008). One typical measure

introduced by companies is for example the supplier self evaluation (Trowbridge P., 2001)

through which suppliers have to declare how they deal with environmental and social

issues. The adoption of this initiative can bring to a double benefit: on one hand, it avoids

risk which can be related to the three dimensions of sustainability (Michelsen O et al.,

2005; Cousins PD et al., 2004; Teuscher P et al., 2006). On the other hand, the

implementation of a supplier self evaluation can improve the overall supply chain

performance, where frequently the focus is on the relation between environmental and

economic performance (Green K, et al., 1998; King AA, Lenox MJ., 2001; Rao P, Holt D.,

2005; Zhu Q et al., 2005; Hervani AA et al., 2005; Vachon S, 2006; Vachon S., 2007;

Yakoleva N., 2007). As a result of a Literature review, Seuring and Muller found that, if

environmental and social performances are set as prerequisites by the focal company for

suppliers to operate as part of the supply chain, this guarantee that the suppliers act

according to set standards (Lamming RC, Hampson JP,1996; Min H, Galle WP., 2001;

Cousins PD et al., 2004; Seuring S et al., 2004). Therefore, they can be comprehended as

order qualifiers (Hill T., 2000), while orders are won based on economic performance, i.e.

the third dimension of sustainability.

- Supply chain management for sustainable products: with the expression “sustainable

products”, the Authors meant all kinds of products that have or aim at improving

environmental and social quality, which can be related back to the already mentioned

implementation of environmental and social standards. One of the most reliable method

for the definition of product related requirement is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), the

diffusion of this tool has lead to the gradual evolution of a parallel line of research called

life-cycle management (Seuring S., 2004). Once again, the focal company is asked to

develop joint initiative with suppliers to implement a product based green supply (Bowen

FE et al., 2001), thus cooperation with suppliers became a crucial activity which is not

limited to the first-tier suppliers, but it extends also to the second-tier suppliers (Frohlich

M, Westbrook R., 2001). This strategy considers the quality of the product and the

performance of the operational process a crucial issue, so the complete supply chain,

from raw materials to final customers, has to be integrated (Meyer A, Hohmann P., 2000;

Seuring S., 2001; Kogg B.,2003; Goldbach M et al., 2003; Seuring S., 2004; Preuss L., 2005).

51

The two strategies are not mutually exclusive, they are two different, distinguishable approaches,

their relation to each other might be called ambivalent, thereby opposing but also supporting

each other at the same time. In conclusion, the Authors observed that, when companies start to

offer environmentally improved and socially sound products in their product lines, they

experience the need to monitor the environmental and social performance of suppliers (Handfield

R et al., 2004). Conversely, companies starting with supplier development initiatives for risk

minimization (Min H, Galle WP., 2001; Cousins PD et al., 2004; Mamic I., 2005) might then see

opportunities for further win-win-win situations, and look at product performance as well.

Seuring (2013), by analyzing the Literature on the models for the implementation of SSCM,

intuitively grouped the models into four categories: Life-cycle assessment based models,

Equilibrium models, Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) and applications of the analytical

hierarchy process (AHP) (Table 10).

Table 10 - Grouping papers according to modeling techniques (Seuring, 2013)

- Life-cycle assessment (LCA) based models: the final goal of these type of studies is the

elimination or the minimization of the environmental impact along all the product’s life

cycle. In previous studies, Pesonen (2001) already dypointed the use of life-cycle

assessment based criteria in supply chains. Going beyond the Pesonen analysis, Seuring

(2004) elaborated that LCA-based criteria usually provide the product optimization

perspective which precedes the supply chain optimization.

52

- Equilibrium models: are standard modeling techniques (A. Nagurney et al., 2002) and

they are already well established models. The equilibrium would be established by

assessing what the optimal level of investment into environmental (abatement)

technologies and respective economic returns would be. In other words, the final aim of

equilibrium models is to balance economic performance and environmental performance.

- Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM): the basic idea behind these type of studies is to

meet at the same time different objectives, which makes the point for such multi-criteria

decision making approaches (H. Min, G. Zhou, 2002). Unlike the previously presented

models, the MCDM focuses not so much on reaching an equilibrium situation between

economic and environmental objectives, but it rather deals with trade-offs among

conflicting objectives.

- Analytical hierarchy process (AHP): this last category of models includes both

contributions coming from LCA-data analysis and from the multi-objective decision

making techniques (T.L. Saaty, 1990). The distinctive feature is that AHP is not a full

mathematical model, but it is rather a semi-quantitative decision making technique

simplifying and structuring decisions (T.L. Saaty, 1990; W. Ho, 2008). The analytical

hierarchy process allows the evaluation of both complex decision situations where

environmental and economic goals are assessed and more specialized decisions i.e.

looking at the role of hazardous substance management (C.-W. Hsu, A.H. Hu, 2009) or

green supplier selection (G. Noci, 1997, L.Y.Y. Lu et al., 2007; S.S. Lin, Y.S. Juang, 2008) and

supplier development practices (C. Bai, J. Sarkis, 2010; C. Bai et al., 2010). The aim of AHP

is basically to focus on the complexity of decision making and emphasize the influence of

the decision makers.

These are just two examples of studies deepening the topic of strategies for the development of

SSCM, but in Literature it is possible to find many other papers exposing different theories:

according to Wu e Pagell (2009), the fundamental element that companies should consider in

developing their Sustainable Supply Chain is innovativeness. This element, indeed, allows

companies to integrate sustainability in the everyday decisions and improves the suppliers’

relationships. Finally, Ageron et al. (2012) developed a model for the implementation of SSCM

based on seven building blocks: reasons for sustainability in supply management, criteria

employed for SSM, greening supply chains, characteristics of suppliers, techniques for SSM,

barriers for SSM, and benefits of SSM.

53

4.8 Benefits and Drawbacks of implementing a

Sustainable Supply Chain Starting from the very basic concept of Triple Bottom Line, which sees the interrelations of three

pillars: environmental, social and economic, Carter and Rogers (2008) highlighted the fact that the

final goal of a company is the maximization of the economic profit, thus the social and

environmental dimensions of SSCM must be undertaken with a clear and explicit recognition of

the priority of the firm’s economic goals. However, these undertakings would be socially

irresponsible unless considered within the broader context of a firm’s overall strategic and

financial objectives (Porter and Kramer, 2002). Thus, the Authors placed a figurative question

mark on the intersection between social and environmental aspects. By this act, they aimed at

questioning the goodness of the relationships that link social and environmental components, but

omits the economic side of the triple bottom line (Fig. 35).

Figure 35 - Sustainable supply chain Management (Craig R. Carter and Dale S. Rogers, 2008)

There are of course many challenges to the implementation of sustainability. Carter and Rogers

(2008) identified some of the factors that hinder the development of SSCM. Companies

undertaking actions to improve all the three areas of sustainability may face a period of hard,

long-term investment commitments in which conventional and environmental criteria are not in

harmony (Gray, 1994), but the more energy costs and pressures from customers rise, the more

these projects become economically viable. The Authors offered an alternative perspective of

environmental and social issues, differently from the traditional visions, indeed, Carter and Roger

suggested that there are a variety of environmental and social issues that a firm can undertake

54

which can both improve as well as harm the economic bottom line. The activities thta can harm or

at least not help the economic bottom line are represented in Fig. 35 by the areas that do not

overlap with economic performance. Finally, companies implementing SSCM should keep in mind

that environmental and social initiatives could fail, as traditional business activities do (i.e.

marketing, R&D, new product development).

Conversely the activities lying at the intersection with the economic bottom line are the ones that

could be defined sustainable. The potential economic benefits coming from the intersections of

economic with social and/or environmental performance include for example cost savings due to

reduced packaging waste (Mollenkopf et al., 2005; Rosenau et al., 1996), and the ability to design

for reuse and disassembly (Christmann,2000; Hart, 1995; Shrivastava, 1995c). Also reduced health

and safety costs, lower recruitment and labor turnover costs resulting from safer warehousing

and transportation and better working conditions can be results of a correct integration of

sustainability in the supply chain activities (Brown, 1996; Carter et al., 2007). Improve the working

conditions of employees could lead to an increased motivation and productivity and thus to a

reduction of labor costs and of the absenteeism rate of supply chain personnel (Holmes et al.,

1996; McElroy et al., 1993). Moreover, companies that try to have a proactive behavior towards

environmental and social issues, could inspire government regulators to shape future regulations

on the base of company’s existing production and supply chain processes, leading to a difficult-to-

replicate competitive advantage for companies and their suppliers (Carter and Dresner, 2001).

Different studies proved that the implementation of ISO 14000 standards and the subsequent

installation of an Environmental Management System, can lead to reduced costs, shorter lead

times and better product qualify (Hanson et al., 2004; Montabon et al., 2000; Tibor and Feldman,

1996). For what concern the relationships with the other members of the supply chain, the

adoption of sustainable initiatives can enhance the reputation of the company in the eyes of

suppliers, customers, potential employees and shareholders (Ellen et al., 2006, Capaldi, 2005,

Klassen and McLaughlin, 1996).

The conclusion drawn by Carter and Rogers (2008) is that the proportion of environmental and

social initiatives which result in enhanced economic performance is relatively large, but it is

important to remember that true sustainable activities are only those lying at the intersection of

all the three areas of the Triple Bottom Line: environmental, social and economic. Moreover,

organizations that truly want to integrate sustainability in their corporate processes, should

explicitly and comprehensively incorporate social, environmental and economic goals in the

development of their strategic vision and long-term strategic objectives.

55

5 The Sustainability

along the

Furniture Supply

Chain

56

5.1 Introduction In 2000 the worldwide wooden furniture market was estimated at US 45 billion based on

manufacturer’s selling price (MSP). This, however, is just a small portion of the global trade of

primary processed wood products such as: round-wood, sawn wood, wood-based panels pulp and

paper, which stands at about US 240 billion per annum. Badanelli (1997) and Volpe (1997)

forecasted an annual growth of the 2% for the furniture industry, however, being furniture a non-

essential item, it is likely that furniture sales will be among the first to be affected during an

economic downturn.

USA and Japan are the two largest furniture markets, accounting to 37% of the global trade.

However, their domestic furniture manufacturing bases are not as competitive as their

counterparts in the emerging economies such as: Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America (Smith

and West 1990). The pull factor created by these consumer economies and the push factor from

the vast manufacturing base of the emerging economies, have created a vibrant furniture trade as

it is clearly demonstrated by the growing exports of furniture from Asia.

A peculiarity of the furniture industry is that products are sold on a perceived value rather than on

an actual value. As a merchandise, the perception of a furnishing product is determined by its

aesthetic appeal, functionality and durability (Bennington 1985). However, today the perceived

value of goods is also very much dependent on the aspects of design and of a sympathetic use of

material. Customers in the furniture industry are concerned by the growing worldwide

environmental concerns and consequently they are pushed to modify their purchasing habits

(Ozanne and Smith 1996). If previously the furniture purchasing decision was determined by price

and quality, today customers also consider other elements such as: feel-good factor, pride of

ownership and environmental aspects.

57

Figure 36 - Contributions of three major product categories to environmental pressures in the EU25,

based on data from the EC EIPRO study (EC, 2006).

Furniture industry is a labor-intensive sector primarily dominated by small and medium-sized

enterprises (SMEs) and micro firms. It can be easily classified also as a dynamic sector; indeed, the

furniture industry can combine new technologies and innovation with cultural heritage and style,

and provides jobs for highly skilled workers. Traditionally furniture industry includes both craft-

based firms and large volume producers. With the advent of flat-pack or ready to assemble

designed furniture, mass producing furniture became a viable manufacturing strategy. The

furniture industry can be divided into four main product groups, each of which has distinct market

segments: (i) office furniture, (ii) kitchen furniture, (iii) bedroom furniture and (iv) dining/living

and shop furniture. This classification, however, do not differentiate between craft and mass-

produced items or between low and high-priced market items (IPI, 2005).

In the late 1990s, in many industrial sectors, among which also the furniture one, a new way of

approaching production, products and customers’ relationships has been detected. The old way

of producing, generally defined “mass production”, was replaced with a new industrial production

paradigm called “mass customization”. Mass customization consisted in the production of

personalized goods and services with an affordable price for most of customers.

Still in the 1990s, another substantial change characterized the traditional way of doing business:

the attention towards sustainability. Consequently, also the concept of competitiveness deeply

changed, in particular, in the field of furniture, new trends such as green production and low

environmental impact product, became key factors in order to continue to compete on the

market (Handfield et al., 1997). Being one of the most competitive sectors, furniture industry has

58

already started to consider sustainability as a distinctive factor that could lead to a competitive

advantage. Thus, today many companies are investing in new purchasing (i.e. green purchasing),

production (i.e. green production) and distribution (i.e. green packaging, clean transportation)

sustainable methods. Moreover, the diffusion of sustainable certifications in the fields of wood

and furniture is quickly growing, the most known are: ISO 14001, FSC (Forest Stewardship

Council), GREENGUARD and PEFC (Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification).

Many furniture companies are also concerning about the energy issue by reducing their energy

consumption and investing in energy efficiency projects. In some cases, the installation of

renewable energy generation plants already led to the substantial reduction of energy

consumption and to the improvement of environmental performance. Moreover, in order to

comply with the stricter environmental and social regulations, the majority of the firms operating

in the furniture sector already substituted all the hazardous materials and the polluting

substances implied in the production process, with ecological e and cleaner ones. Another very

interesting social trend that is increasingly characterizing the furniture industry, is the decision to

purchase only certified and controlled wood coming from “conflict free” zones with regard for the

local communities (Brown P., 2010).

The growing interest towards sustainability and the changes in the customers’ requirements, has

led organizations to integrate sustainability in their operations and to develop many sustainable

practices. However, the factors hindering the complete development of a sustainable corporate

strategy are still various, for example the capability to reflect the benefits of a sustainable

approach into a clear improvement of business performance.

5.2 The Furniture Supply Chain Supply Chain Management is a crucial activity for the furniture industry: the sequence of

processes and associated information is very important. The processes characterizing the

furniture supply chain might be simpler compared to the ones of other industries, but the

information system is more complicated and require business software packages.

Typically, a furniture supply chain is composed by many different stages such as: hardwood

timber suppliers, sawmills transforming logs into green wood boards, kilns drying green wood

boards, furniture mills manufacturing furniture, warehouses, retailers, subcontractors and finally

customers. The main raw material of the supply chain is hardwood logs of various species and

qualities. These logs are transformed in sawmills into boards using sawing policies. Depending on

the inventory level and the customer known demand, the sawmill planner selects a sawing policy

59

to be applied to the raw material. These primary products are gathered into drying groups based

on their optimal drying time. Then, final products, the dried boards, are shipped to their

customers, the furniture maker (Ouhimmou et al., 2008).

Procurement can occur from private or public lands, usually companies prefer to supply from the

public forest in order to meet their commitments with the governments. The logs are delivered

and stored at different sawmill yards. Logs are transported by trucks owned by subcontractors

who have agreements with the furniture company. These companies also assure the

transportation of green hardwood boards between sawmills and kilns and transportation of dried

hardwood boards between kilns and furniture mills (Ouhimmou et al., 2008).

The drying process transforms green wood boards into dry wood boards by reducing the moisture

content of wood to 6–8%. Many other processes take place in the furniture mills before the final

product is achieved. The dry wood board is cut into dimension parts and panels. These items are

glued and machined, assembled, sanded, painted, packaged and shipped to warehouses.

Occasionally, furniture is directly shipped to the retailer (Ouhimmou et al., 2008).

Figure 37 – Wood Furniture Supply Chain (DaSilva, 2010)

Fig. 37 shows the wood furniture value chain, which for the forestry sector involves the provision

of seed inputs, chemicals, equipment and water. Cut logs then go to the sawmill, which obtains its

primary inputs from the machinery sector. From there, sawn timber moves to furniture

manufacturers who, in turn, obtain inputs from the machinery, adhesives and paint industries and

draw on design and branding skills from the service sector. Depending on which market is served,

the furniture then passes through various intermediary stages until it reaches the final customer,

who after use consigns the furniture for recycling or reuse.

60

5.3 Drivers for the integration of Sustainability in the

Furniture Supply Chain Many are the factors that can contribute to the development of a sustainable supply chain.

According to Caniato et al. (2012), the driving forces for businesses to coordinate supply chain

sustainability can be classified into three groups: (i) internal drivers (i.e. cost reduction and

Corporate Social Responsibility), (ii) market drivers (i.e. consumer demand) and (iii) legal drivers

(i.e. current and anticipated future legislation). Even if the Author didn’t expressly focused on the

wood and furniture industry, it is still possible to adapt the drivers he identified to this specific

case. In Literature, indeed, there are very few studied dealing exclusively with drivers of a single

sector. Specifically, the drivers enhancing furniture companies to adopt sustainable initiatives are

mainly coming from the external environment. There could be, for instance, customers’ specific

requirements, continuous changes in regulations and pressures coming from competitors.

Walker et al. (2008) grouped the drivers for the implementation of SSCM in two main categories:

external factors and internal factors. Among the most interesting internal driving factors, the

Authors mentioned organizational factors such as personal commitment of individuals (New at al.,

2000), personal and ethical values of the top management, but also the middle management’s

support is positively related to environmental purchasing (Carter et al., 1998). Another driving

force that often lead companies to adopt sustainability as a strategic competitive factor, is the

desire to reduce costs (Carter and Dresner, 2001; Green et al., 1996; Handfield et al., 1997).

Increasing pressures from internal investors and stakeholders in general has been observed as key

factors in the development of environmental policies (Green et al., 1996; Trowbridge, 2001).

SSCM can also be benefited by the adoption of an Environmental Management Systems (EMS) (C.

C. Chen, 2005; R. Handfield et al., 2005). Also, having a proactive attitude towards sustainability

can enhance firm competitiveness (S. Sharma and H. Vred, 1998; Q. H. Zhu et al., 2005) and

improve firm’s reputation and environmental risk (C. R. Carter and J. R. Carter, 1998; P. Teuscher,

2006). Many Authors in Literature confirm that development of an integrated sustainable strategy

and ensuring its alignment with corporate strategy is a great benefit for the company (A. Hervani,

2005; M. D. Hanna, 2000; M. Day and S. Lichtenstein, 2006; R. Narasimhan and A. Das, 2001).

Trowbridge (2001) indicates also the willingness to improve risk management due to potential

interruptions in the supply chain and the collaboration with suppliers to find alternative material

and equipment that minimize environmental impacts as internal drivers for the implementation

of a SSC.

61

The second category of drivers identified in the study of Walker et al. (2008) is the one of external

factors. External drivers are generally related to a range of stakeholders: for instance, large

customers may influence small suppliers to meet SSCM practices (J. Hall, 2001; S. Walton et al.,

1998) and exert pressure in the supply chain (S. Seuring and M. Müller, 2007). Regulations have

often shown to be an important external driver for companies’ environmental efforts (Beamon,

1999; Green et al., 1996; Handfield et al., 1997; Walton et al., 1998; Zhu et al., 2005). It is

important, however, to distinguish between the firm’s approach towards sustainability: some

compliance-driven companies, which act in a reactive mode, may not encounter the same

improved environmental performance as companies that are motivated and involved do

(Handfield et al.,1997). Environmental regulation can be considered as a motivator to innovate

and reduce the environmental impact at low cost, rather than a cause for litigation (Porter and

Van de Linde, 1995). In sum, Walker et al. (2008) identified external regulation and legislation as

strong external driver for environmental supply chain projects, especially for companies which act

in a proactive and innovative way. Customers are also often pointed out as an intense driving

force for green supply chain management development. Especially in the furniture industry,

customers (manufacturers of furniture) encouraged suppliers to improve their environmental

performance (Handfield et al., 1997). These customers were in turn driven by end-consumers

requesting more green products. Similarly, vehicle manufacturers encouraged strategic suppliers

to obtain accreditation, such as Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) (Lamming and

Hampson, 1996). Small companies and high-profile firms are particularly suffering the pressures

coming from their customers for the engagement in green management practices (Hall, 20012),

because in these cases the bargaining power is all in the customer’s hands.

In the following table (Table 11) a summary of the most diffused drivers affecting companies’

decision to integrate sustainability in their corporate strategies is proposed. The collection has

been performed after a limited review of the Literature on the main drivers for the development

of Sustainable Supply Chains with a particular focus on the furniture sector. As can be observed in

the following chart, there are very few drivers that can be considered industry-specific, the main

reason is that in Literature there are limited studies on the drivers affecting exclusively the

furniture industry, usually this theme is treated in more general terms. However, the review

proposed below can be considered a good proxy of the key factors characterizing the

implementation of SSCM in the furniture industry.

62

DRIVERS Reference

Behavior requirements of the employees Zhang at al., 2014

Central governmental and regional environmental

regulations Zhu et al., 2007, Zhang at al., 2014

Common global environmental standards such as ISO

14000

Rappaport and Flaherty, 1992;

Rondinelli and Berry, 2000; UNCTAD,

1993; Epstein and Roy, 1998; Miles

and Russell, 1997

Pressures by competitors Zhu et al., 2007; Walker et al., 2007,

Polonsky et al., 2001

Cost reduction Zhu et al., 2005; de Brito et al., 2008;

Dowell et al., 2000; Christmann and

Taylor, 2001, Zhang at al., 2014

Customers environmental requirements and

recommendations

Zhu et al., 2008 and Christmann and

Taylor, 2001, Zhu et al., 2007, Polonsky

et al., 2001, Zhang at al., 2014

Environmental partnership with suppliers Zhu et al., 2007, Zhang at al., 2014

Establishing company's green image Zhu et al., 2007, Zhang at al., 2014

Export countries' environmental regulations Zhu et al., 2007

Needs to improve the competitiveness of enterprises Zhang at al., 2014

Policies from corporate headquarters Hadlock, 1994; Hansen et al., 2004

Potential liability for disposal of hazardous materials Zhu et al., 2007

Pressure by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) Maxwell et al., 1997

Pressure by stakeholders Azzone, Bertelè, 1994, Kovács, 2008

Products potentially conflict with laws Zhu et al., 2007

Recommendations and requirements of the logistics

partner Zhang at al., 2014

Table 11 - A review of the drivers affecting the development of SSCM

63

5.4 Sustainable Practices along the Furniture Supply

Chain The timber processing and manufacturing industry is particularly exposed to criticism coming

from government, industries and society of the sector regarding sustainability issue. Having

products that are obtained by renewable natural resources from forests, wood sector is well

placed to provide products that enhance long-term environmental, economic and social

sustainability. One of the top strategic objectives of this industry is to enhance availability and

utilization of forest biomass by recovering wood from processing and end life products

(Commission of the European Communities, 2007-2013; European Forest Based Sector, 2006). It is

generally recognized that recovered wood provides a high-volume resource for recycled products

and new advanced materials, further enhancing the environmental profile of wood. Market

research has revealed that the lack of implementation of sustainable practices, especially waste

recovery, by small and medium businesses (SMEs), is due to the perception that there is low cost

benefit in wood waste management, a lack of awareness and understanding and little or no

direction about how to recycle the waste. Empirical results from the field, however, showed that,

to be successful, environmental management strategies must be integrated into all the stages of

the value chain through the implementation of specific measures and initiatives.

The business press (bot academic and practitioner) is also validating the importance of

sustainable practices along the supply chain of a business by publishing a growing number of

articles related to the topic. For example, in 1992, Business Horizons published a special issue

devoted to research into environmental management issues (vol. 35, n. 2). Since 1994 the

Harvard Business Review has published different articles on the importance of environment to

business (Walley and Whitehead, 1994; Porter and van der Linde, 1995a; and a collection of

vignettes entitled 'The Challenge of Going Green, 1994'). The opinion of the business stress is

clear: managers should take in greater considerations environment and, more generally,

sustainability. In particular, managers should actively act to develop proactive environmental

strategies for the organization. The activities that are commonly suggested in Literature correctly

integrate sustainability into business strategy, are related to the areas of purchasing, operations

management and distribution/logistics management (e.g. new product design, process choose,

supplier selection, quality control and management, etc...), however in the following pages an

overview of the most diffused sustainable practices in the wood and furniture industries is

proposed.

64

5.4.1 Green Design practices

The new product development (NPD) phase is always crucial at a design phase, indeed in that

moment designers decide materials, production procurements, package design and energy usage.

All these elements have an impact both on the primary costs and profits of the new product and

affect its environmental impact along its lifecycle. The “design for” concept includes some

environmentally-friendly practices such as: design for disassembly, reuse, recycle the product, but

also design to easily reuse, remanufacture or recycle components at the end of their lifetime.

However still many companies are not sure about the benefits of these practices because of the

conflict between green requirements and traditional product performance (speed and

convenience). The reasons why a company should choose to adopt green design techniques are

various: green design organizations could possess DfE concepts and control the following key

factors: (i) abstaining from utilizing toxic substances, (ii) saving energy, (iii) complying with DfDRR

principles and (iv) increasing innovation capabilities.

We can consider the implementation of DfE techniques as an example of integral component of a

proactive responsive strategy to environmental regulation, as other environmentally oriented

design techniques (Gupta, 1995). The use of Design for Environment, indeed, can lead to a

competitive advantage, moreover integrating environmental considerations throughout the

stages of the product design cycle (i.e. concept development, prototype, pre-production and full

production) defines the constraints that product and processes must meet (Allenby, 1993).

Acting on the very initial phases of the product realization is one of the most effective way to

eliminate the negative environmental impact and to reduce the waste generation along the

production process. Waste, indeed, is best eliminated or reduced by paying attention to details in

the design stages of products. In the production process, waste is eliminated by correctly

producing an item according to specified standards the first time, and by building quality into the

product at each step within the process.

The product design phase has direct consequences on the production process efficiency, the

packaging phase, the transportation activity, the durability and reliability of the product, the

subsequent disassembly phase and also other functions and performance criteria (Carter and

Carter, 1998; Gupta, 1995; Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet et al., 1995). A sustainable

approach to product design is the natural consequence of a quality focus, which directly affects

the impact on natural resources and the environment. The core concepts of environmentally

conscious product design are:

65

1. Design for ease of disassembly

2. Design for disposability that will not have a negative effect on the environment

3. Design to eliminate harmful processes in manufacturing

4. Design for ease of distribution and return

5. Elimination of many or all hazardous materials used

6. Design for durability and reliability

7. Design for customer success

According to M. A. Rosen and H. A. Kishawy (2012), sustainability can be incorporated into design

during all phases of the design process, moreover they indicated some of the tools typically used

to support sustainability efforts:

- Design for environment and Life Cycle Assessment: the idea of design for environment

started with the growing awareness towards environmental impact throughout the

design process. To develop a holistic and comprehensive understanding of environmental

impacts, the full life cycle of a product or process normally need to be considered. The

most widespread and complete instrument for the measurement of these targets is surely

the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA is a tool for improving environmental performance

of processes and systems and it is often employed in sustainability world. The core

concept of LCA is to analyze all the phases of the product or service life in order to reduce

environmental damage by enhancing resources conservation and efficiency. The four

steps of LCA are: goal and scope definition, life-cycle inventory analysis, impact

assessment and interpretation. LCA is a powerful instrument in the design phase of a

product, indeed it allows to examine consumption of energy and other resources and

environmental discharges of material and energy wastes both for existing process and for

design alternatives (Hendrickson, C et al., 1998; Harms, R, 2008). Life Cycle Assessment

tool helps companies to select strategies for the design/selection of products and

materials, moreover it is widely used also in pollution prevention applications. LCA is

generally incorporated into ISO series 14040 standards, but it is often used also in

conjunction with evaluation of toxicity and risk potential to foster manufacturing

sustainability.

66

- Design for resource and energy sustainability: from the perspective of resource

utilization, Smith and Rees (1998) described sustainable development as a pattern of

resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that

these needs can be met now and in future generations. Rosen and Abu Rukah (2010)

suggested the concept of energy sustainability is not just the mere application of

sustainability to energy, but it is more complex and involved. Energy sustainability indeed

regards the provision of energy services in a sustainable manner, meaning in a way that

satisfy the basic necessities of the presents and the futures without damaging the

environment.

- Design for sustainability: finally, M. A. Rosen and H. A. Kishawy (2012) indicated design

for sustainability as one of the most diffused practice of green design. It is about the

incorporation of sustainability in design activities, there are many different ways in which

this could be performed: for example, McDonough and Braungart (2002) described a

triple bottom line approach through which firms can balance economic objectives with

social and environmental ones. Karlsson and Luttropp (2006) described an eco-design

approach in which economic, design and ecological aspects are equally considered,

Braungart et al. (2007) proposed eco-efficient strategies which focus on maintaining or

increasing the value of economic output while decreasing the impact on ecological

systems. The relationship between quality function deployment, life cycle analysis and

contingent valuation is investigated by Borea and Wang (2007), and these factors are

compared with customer willingness to pay for environmentally-friendly products. Grote

et al. (2007) provided a product development approach based on design for X (DFX) tools,

while Sakao (2007) invented a model integrating quality function deployment, life cycle

analysis and theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) for environmentally conscious

design.

in Literature there are many different references to green design practices or sustainable

practices, in general they are treated together with other more diffused practices such as green

purchasing or green production. However, after an accurate, but still limited, review of the

Literature, in the following table (Table 12) some of the most relevant practices in the field of

product design are reported.

67

Table 12 - Green design practices

5.4.2 Sustainable production practices

Green designs techniques outcomes affect sequential stages across the entire supply chain, but

they have effects especially on green manufacturing practices and techniques. Manufacturing

processes indeed, consume a lot of energy from fossil fuels such as: coal, coke, natural gas and

PRACTICE Reference

Cradle to grave design Shrivastava, 1995b

Design for avoidance or reduction of the use of

hazardous products

Zhu et al., 2008a, b; Qinghua Zhu, Joseph

Sarkis, Kee-hung Lai, 2007

Design for disassembly

Shrivastava, 1995b; Carter and Carter, 1998;

Gupta, 1995; Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993;

Kriwet et al., 1995; Gonzalez et al., 2008; Zhu et

al., 2008a; and Holt and Ghobadian, 2009

Design for disposability (in a way that avoid a

negative effect on the environment)

Carter and Carter, 1998; Gupta, 1995; Klassen

and McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet et al., 1995

Design for durability and reliability Carter and Carter, 1998; Gupta, 1995; Klassen

and McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet et al., 1995

Design for ease of distribution and return Carter and Carter, 1998; Gupta, 1995; Klassen

and McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet et al., 1995

Design for environment Hart, 1997

Design for reduced consumption of

material/energy

Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis, Kee-hung Lai, 2007

Design for reduced environmental waste

Walton, S. V., Handfield, R. B., & Melnyk, S. A;

Chen, 2011

Design for reuse, recycle, recovery of material,

component parts Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis, Kee-hung Lai, 2007

Design for the elimination of harmful processes

in manufacturing

Carter and Carter, 1998; Gupta, 1995; Klassen

and McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet et al., 1995

Eco-design

Hu and Hsu, 2006; Zhu et al., 2007; Zhu et al.,

2008a; Routroy, 2009; EC, 2011a; Caniato et al.,

2012; Styles et al., in press

Lifecycle analysis (LCA)

Davis, 1993; Walton et al. (1998); Sarkis (2001);

Bovea e Vidal (2003); Rao e Holt (2005); Pagell

e Wu (2009); Zailani et al. (2012)

68

combustion and thus they generate a lot of air pollution (U. Pal, 2002). Generally, green-

manufacturing studies deal with two main topics: 1) supplying a greener source of energy and

saving energy via new technologies, 2) extending the life-cycle of pollutants and wastes, and

increasing the production efficiency via new processes (U. Pal, 2002). Subsequently it can be said

that in general successful green manufacturing should encompass four key factors: (i) the amount

of energy and resource utilization, (ii) the green degree of energy, (iii) the amount of hazardous

waste and (iv) the number of reuses of hazardous waste.

The application of different practices leads to different kind of competitive advantages. Thus, it is

important to correctly relate each specific best practice with its associated advantage. P.

Christmann (2000), performed a study concerning the process-focused best practices and their

effects on cost advantage, these practices, indeed, can be considered as the basic precondition

for the implementation of all best practices of environmental management and the most basic

building block of a responsible environmental strategy. According to Hart (1995), firms will only be

able to successfully adopt product stewardship strategies and achieve differentiation through

environmentally responsible products, if they have first made significant progress in the

implementation of pollution prevention technologies, which is a process-focused best practice.

Moreover, process-focused practices can create cost savings faster that other best practices of

sustainable management, subsequently both internal managers and external stakeholders are

able to observes cost savings is the short-term.

One notable example of green initiative applied to the production process area, is the one

proposed by 3M known as Pollution Prevention Pays (PPP), which emphasized pollution

prevention, natural resource conservation and continuous improvement (Hart, 1995; Shrivastava,

1995c; Stead&Stead, 1996). Since its inception in 1975, PPP program has already allowed 3M to

save more than $810 Million (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, 1998). Other two

environmental programs that focus on pollution prevention in the production process are for

instance Dow’s Waste Reduction Always Pays (WRAP) or Chevron’s Save Money and Reduce

Toxins (SMART) programs, which are surely less known than PPP program, but have produced

substantial cost savings too (Stead & Stead, 1996).

Later in the study, P. Christmann (2000) analyzed three process-focused best practices of

environmental management that were used in an empirical analysis. In particular, the Author

developed hypotheses regarding direct effects on cost advantage and also considering the

potential moderating effect of firm specific complementary assets that might be required to

69

realize a cost advantage from the implementation of these practices. The first practice analyzed

by Christmann was the use of pollution prevention technologies, this practice has been widely

indicated in Literature as an important best practice of environmental management. The use of

pollution prevention technologies has the potential to increase the efficiency of production

(Schmidheiney, 1992; Smart, 1992), to reduce cycle time by simplifying or removing unnecessary

steps in operations or may reduce downtime through use of higher-quality monitoring equipment

(Porter & van der Linde, 1995b). It is important to note that, in order to be source of competitive

advantage, these technologies must be difficult to imitate (Barney, 1991; Lippman & Rumelt,

1982; Wernerfelt, 1984), thus end-of-pipe cannot be expected to lead to a sustainable cost

advantage because they are frequently off-the-shelf technologies.

The second best practice analyzed in the study was the innovation of proprietary pollution

prevention technologies. The innovation of already owned technologies is quite different from the

acquisition of brand new technologies (Ashford, 1993). In the first case, managers could become

aware of inefficiencies in existing production processes or products which increases the potential

for cost-savings efficiency improvements (Porter & van der Linde, 1995a, 1995b). The fact that

these technologies are developed internally to the company, automatically guarantee the

protection through barriers to imitability.

Finally, P. Christmann (2000) indicated early timing as the third best practice, meaning the

integration of environmental issue into the company’s processes before competitors. Anticipating

future environmental regulation and implementing technologies to comply with regulation before

it is enacted can lead to substantial reduction of costs of compliance with future regulations of

firms. Second, facing environmental issues before competitors can lead to a significant gain in

cost advantage through the learning curve effects (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988; Nehrt, 1996,

1998). Finally, addressing environmental problems before they are addressed by regulations, can

significantly influence the future development of regulations.

Susana G. Azevedo et al. (2011) analyzed green practices implementation at different level along

the supply chain: the upstream phase, the focal company and the downstream phase. At a focal

company level, the Authors identified three significant practices: 1) Minimizing waste: which

means handle with the waste after it has been generated (Khidir and Zailani, 2009), but also

eliminate waste or non-value-adding activities throughout the chain thanks to the incorporation

of green practices into lean practices (Ohno, 1998). Consequently, waste minimization not only

can lead to a reduction of environmental costs, but also improve efficiency in the supply chain

70

processes. 2) Decreasing the consumption of hazardous and toxic materials. This initiative could

be implemented by the single organization and lead to cost and quality benefits, anyway it would

be much more efficient if the implementation involved also suppliers. 3) Reverse logistics: which

has been depicted by the Authors as a green practice able to bring huge benefits to the

organization such as: waste minimization and product recover, it is still considered by the

managers as an environmental cost, thus minimizing this cost is important to the total

environmental gain from recovery. 4) ISO 14001 certification: which is an internationally

recognized standard defining the criteria for an Environmental Management System (EMS).

ISO 14000 standards were built on the basis of the more successful ISO 9000 standards and

represent a set of measures which can be used to assess the extent to which a company is

environmentally responsible in three categories:

1. Management systems: systems development and integration as well as the introduction

of environment concerns into general business

2. Operations: natural resource use, energy consumption, number of incidents

3. Environmentally-related systems: measurement, assessment and management of

emissions, effluents and other similar waste streams.

Quality and Environment are two sides of the same coin, it is emblematic the fact that the ISO

14000 was modeled after its predecessor, the ISO 9000 quality certification system. To cite

Makower (1994): “waste is a defect, zero defects means zero waste”, this quote expresses quite

well the strict correlation between quality and environment which is further stressed in the view

Klassen and McLaughlin (1993) regarding the cost of quality and quality management, where the

Authors expressly recommend pollution prevention rather than pollution control because it is

much cheaper.

Even if the cost of ISO 14000 certification is generally perceived by organizations as an

environmental cost, it promotes the reduction of resource usage and waste reduction and thus

contributes to quality improvements (Nawrocka et al., 2009). However, also in this case, the

implementation of this practice will result more efficient if also the suppliers are involved.

In the following chapter the benefits of a collaboration with the upper part of the supply chain for

the development of green practices will be better explained. In the following chart (Table 13),

71

instead, a summary of the most common green production process practices in the field of

furniture is proposed.

PRACTICE Reference

Application of clean technologies

EC, 2011a; Caniato et al., 2012; Styles

et al., in press

Elimination of all non-value added activities

Haw-Jan Wu, Steven C. Dunn, 1995

Elimination of many or all hazardous and toxic materials

employed in the production process (i.e. substitute the

UF resin for alternative ones, use of modified urea

formaldehyde glue, cross linked PVA and polyurethane

glue, use of water based vanish)

Carter and Carter, 1998; Gupta, 1995;

Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet

et al., 1995; Zhu et al., 2007; Vachon,

2007; Walton, S. V. et al., 1998; D.R.

Iritani et al., 2015; G. Daian, B.

Ozarska, 2009; S. González-García et

al., 2011

Extend the products' life cycle by selecting materials with

longer useful lives

Walton, S. V. et al., 1998; Woellert

(2006); Guide et al. (2003); Linton e

Johnston (2000)

Implementation of green manufacturing techniques Chiau-Ching Chen et al., 2012

Implementation of internal environmentally friendly

operations

Gonzalez et al., 2008; Zhu et al.,

2008a; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009

Implementation of pollution prevention techniques or

innovation of proprietary pollution prevention

technologies

S. L. Hart, 1995; P. Christmann, 2000;

Ashford, 1993; Porter & van der

Linde, 1995a, 1995b

Implementation of risk-prevention techniques Hu and Hsu, 2006; Gonzalez et al.,

2008

Integration of a separator in the separator panel S. González-García et al., 2011

Internal recycling and reuse of materials within the

production phase (i.e. sawdust and wood scraps)

Vachon, 2007; S. González-García et

al., 2011; Handfield et al., 1997

Order timber and MDF (Medium-density fibreboards) at

specific sizes G. Daian, B. Ozarska, 2009

Outsourcing of the majority of processing operations

which generate considerable amount of leftover (i.e.

turning, dressing, joinery component, veneer lamination)

G. Daian, B. Ozarska, 2009

Product and by-product recycling Carter and Carter, 1998; Carter and

Ellram, 1998; Carter et al., 1998;

Murphy et al., 1995; Rao and Holt,

72

2005; Vachon, 2007; Gonzalez et al.,

2008; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009;

Paulraj, 2009; Walton, S. V. et al.,

1998; Ashford, 1993; Dechant &

Altman, 1994; Florida, 1996; Hart,

1995; Porter & van der Linde, 1995a,

1995b

Product remanufacturing Walton, S. V. et al., 1998; Polonsky,

M. J., & Rosenberger, P. J., 2001

Product reuse

Carter and Carter, 1998; Carter and

Ellram, 1998; Murphy et al., 1995;

Rao and Holt, 2005; Vachon, 2007;

Gonzalez et al., 2008; Holt and

Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj, 2009

Redesigning production processes

P. Christmann, 2000; Polonsky, M. J.,

& Rosenberger, P. J., 2001; Ashford,

1993; Dechant & Altman, 1994;

Florida, 1996; Hart, 1995; Porter &

van der Linde, 1995a, 1995b

Reducing energy consumption in the production process

Rao and Holt, 2005; Gonzalez et al.,

2008; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009;

Paulraj, 2009; S. González-García et

al., 2011

Reduction of raw material Gonzalez et al., 2008

Reduction of resources

Carter and Carter, 1998; Carter and

Ellram, 1998; Murphy et al., 1995; S.

González-García et al., 2011

Reduction of waste

King and Lenox, 2001; Green et al.,

1998; Florida, 1996; Rao and Holt,

2005; Paulraj, 2009; Walton, S. et al.,

1998

Regionally sourced products

D. Styles et al., 2012

Selling scraps and used materials Zhu et al., 2008b; Polonsky, M. J., &

Rosenberger, P. J., 2001

Substitute less polluting inputs

Ashford, 1993; Dechant & Altman,

1994; Florida, 1996; Hart, 1995;

Porter & van der Linde, 1995a, 1995b

Use of alternative energy sources González-García et al., 2011; Azevedo

73

et al. (2011); Harms et al. (2012);

Mitra e Datta (2014); Zailani et al.

(2012)

Use of automated cutting machines generating finished

dimensions specified for the furniture parts G. Daian, B. Ozarska, 2009

Use of environmentally friendly raw materials such as

agricultural waste (i.e. rice husk, coconut trunks and oil

palm biomass, kenaf and sawdust) and wood waste as an

alternative raw material in substitution of virgin wood

Rao and Holt, 2005; Gonzalez et al.,

2008; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; San,

H.P. et al., 2015; D.R. Iritani et al.,

2015; S. González-García et al., 2011

Use of filters and controls for emissions and discharges Gonzalez et al., 2008; Handfield et al.,

1997; Azevedo et al. (2011); Sarkis

(2001)

Use of standardized components to facilitate their reuse Gonzalez et al., 2008; S. González-

García et al., 2011; Mirabella et al.

(2014)

Waste Management System (management and recovery

of the energy amount, water used and produced and

recycled waste)

Klassen e McLaughlin (1996); Min e

Galle (1997);

Azevedo et al. (2011)

Adoption of environmental certification (e.g. ISO 14001

Daily e Huang (2001); Rao e Holt

(2005); Vachon e Klassen (2006); Zhu

et al. (2008); Nawrocka et al. (2009);

Azevedo et al. (2011)

Adoption of health & safety certification (e.g. ISO 18001) Daily e Huang (2001); Kleindorfer et

al. (2005); Pheng e Kwang (2005)

Table 13 - Sustainable production practices

5.4.3 Sustainable Purchasing practices

Susana G. Azevedo et al. (2011) in their study on green manufacturing practices implementation,

included also those initiatives which regard mainly the upstream part of the supply chain, and so

basically the relationship with suppliers. Environmental collaboration with suppliers has been

defined as the interaction between organizations in the SC to joint environmental planning and

shared environmental know-how or knowledge, having a positive effect on delivery and flexible

performance (Vachon and Klassen, 2008). As the most of initiatives which imply the collaboration

of suppliers, this practice significantly increases the level of SC integration, moreover it improves

the ability to coordinate operations and workflow in different SC tiers in order to better respond

to customer requirements (Gunasekaran et al., 2008). Environmental collaboration with suppliers

contributed to business waste reduction, environmental cost minimization and SC cost control. To

successfully implement this measure, it is necessary that the focal company dedicates specific

74

resources to the development of cooperative activities (Vachon and Klassen, 2008). Min and Galle

(2001) added that concerted efforts by buyers and suppliers are needed for synergistic

improvement is environmental quality.

A second practice concerning the collaboration with suppliers individuated is environmentally

friendly purchasing. G. Azevedo et al. stated that even if in general the purchase of green

materials represents a cost, it could still create an economic advantage since it reduces disposal

and liability costs while improving the resource conservation and public image of the organization

(Min and Galle, 2001). Despite its multiple advantages, environmental purchasing is still a minor

activity even among the firms which are certified ISO 14000 (Chen et al., 2004).

Finally, according to Min and Galle (2001), it is fundamental to include suppliers’ ability to develop

environmentally friendly goods among the traditional supplier selection factors. Another

interesting action that a company can implement with the collaboration of its partners is working

with designers and suppliers to reduce and eliminate product environmental impact, as indicated

by Susana G. Azevedo et al. (2011) in their study. The Authors suggested that designers should be

aware of the impact of their designs on energy and material requirements for manufacturing, and

thus an increase of responsibility in the product development stage could lead to huge benefits in

the following phases of the process (Tsoulfas and Pappis, 2006). Equally, design collaboration with

key suppliers could enhance green efforts and reduce the product introduction time (Routroy,

2009), in this way the businesses waste and environmental costs are reduced while customer

satisfaction is maximized.

The relationships formed between the organization and the government, suppliers, customers

and competitors are vital for a supply chain to proactively address environmental issues and

problems. In particular, interactions with suppliers have direct effects on the subsequent

processes and outputs of the purchasing firm. An environmental audit is one effective way to

ensure that a supplier’s processes are aligned with the purchasing firm’s ones. This practice can

also be applied in the field of environmental collaboration: the manufacturing firm periodically

verified that its suppliers’ activities are not contradictory to its environmental posture. Anyway,

this procedure is still limited diffused as it represents an additional cost for the organization and

can be classified as a transaction cost. Another way to ensure that suppliers are complying with

the environmental policy of the purchasing company, is to verify the adoption of environmental

standards such as ISO 14000 of the supplier. In addition to audits and standards there are also

other methods that purchasing professionals can implement to control or influence

75

environmental activities: for instance, suppliers can be evaluated through the use of qualitative or

quantitative rating systems (Noci, 1997). Companies could also decide to provide its suppliers

with specific design requirements that include environmental specifications for purchased items,

or they could directly support suppliers it the choice of materials, equipment, parts and services

that are in line with the global environmental goals (Lamming and Hampson, 1996; Zsidisin and

Hendrick, 1998). The development of the suppliers’ sustainable capabilities, should also include

the improvement of social performance. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate also the health and

safety of the employees, the safeguarding of equal opportunities, the correct use of auditing

instruments to evaluate the internal environment (Preuss, 2001; Holt, 2004; Zhu et al., 2008).

To highlight which are the potential benefits deriving from the implementation of environmental

collaboration practices with other members of the supply chain, communication skills are a

fundamental strategic tool. An open communication should occur both within the company and

between the company and suppliers, customers, industry and society. The negative reputation of

a product due to its detrimental effects on the natural habitat could be improved by looking at its

entire life cycle and its subsequent impact on the environment (Carter and Carter, 1998; Carter et

al., 1998; Klassen, 1993).

Finally, it is significant to note that the collaborative environmental efforts of one member of the

supply chain may be mitigated if another trading partner is stronger and less involved in the

reduction of environmental effects (Walton et al., 1998). Moreover, the more the firm is

powerful, the more it can have direct impact on the environmental performance of other supply

chain members.

In their 2012 study, Caniato et al. indicated some collaboration practices with suppliers aimed to

minimize environmental impact, the evidences they reported are: (i) select suppliers on the basis

of environmental criteria (i.e. emissions levels, adoption of cleaner technologies), (ii) ask suppliers

to sign their specific company’s codes of conduct to ensure that environmental standards are

respected, (iii) establish long-term relationships with suppliers aimed at continuous improvement,

(iv) check the status of environmental conditions with a transparent and continuous approach.

One of the most pre-eminent example of company that successfully implement green purchasing

practices in the field of furniture is for sure IKEA. IKEA’s Forestry Standard requires wood product

suppliers to document chains of custody and ensure that forests are sustainably managed. The

standard is enforced through risk-based supplier auditing and forestry inspections, with

approximately 10% of wood supplies audited in 2009 (IKEA, 2010 a,b).

76

The following table (Table 14) represents a non-exhaustive summary of the most widespread

practices in the fields of sustainable purchasing, green collaboration with suppliers, green

assessment of suppliers and green communication with suppliers.

PRACTICE Reference

Communicating to suppliers environmental

and/or ethical criteria for goods and services

Hu and Hsu, 2006; Zhu et al., 2008a; Holt and

Ghobadian, 2009

Cooperation with suppliers for environmental

objectives Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, 2004

Definition of a Code of Conduct for supplier

F. Caniato et al., 2012; David Styles et al., 2012¸

Pedersen e Andersen (2006); Harms et al.

(2013)

Encouraging supplier to adopt more

environmentally friendly behaviors Rao and Holt, 2005; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009

Encouraging suppliers to take back packaging Rao and Holt, 2005; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009

Rewarding suppliers with monetary or image

incentives for the achievement of

environmental sustainability performances

Krause et al. (2000); Peters (2010); Gimenez e

Sierra (2012); Harms et al. (2013)

Rewarding suppliers with monetary of images

incentives for the achievement of social

sustainability performances

Krause et al. (2000); Peters (2010); Gimenez e

Sierra (2012); Harms et al. (2013)

Selection of suppliers who comply with the

minimum standards and regulations regarding

sustainability and have environmental and

social certifications (ISO 14001, SA8000)

Walton et al. (1998); Zsidisin e Siferd (2001;

Handfield et al. (2002); Azevedo et al. (2011);

Mitra e Datta (2014)

Environmental and social monitoring of second-

tier suppliers (through supplier's self-

evaluation)

Hu and Hsu, 2006; Vachon, 2007; Zhu et al.,

2008a; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj,

2009; Zhu et al., 2008b

Environmental and social monitoring of

suppliers (through supplier's self-evaluation)

Hu and Hsu, 2006; Vachon, 2007; Zhu et al.,

2008a; Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj,

2009; Zhu et al., 2008b

Environmental audit for suppliers’ internal

management

Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, 2004; Hu and Hsu, 2006;

Vachon, 2007; Zhu et al., 2008a; Holt and

Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj, 2009; Zhu et al.,

2008b

Environmental collaboration with suppliers

providing design specification to suppliers that

include environmental requirements for

purchased item

Zhu et al., 2008b

Establish long term relationships with suppliers F. Caniato et al., 2012; Min e Galle (1998);

77

aimed at continuous improvement Krause et al. (2000); Bowen et al. (2001);

Zsidisin e Siferd (2001); Handfield et al. (2005);

Carvalho e Cruz- Machado (2011); Pagell e Wu

(2009)

Getting recognition for environmentally positive

behavior Hu and Hsu, 2006; Gonzalez et al., 2008

Green procurement/sourcing Holt and Ghobadian, 2009; Routroy, 2009

Local sourcing

David Styles et al., 2012; Narashiman and Nair

(2005); Beamon (2008); Halldorsson et al.

(2009); Pagell e Wu (2009); Azevedo et al.

(2011)

Promoting ISO 14000 certification of suppliers

Zhu et al., 2008 a,b

Providing design specification to suppliers that

include environmental requirements for

purchased item

Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, 2004

Second-tier supplier environmentally friendly

practice evaluation

Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, 2004; Walton et al. (1998);

Preuss (2001); Holt (2004); Vachon (2007); Zhu

et al. (2008); Holt and Ghobadian (2009);

Paulraj (2009); De Marchi et al. (2013)

Select suppliers on the basis of environmental

criteria (i.e. emissions levels and adoption of

cleaner technologies)

EC, 2011a; Caniato et al., 2012; Styles et al., in

press

Strategic collaboration on product and standard

development

David Styles et al., 2012

Suppliers’ ISO14000 certification Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, 2004

Support suppliers with established

environmentally responsible reputations Walton, S. V. et al., 1998

Switch from one raw material supplier to

another with more ecofriendly processes Polonsky, M. J., & Rosenberger, P. J., 2001

Working across the supply chain with both

customers and suppliers on environmental

initiatives

Vachon and Klassen, 2006b

Working with designers and suppliers to reduce

and eliminate product environmental impact Zhu et al., 2008 a,b

Working with industry peers to standardize

requirements for suppliers and purchasing

items

Hu and Hsu, 2006

Working with product designers and suppliers

to reduce and eliminate product environmental

Lippmann, 1999; Zhu et al., 2007; Holt and

Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj, 2009

78

impact

Collaboration with suppliers to improve their

manufacturing processes in order to reduce

their environmental impact

Walton et al. (1998); Krause et al.

(2000); Bowen et al. (2001); Zsidisin e Siferd

(2001); Styles et al. (2012); De Marchi et al.;

(2013)

Jointly setting targets for suppliers for

improving their environmental sustainability

performances

Walton et al. (1998); Krause et al.

(2000); Bowen et al. (2001); Zsidisin e Siferd

(2001); Styles et al. (2012); De Marchi et al.;

(2013)

Jointly setting targets for suppliers for

improving their social sustainability

performances

Ringov e Zollo (2007)

Table 14 - Sustainable purchasing practices

5.4.4 Sustainable collaboration with customers

Compared to the collaboration with suppliers, the sustainable collaboration with customers’

practices are still at an embryonic phase. This difference is also reflected by Literature gap:

indeed, while there are several papers dealing with the sustainable purchasing topics, only few of

them dedicate a section to the sustainable practices involving the downstream phase of the

supply chain.

The first aspects that all manufacturing firms should consider if they want to be successful, are

the customer’s requirements. A strong attention to the customer’s needs, indeed, can lead to an

improvement of financial and marketing performance (Green et al., 2005). When clients start to

ask for eco-friendly products and services, it is important that producers are able to provide them.

Producing a product that remain unsold because it does not satisfy the customers’ demand, is

harmful for the environment, moreover the raw materials have been unnecessarily consumed.

Thus, products must have the functionalities required by the market and at the same time respect

the environment. The best way to ensure the respect of the customers’ requirement is to

cooperate and communicate with them.

In their study of the influence of green practices on supply chain performance, Susana G. Azevedo

et al. (2011) focused also on the collaboration with the actors belonging to the downstream phase

of the supply chain: customers. In particular, the Authors stated that the implementation of an

effective environmental collaboration with customers allows SC cost reduction and maintains the

reliability of operations (Lee et al., 2007) and thus increases quality and customer satisfaction.

79

Moreover, in this way, environmental awareness of customers is stimulated and they become real

environmental partners (Tsoulfas and Pappis,

2006). Having a green strategic relationship with customers allows the company to increase its

responsiveness towards clients’ environmental concerns and improve some performance such as

the fulfillment rate and the on-time delivery rate. For a successful customers’ environmental

collaboration, it is necessary to verify that the competitive priorities of all the members along the

supply chain are aligned (Vachon and Klassen, 2008).

Another interesting green practice which directly involves the downstream phase of the supply

chain included in the analysis performed by Azevedo et al., is the collaboration with customers to

change product specifications. This is in order to obtain product specifications in line with process

modifications and a subsequent increase of process efficiency while having a positive influence on

product conformance with respect to specifications and durability (Vachon and Klassen, 2008).

Moreover, it contributes to improve customers’ satisfaction, since it reduces the customers’

rejection rates.

The following table (Table 15) includes the most notable practices involving the customers’ side.

80

PRACTICE Reference

Cooperation with customer for cleaner

production

Zhu et al., 2008 a, b; Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, 2004

Cooperation with customer for eco-design Zhu et al., 2008 a, b; Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, 2004;

Porter e van der Linde (1995); Hart (1997);

Geffen e Rothenberg, (2000); Bowen et al.

(2001); Gold et al. (2010);

Cooperation with customers for green

packaging

Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, 2004

Cooperation with customers to change product

specifications

Lippmand, 1999

Development of training programs for clients to

enhance their environmental performance

Routroy, 2009; Porter e van der Linde (1995);

Hart (1997); Geffen e Rothenberg, (2000);

Bowen et al. (2001); Gold et al. (2010); Vachon

e Klassen (2008); Pagell e Wu (2009)

Development of training programs for clients to

enhance their social performance

Routroy, 2009; Porter e van der Linde (1995);

Hart (1997); Geffen e Rothenberg, (2000);

Bowen et al. (2001); Gold et al. (2010); Vachon

e Klassen (2008); Pagell e Wu (2009)

Design for customer success Carter and Carter, 1998; Gupta, 1995; Klassen

and McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet et al., 1995

Environmental collaboration with customers Routroy, 2009

Use environmentally friendly practices with

customers

Lippmand, 1999

Table 15 - Sustainable collaboration with customers

5.4.5 Supply Chain Network Design practices

The adoption of a sustainable approach, can lead to a change in the structure of the supply chain:

closed-loop supply chains and local chains are example of this. In a traditional supply chain, the

final phase of the process is represented by the customer. A closed-loop supply chain includes all

the subsequent phases of product recovering and re-manufacturing aimed at creating additional

value to the company (Guide et al., 2003). Thus, closed-loop supply chains, include both

traditional activities and additional activities such as: reverse logistics, test and evaluation of the

product’s conditions to identify the cheapest solution between reuse, repair, regeneration,

81

recycle and disposal. The increasing pressure coming from the regulations, is pushing various

companies to deal with the collection and disposal of their end-of-life products; therefore, closed

loop supply chains are an example of integration between business management and

implementation of a sustainable approach (Guide et al., 2003).

The main benefits coming from the implementation of a closed-loop supply chain are the

decreasing of the waste, of the hazardous materials and of the energy consumption.

Consequently, there is also a significant reduction of costs (except the logistic ones that raise

because of the reverse logistics practices implementation) and an increase in the customer’

satisfaction level (Quariguasi Frota Neto et al., 2009).

Reverse logistics has been defined by Carter and Ellram (1998) as the reverse distribution that

includes resource reduction. Kroon and Vrijens (1995) analyzed different reverse logistics systems

for reusable shipping containers in the Netherlands and during their analysis they came out with

three different types of systems that can be used in reverse logistics systems: switch pool, system

with return logistics and system without return logistics. In the first case, each member of the

supply chain is responsible for its own quota of containers, while with return logistics containers

are owned by a central agency in the system. The systems could be transfer systems, where the

sender always uses the same containers, or depot systems, where containers are stored at a

container depot where not in use. The systems which do not include a return logistic option, are

characterized by the containers being rented and then returned back to a central agency when no

longer needed. Even if the initial cost of these containers is usually higher than disposable

containers, reductions in procurement and disposal costs over the life of the container can be

realized (Kopicki et al., 1993).

Another very interesting and potentially profitable practice of supply chain network design, is the

rationalization of the suppliers’ base as a consequence of local sourcing strategy. Many products,

especially in the food industry, are mostly sourced from the same country of sale; this may

already sound as an environmentally friendly practice which is able to reduce transport

requirements and costs. Actually, this is not sufficient to guarantee environmentally efficient

production: many national certification schemes, such as Suisse Gurantie and the UK Red Tractor,

already try to provide guidelines to manufacturing companies, but retailers usually apply their

own labelling to promote “local” or “regional” products according to various definitions.

The choice of local suppliers, allows several benefits among which the reduction of the emissions

and the costs related to the carriage of goods from the supplier to the focal company, the

82

development and the higher level of involvement of the workforce and of the local communities.

According to Beamon (2008), today there is a growing willingness of the companies to build local

production sites in order to reduce the distances and thus the transports. Therefore, the storage

systems and distribution systems are decentralized, allowing a significant reduction of

transportation costs. The Local for Local approach can also go further the simple procurement and

favor the choice of local clients. The reasons behind this strategic choice, are the customers’

requirements and the regulations: the consumption habits of the customers are different

according to the geographic area, thus the same standardized product exported in different zones

of the world could have some trouble in the adaptation. Moreover, the regulations are different

from country to country, in some cases there could be some taxes on the goods transportation

that increase the final product’s cost. Finally, this approach guarantees a reduction in the cost of

transportation generated by the proximity of the final customer and the possibility to provide a

higher service level to the client and thus improve the profits.

Below, a table summarizing the most common SC network design practices is provided (Table 16).

As one can see, this is the most neglected category of practices in Literature. While for the

previous types of practices several papers were available online, this specific topic is only

occasionally addressed.

83

PRACTICE Reference

Regionally sourced products

D. Styles et al., 2012; Narashiman and Nair (2005);

Beamon (2008); Halldorsson et al. (2009); Pagell e Wu

(2009); Azevedo et al. (2011)

Reverse logistics

Wu & Dunn, 1995; Kroon e Vrijens (1995); Thierry et al.

(1995); Stock (1998); Rogers e Tibben- Lembke (2001);

De Brito e Dekker (2003); Azevedo et al. (2011); Dekker

et al. (2012)

Enviromental Collaborations

Porter e van der Linde (1995); Hart (1997); Geffen e

Rothenberg, (2000); Bowen et al. (2001); Gold et al.

(2010); Vachon e Klassen (2008); Pagell e Wu (2009)

Use of IT systems as a support for the

collaboration among players

El-Gayar e Fritz (2006); Chandra et al. (2007); Green et al.

(2007)

Closed-loop supply chain Guide et al. (2003); Flapper et al. (2005); Quariguasi

Frota Neto et al. (2009)

Suppliers' base reduction Lamming and Hampson (1996); Handfield et al.

(1997); Delmas and Montiel (2009)

Local chain

Narashiman e Nair(2005); Beamon (2008); Halldorsson et

al.(2009); Pagell e Wu (2009); Azevedo et al.

(2012)

Table 16 - Supply Chain Network Design Practices

5.4.6 Green Logistics practices

Logistics is a crucial activity for every company, thus a correct integration of sustainability into the

logistics activities can bring a huge contribution to the improvement of corporate sustainable

performance. The typical logistics activities are: the goods consolidation, the type of

transportation, the choice of warehouses and these activities are all strictly related with the

environmental and social aspects of sustainability.

The consolidation of goods, for instance, improve the efficiency of the vehicle that has a direct

impact of the environment. The vehicle saturation allows, not only a significant cost reduction,

but it reduces also the number of trips and thus the CO2 emissions released in the atmosphere.

Another sustainable practice in the logistic field, is the use of alternative vehicles instead of

84

trucks. Railway transport or transport by barges indeed, consume much less energy compared to

other type of transports such as: by air or by road.

One of the aspects that have the higher potential of improvement in terms of environmental

performance, is packaging. The use of recyclable or reusable packaging, allows a reduction in the

energy consumption and has a positive impact on costs and on the environmental sustainability.

Material packaging is often considered a “necessary evil” or an unnecessary cost (Livingstone and

Sparks, 1994; Robertson, 1990). Packaging has different scopes and functions including

containment, protection, preservation, apportionment, unitization, communication and

presentation. Livingstone and Sparks (1994) identified three main packaging types: sales

packaging, secondary packaging and transport packaging. Implementing resource reduction

strategies for packaging contribute to create less waste and thus to reduce environmental costs

(Livingstone and Sparks, 1994). One of the most diffused packaging minimization method involves

replacing corrugated boxes by using shrink wrap (Kopicki et al., 1993). However, companies

should not forget that the final goal of packaging is still to protect products from damage in

transit, the reuse of packaging can be found in reusable, collapsible shipping containers.

Also changes in the processes and warehousing activities can improve the efficiency of operative

performance and can reduce the environmental impact (Wu and Dunn, 1995). In this category are

included the stocks minimization, which are often source of inefficiencies (Thiell et al., 2011; Dey

et al., 2011); moreover, the warehouses are usually responsible for the generation of the major

part of wastes. Finally, the optimization of layout, the research of energy efficiency and a suitable

design of infrastructures allow a further reduction of environmental impact and, at the same

time, a reduction of the operative costs (Stock, 1992; Thiell et al., 2011).

One of the most widespread trend for the warehouse management is the cross-docking (Wu and

Dunn, 1995). With this approach goods are no longer stored in warehouses, but they are directly

transferred from producers or distributors to wholesalers or retailers in their warehouses. Thanks

to a careful planning and to the sharing of sales information, cross-docking is the most effective

way to maximize the transportation efficiency and, at the same time, improve the environmental

performance.

In the following table (Table 17) is available a summary of the practices described in the previous

section.

85

PRACTICE Reference

Bulk packaging

Wu & Dunn, 1995; Rao e Holt (2005); Wu e Dunn

(1995); Rao e Holt (2005); Azevedo et al. (2011);

Thiell et al. (2011); Dekker et al. (2012)

Changing pallet patterns Wu & Dunn, 1995

Changing primary packaging

Wu & Dunn, 1995; Rao e Holt (2005); Wu e Dunn

(1995); Rao e Holt (2005); Azevedo et al. (2011);

Thiell et al. (2011); Dekker et al. (2012)

Changing product's size Wu & Dunn, 1995

Changing secondary packaging

Wu & Dunn, 1995; Rao e Holt (2005); Wu e Dunn

(1995); Rao e Holt (2005); Azevedo et al. (2011);

Thiell et al. (2011); Dekker et al. (2012)

Use of biofuels to feed the vehicles (biomethane,

bioethanol, biodiesel) Rao et al. (1991); Wu e Dunn (1995); Thiell et al.

(2011); Dekker et al. (2012); Zhang et al. (2014)

Use of recyclable pallets Stock (1998); Thiell et al. (2011)

Fleet management Zhang et al., 2014

Good warehouse layout Wu & Dunn, 1995

Low carbon packaging Zhang et al., 2014; Rao e Holt (2005); Azevedo et al.

(2011); Thiell et al. (2011); Dekker et al. (2012)

Optimizing storage space Zhang et al., 2014

Optimizing the transport systems (shorter trasport

distances, replacement of diesel fuel with other

ones)

Iritani et al., 2015; Rao et al. (1991); Wu e Dunn

(1995); Thiell et al. (2011); Dekker et al. (2012);

Zhang et al. (2014)

Optimizing warehouse or Establishing overall

company quality environmental management system

der picking strategies Zhang et al., 2014

Recycling containers and other packaging materials

of logistics Zhang et al., 2014

Reducing number of shipments Wu & Dunn, 1995; Zhu et al. (2008); Holt e

Ghobadian(2009); Paulraj (2009); Rao et al. (2012)

Reducing use of transport packaging Zhang et al., 2014

Use of multi-modal transport hub and logistics center Zhang et al., 2014; Wu e Dunn (1995); Thiell et al.

(2011)

Using improved or innovative handling systems Zhang et al., 2014

Using recyclable packaging materials and logistics

containers

Zhang et al., 2014; Wu e Dunn (1995); Rao e Holt

(2005); Azevedo et al. (2011); Thiell et al. (2011);

Dekker et al. (2012)

Cross docking Wu & Dunn, 1995

86

Table 17 - Green Logistics practices

5.5 Performance The Literature defines the term “performance” as the ability of an entity, such as a person, group

or organization, to make results in relation to specific and determined objectives (Laitinen, 2002;

Lebas and Euske, 2004). In addition, performance is an actual work or output produced by a

specific unit or entity. To put it another way, the performance concept refers to the measurable

achievements produced (Harbour, 1997; Phillips, Davies and Moutinho, 1999). Second, the term

“measurement” indicates the ability and processes used to quantify and control specific activities

and events (Morgan, 2004). As key authors of this area, Neely, Gregory, and Platts (1995) define

the performance measurement concept as a process of quantifying the efficiency and

effectiveness of actions (Neely et al., 1995, p. 80). On the other hand, Neely, Gregory, and Platts,

(2005, p; 1229) refer to the performance measurement system (PMS) as the set of metrics used to

quantify both efficiency and effectiveness. Literature defines measures as metrics used to

quantify and compute an action’s efficiency and effectiveness (Bourne and Neely, 2003).

Several Authors (Sen, 2009; Barratt e Oke, 2007; Handfield et al., 1997), state that the adoption of

a sustainable approach towards sustainability can lead to considerable environmental and social

benefits. Moreover, such a sustainable attitude has also the potential to improve the economic

performance of the company: an environmentally-friendly production indeed, is an effective way

to create value because the sustainability issue is involving an increasing number of stakeholders.

In particular, when sustainability is considered a strategic relevant element in the organization,

environmental and social performance are the most interesting and thus the most monitored

ones. Conversely, if sustainability has a marginal importance for the company, the economic

performance are the most measured.

5.5.1 Environmental Performance

Due to the increasing concerns regarding the environmental issues and the natural resources

depletion, companies are more and more paying attention to their environmental performance.

In Literature, there are few articles dealing with the sustainable performance measurement

theme, but some KPIs for the monitoring of environmental results are available. Some of the most

interesting are: the rate of air emission, waste water generation or production of solid wastes

(Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). There are also environmental performance more related to the economic

sphere of the company such as: the cost of energy consumption or the number of fees paid for

87

environmental accidents. In the following table (Table 18) the most interesting environmental

performance measures collected after the Literature review are summarized.

PERFORMANCE Reference

Air emission

Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004; Walley and

Whitehead (1994); Russo e Fouts (1997); King e

Lenox (2001); King e Shaver (2001); Zhu et al.

(2005); Rusinko (2007); Pullman et al. (2009); Eccles

et al. (2012); Wiengarten and Longoni (2015)

Amount of handling required Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004

Business wastage Susana G. Azevedo et al., 2011

Compliance and liability costs Porter & van der Linde, 1995b; Qinghua Zhu and

Joseph Sarkis, 2004; Ashford, 1993

Consumption of hazardous/harmful/toxic

materials Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004

Cost for energy consumption Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004; Hart e Ahuja

(1996); Hervani et al. (2005); Zhu et al. (2005);

Rusinko (2007); Omer (2007)

Cost of water consumption Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004; Omer (2007);

Rusinko (2007); Cowan et al. (2010); Eccles et al.

(2012)

Enterprise’s environmental situation Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004

Environmental cost Susana G. Azevedo et al., 2011

Fee for waste treatment and discharge

Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004; Walley e

Whitehead (1994); Hart e Ahuja (1996); Russo e

Fouts (1997); King e Lenox (2001); King e Shaver

(2001); Zhu et al. (2005); Cowan et al. (2010)

Frequency for environmental accidents Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004

Level of pollution Petra Christmann, 2000

Material usage Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004

Potential product-take-back costs Shrivastava, 1995a

Solid wastes Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004; Hervani et al.

(2005); Zhu et al. (2005); Huang e Matthews (2008)

Waste water Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004

Table 18 - Environmental Performance

88

5.5.2 Social Performance

Social performance are more consolidated measures with respect to environmental performance.

This is primarily because companies are often forced by the law to comply with social

certifications which impose the achievement of specific target of social sustainability. Thus,

companies are measuring their social performance since different years and consequently social

KPIs in the business environment are more established with respect to environmental ones. Some

examples of social performance that are frequently reported in Literature are: employees’ rate of

satisfaction and motivation, labor equity, employees’ healthcare, employees’ safety. In the

following table (Table 19), as done for the environmental performance, a summary of the social

KPIs found in Literature is provided.

89

PERFORMANCE Reference

Customer satisfaction

Kainuma e Tawara (2006); Nair e Menon

(2008); Vachon e Klassen (2008); Pochampally

et al. (2009); Azevedo et al. (2011); Mitra e

Datta (2014)

Employee motivation and satisfaction

Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004; Hutchins

and Sutherland (2008); Eccles et al. (2012);

Mitra and Datta (2014); Wiengarten and

Longoni (2015); GRI

Financial aids Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004

Frequency for environmental accidents

Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004; Hutchins

e Sutherland (2008); Eccles et al. (2012); Mitra

e Datta (2014); Wiengarten e Longoni (2015);

GRI

Healthcare

Margot J. Hutchins and John W. Sutherland,

2008; Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004;

Hutchins e Sutherland (2008); Eccles et al.

(2012); Mitra e Datta (2014); Wiengarten e

Longoni (2015); GRI

Labor equity Margot J. Hutchins and John W. Sutherland,

2008

Legal fees

Shrivastava, 1995a; Qinghua Zhu and Joseph

Sarkis, 2004

Market share Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004

Philanthropy Margot J. Hutchins and John W. Sutherland,

2008

Public relations Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004

Safety

Margot J. Hutchins and John W. Sutherland,

2008; Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004;

Hutchins e Sutherland (2008); Eccles et al.

(2012); Mitra e Datta (2014); Wiengarten e

Longoni (2015); GRI

Table 19 - Social Performance

5.5.3 Economic Performance

Economic corporate performance are the most measured and monitored ones. Especially those

companies that are not concerned about sustainability issues, are instead putting much efforts on

the improvement of economic performance. The smooth running of economic performance is the

90

symptom for the company’s wellbeing, thus economic KPIs should always be a central worry for

the firm. The following table (Table 20) reports some of the most commonly used economic

measures.

PERFORMANCE Reference

Compliance and liability costs Porter & van der Linde, 1995b; Qinghua Zhu and Joseph

Sarkis, 2004; Ashford, 1993

Cost for material purchasing Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004; Shah e Ward

(2003); Zhu et al. (2005); Pochampally et al. (2009); Tsai

e Hung (2009); Azevedo et al. (2011)

Efficiency Susana G. Azevedo et al., 2011

Financial aids Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004

Legal fees Shrivastava, 1995a; Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis,

2004

Manufacturing costs

Shrivastava, 1995a; Shah e Ward (2003); Zhu et al.

(2005); Pochampally et al. (2009); Tsai e Hung (2009);

Azevedo et al. (2011)

Position with regard to competitors Stuart L. Hart, 1995

Potential liability costs Shrivastava, 1995a

Production costs Hart, 1995; Newmann & Breeden, 1992; Shrivastava,

1995a, 1995b; Smart, 1992; Stead & Stead, 1995

Sustainable image/reputation

Min e Galle (2001); Melnyk et al. (2002); Hervani et al.

(2005); Cetindamar (2007); Nair and Menon (2008);

Pochampally et al. (2009); Mitra and Datta (2014)

Table 20 - Economic Performance

5.5.4 Impact of Sustainable Practices on Corporate

Performance

Azevedo et al. (2011) analyzed the relationship between sustainable practices and performance

with the aim to explore and understand the influence that GSCM practices have on SC

performance. The Authors focused their research not only on the green practices that are internal

to the company, but also the ones which transcend the company’s boundaries involving suppliers

and customers. For instance, the sustainable practices that involve suppliers which are considered

by Azevedo et al. are: environmentally friendly purchasing practices, environmental collaboration

with suppliers and working with designers and suppliers to reduce and eliminate product

91

environmental impact. In order to measure the practices deployed by the company itself, the

following green practices have been considered by the Authors: minimizing waste, ISO 14001

certification and decrease consumption of hazardous and toxic materials. Finally, to analyze the

customer involvement in commitment to environmental concerns, the following practices have

been analyzed: environmental collaboration with customers, environmentally friendly packaging,

working with customers to change product specifications and reverse logistics. The theoretical

framework proposed by Azevedo et al., also proposes a number of measures to evaluate the

influence of the practices on supply chain performance from operational, economic and

environmental perspectives. Accordingly, in operational terms the performance measures

proposed are: quality and customer satisfaction. From an economic perspective, the measures

recommended are: cost, environmental cost and efficiency. Finally, from an economic

perspective, the measure used is business waste. The following chart (Fig. 38) is proposed by the

Authors to visualize the intent of the research.

Figure 38 - Theoretical framework for the influence of green practices on supply chain performance

(Azevedo et al., 2011)

92

The data gathered by the interviews conducted by the Authors, allowed to rank the performance

measures according to the respondents’ perception of their importance as reflection of the

influence of green practices on SC performance. The results showed that environmental cost is

the performance measure that best reflects the impact of GSCM practices on performance.

Quality, customer satisfaction and efficiency follow environmental cost in the rank of the most

relevant performance measured in the study. The resulting measures, match the different

organizations’ priorities such as: supply a high-quality product, maintain a high level of customer

satisfaction and be efficient in order to avoid the use of unnecessary resources in production.

After these first preliminary observations, Azevedo et al. (2011) concluded that companies

attributed different weights to different performance linked to green corporate practices and

thus, they consider that some performance measures better reflect the influence of GSCM

practices on SC performance.

The second main objective of the study conducted by Azevedo et al., was to identify the influence

of green practices on supply chain performance. Thus, the perceptions of each organization were

collected to investigate this relationship. In particular, the Authors computed a score for each

relationship through a specific formula and then reported in the study only those relationships

with a significant value. In the following table the most significant results of the case studies are

reported (Table 21).

Table 21 - Linkage between green practice and supply chain performance, Azevedo et al. (2011)

As shown in the table, environmental cost, quality and efficiency are the performance measures

with the most significant relationships with green practices. For example, if we consider

environmentally friendly packaging practice, it has a series of benefits which impact also on

corporate performance. Adopting sustainable packaging measures, indeed, allow the firm to

reduce the utilization of reusable packages or racks which are more resistant to impact, reducing

93

product damage during transport, moreover reusable packaging reduces product defects and

maintains product quality during transport.

However, the positive direct link between the green practice and the firm’s performance is not

always immediate. For example, not all the respondents to the investigation conducted by

Azevedo et al. (2011) agreed on the effect of ISO 14001 certification on SC performance, at the

same way the relationships between environmental collaboration with suppliers and

environmentally friendly purchasing practices with respect to SC performance is not

unambiguous. The Authors tried to interpret the discordances between the answers considering

the fact that some companies, which comply to the international standard for environmental

management (i.e. ISO 14001), may adopt such standards in response to external pressures coming

from customers and competitors rather than using it as a critical management tool (Arora and

Cason, 1996; Khanna and Damon, 1999; Konar and Cohen, 1997; Hoffman, 2000; Bowen, 2000).

Poksinska et al. (2003) added that companies showing care for the environment and establishing

a strong environmental image, may attract environmentally conscious customers and suppliers.

94

6 Research

framework and

methodology

95

6.1 Considerations on the Literature and gaps

identification The Literature review has been an important and challenging part of this study. The key point of

this activity was to contextualize the sustainability issue with a special focus on the furniture

sector. One of the milestones that came up from the Literature, is the growing interest towards

the sustainability issue. Both Scholars and Practitioners are dedicating much efforts on the

development and improvement of instruments for the integration of sustainability in the daily

business activities. Customers are becoming more and more aware of their purchasing behavior

and their buying decisions are increasingly led by the general environmental and social concerns.

Therefore, companies are somehow forced to review their products’ range in order to provide to

customers what they demand. Despite the attention towards the sustainable theme is

undoubtedly raising, companies that managed to develop a fully sustainable corporate strategy

are still rare. The difficulty that firms face when they try to integrate sustainability into their

business strategy, is the lack of a structured framework that clearly guide them in the decision-

making process. For instance, in Literature it is possible to find many references to different

strategic tools. Nevertheless, there is not a systematic tool able to provide the general guidelines

for the implementation of a sustainable corporate strategy.

The same limitation remained when the focus of the Literature review moved on the

development of sustainable supply chains. The integration of sustainability in all the phases of

the value chain is even more challenging than the implementation of sustainable practices in a

single company. The creation of a sustainable supply chain, indeed, requires that all the actors are

equally involved in the project. Designers must carefully choose the materials for the product’s

construction and they must consider their impact on the entire product’s lifecycle. In order to do

so, they need to have adequate instruments such as the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).

Manufacturers should minimize the impact of the production process on the surrounding

environment, moreover they should share the sustainability principles with all the members of

the supply chain. Retailers and wholesalers must be able to recognize and prioritize the products

with the best environmental performance. Finally, customers should develop a sense of

responsiveness towards environmental problems that should guide their purchasing decision. The

Literature, references of supply chains that successfully became sustainable are very rare. This is

attributable to the scarcity of models and frameworks available in Literature for a correct

development of sustainable supply chain management.

96

Thus, from the Literature review a first relevant gap emerges:

Gap 1. There are not defined and unambiguous guidelines for the correct integration of

sustainability into the corporate strategy as a competitive factor. Moreover, there is a lack of

frameworks showing how this integration impacts on sustainable supply chain practices.

Anyway, the aim of this study is not only to highlight the mechanisms of implementation of

sustainable practices in businesses, but also to understand what is their impact on the corporate

performance. Thus, a Literature review on the relationship between the implementation of green

and social practices and their effect on the TBL performance has been performed.

Some Authors, such as Caniato et al. (2012), analyzed the relationships among drivers, practices

and performance using a regression analysis (Fig. 39)

Figure 39 - Research Framework (Caniato et al., 2012)

The analysis showed that in some cases there is a correlation between the GSCM pressures or

drivers and practices, while they noticed that there is no significant correlation between drivers

and internal environmental management practices. The same type of analysis has been

performed to identify the impact of practices on performance. The Authors noticed different

effects: for example, green purchasing and customer cooperation have significant impact only on

environmental performance, but not on the other performance aspects, investment recovery has

a negative impact on economic performance while eco-design showed no impact for all the

performance aspects.

Azevedo et al. (2011) analyzed the relationship between sustainable practices and performance

with the aim to explore and understand the influence that GSCM practices have on SC

performance. The study results showed that environmental cost, quality and efficiency are the

performance measures with the most significant relationships with green practices. However, the

97

positive direct link between the green practice and the firm’s performance is not always

immediate. For example, not all the respondents to the investigation conducted by Azevedo et al.

(2011) agreed on the effect of ISO 14001 certification on SC performance, at the same way the

relationships between environmental collaboration with suppliers and environmentally friendly

purchasing practices with respect to SC performance is not unambiguous.

There are many other studies analyzing the link between the implementation of sustainable

practices and the change TBL performance and as many different theories on the kind of

relationship between them. There are evidences that environmental purchasing positively

influences the economic position of a company, thanks to the reduction of disposal and liability

costs. Environmental purchasing practices improve also organization’s public image and

contribute to conserve non-renewable resources(Min and Galle, 1997; Stock, 1992). Various

studies have found contradictory relationships between a firm's social responsibility and financial

performance. One view is that social responsibility involves additional cost to the company and

hence negatively affects the firm's financial performance. Others have found no relationship

between corporate social responsibility and firm performance (Alexander and Buchholz,1978).

Another contrasting view is that social performance is positively correlated to a firm's economic

performance. Moskowitz (1972), Parket and Eilbirt (1975), and Sturdivant and Ginter (1977) found

that social responsiveness is positively related to a firm's stock market performance. Socially

responsible activities can help improve a firm's relationships with such important stakeholders as

banks, investors, and government agencies (McGuire et al., 1988). These improved relationships

can in turn result in economic benefits including increased investment levels into the firm

(McGuire et al., 1988; Moussavi and Evans, 1986; Spicer, 1978a).

Barbara and McConnell (1990) studied the effect of abatement capital (capital employed to offset

the negative environmental effects of the firm) on industry productivity. They found that

abatement capital was responsible for a decline in productivity. Gallop and Roberts (1983) studied

the effects of environmental regulations on the cost of operations of the electric utilities industry.

They found a similar effect of environmental regulation on industry productivity.

There is also a body of research that suggests a positive relationship between environmental

friendliness and firm performance. In particular, Klassen and McLaughlin's (1996) proposed model

and empirical findings suggesting a positive effect of environmental performance on firm

performance. They suggest that environmental performance can affect financial performance of a

firm through both market (revenue) and cost pathways. If customers prefer products of

98

environmentally friendly firms, then revenues are positively impacted (Winsemius and Guntram,

1992), resulting in increased market share vis-a-vis less environmentally oriented competitors.

In view of the above, the second Literature gap has been identified and formalized as follows:

Gap 2. The impact that the implementation of sustainable practices in businesses has on TBL

performance (environmental, social and economic) is not shaped by a defined model. Moreover,

there is not an unambiguous version of the nature of this relationship.

However, the scope of this study is not limited to the analysis of the relationship between

practices implementation and performance improvement. It goes further as it seeks to identify if

there is a sustainable strategic fit between the declared sustainable strategy and the

implemented sustainable practices and what is the impact of this strategic fit on the TBL

performance of the firm. This is the most innovative element of the study, as in Literature still

doesn’t exist the concept of “sustainable strategic fit”. Chopra and Meindl (2012) defined a similar

concept to indicate the consistency between customer priorities of competitive strategy and

supply chain capabilities specified by the supply chain strategy and they called it strategic fit. The

Authors specified that strategic fit happens when competitive and supply chain strategies have

the same goals, thus a company may fail because of a lack of strategic fit or because its processes

and resources do not provide the capabilities to execute the desired strategy. Chopra and Meindl

(2012) provided a procedure for the achievement of strategic fit: first, a company should

understand the customer and supply chain uncertainty, then it should focus on its supply chain,

finally the firm should ensure that what the supply chain does well is consistent with target

customer’s needs.

The Authors bring the example of strategic fit between demand uncertainty and supply chain

strategy (responsive or efficient). To achieve strategic fit, the greater the implied uncertainty, the

more responsive the supply chain should be. Increasing implied uncertainty from customers and

supply sources is best served by increasing responsiveness from the supply chain. This

relationship is represented by the "zone of strategic fit" illustrated in Fig. 40. For a high level of

performance, companies should move their competitive strategy (and resulting implied

uncertainty) and supply chain strategy (and resulting responsiveness) toward the zone of strategic

fit.

99

Figure 40 - Finding zone of strategic fit (Chopra and Meindl, 2012)

Unfortunately, this is one of the rare contributes to the theory of strategic fit available in

Literature, it is very hard to find scientific papers dealing with this topic while it is impossible to

find references to the sustainable strategic fit concept, because it is a brand-new idea. In this

work, the expression “sustainable strategic fit” will be referred to as the match between the

strategic role of sustainability stated by the company and the effective implemented sustainable

practices.

Thus, starting from the previous considerations it is possible to formalize the third Literature gap

with the following sentence:

Gap 3. In Literature, there are few studies dealing with the topic of the strategic fit between

customer priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain capabilities. Moreover, there are no

references to the sustainable counterparty of the strategic fit concept which in this study will be

defined as “sustainable strategic fit”.

The Literature gaps discussed in the previous pages can be summarized in the following table

(Table 22):

100

Literature gaps

There are not defined and unambiguous guidelines for the correct integration of sustainability

into the corporate strategy as a competitive factor. Moreover, there is a lack of frameworks

showing how this integration impacts on sustainable supply chain practices.

The impact that the implementation of sustainable practices in businesses has on TBL

performance (environmental, social and economic) is not shaped by a defined model. Moreover,

there is not an unambiguous version of the nature of this relationship.

In Literature, there are few studies dealing with the topic of the strategic fit between customer

priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain capabilities. Moreover, there are no

references to the sustainable counterparty of the strategic fit concept which in this study will be

defined as “sustainable strategic fit”

Table 22 - Literature gaps

6.2 Research Questions Based on the previous considerations and on the Literature gaps, the following research questions

have been formulated:

RQ1: How companies can be classified according to their commitment in implementing

sustainable practices?

RQ2: Being the strategic role of sustainability equal, what are the different sustainable practices

implemented by manufacturers and suppliers

RQ3: How the external and internal drivers impact on the company’s commitment to implement

sustainable practices?

RQ4: How the sustainable strategic fit between the stated strategic role of sustainability and the

actual implemented sustainable practices impacts on the environmental, social and economic

performance of a company?

6.3 Research Framework The first goal of this work is to investigate what is the strategic role that furniture companies

attribute to sustainability and how this role varies according to the position of the company along

the supply chain. A second important objective is to understand what is the impact of internal and

external drivers on the implementation of sustainable supply chain practices in the furniture

industry. Then the study seeks to find whether there is a match between what companies claim

about sustainability and what they concretely do to realize it. This concept can be better defined

101

as the sustainable strategic fit between the role of sustainability stated by companies and the

sustainable practices that they actually implement. Moreover, this study aims at identifying what

is the nature of the impact that this strategic fit has on the corporate TBL performance

(environmental, social and economic).

The basis for the research framework have been inherited by a previous thesis work where the

goal was to identify which were the most implemented sustainable practices according to the

different strategic role of sustainability stated by firms (order winner, market qualifier or

desirable attribute) and the position of the company along the supply chain. The framework (Fig.

41) starts from the classification of sustainability as order winner (OW) or market qualifier (MQ).

These are the key variables describing the supply chain strategies in the global Literature (Mason-

jones, 2000). Whenever sustainability is considered as a non-strategic factor, the model assigns

the label desirable attribute (DA) to sustainability, which represents the lower level of the

framework’s pyramid. Sustainability is accounted as a desirable attribute if it is not a strategic

factor and it is limited to mere compliance with regulations and norms, or when it is considered a

non-value added element from the customer: the presence or the absence of this factor does not

influence customers’ purchasing decision. To clearly determine the characteristic of a sustainable

supply chain strategy, it is fundamental to analyze also which practices are implemented by the

companies that consider sustainability as an OW or a MQ. Finally, the previous framework

evaluated also the impact that the adoption of a sustainable approach can have on corporate

performance in environmental, social and economic terms.

102

Figure 41 - Structured questionnaires research framework (Verderio, 2015)

The new framework (Fig. 42) maintains some key concept of the previous model such as the

classification of sustainability according to the Hill’s order winner and market qualifier definitions

with the addition of the “desirable attribute” concept. Moreover, also in the new framework is

reported the relationship between the strategic role of sustainability and the subsequent

implementation of sustainable practices with the addition of the analysis of the impact that

drivers may have on the practices’ development. As already stated before, the goal of this study is

not only to identify and analyze the practices implemented by companies with different levels of

sustainable integration, but also to detect whether there is a match between the strategic role of

sustainability stated by the company and the effective implementation of a sustainable strategy.

Therefore, the correlation between the first two elements of the framework is one of the pillars of

this new work. A second important pillar of the study, is the impact of the company’s position

along the supply chain on the implementation of green and social practices. Thus, the variable

“role of the company along the supply chain” has been introduced to study the behavior of

manufacturers and suppliers with respect to the implementation of sustainable initiatives. Finally,

while in the previous work the focus was on the practices’ implementation’s impact on corporate

performance, in this analysis the purpose is to identify the impact on performance of the

sustainable strategic fit previously detected. To answer RQ4 and consequently to identify what is

103

the relationship between the sustainable supply chain strategic fit and the change in corporate

performance it was necessary to make an initial hypothesis.

While strategic fit defined by Chopra and Meindl (2012) indicated the consistency between

customer priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain capabilities specified by the supply

chain strategy, in this thesis the concept of sustainable strategic fit indicates the match between

the declared competitive role of sustainability and the actual commitment of companies in

implementing sustainable supply chain practices. This first consideration is also the most

important pillar of this work, as well as the starting point to answer RQ4. After having defined this

concept, it was wondered whether companies could be better defined according to their

sustainable strategic fit. Deepening the work of previous Authors who faced the problem of

companies’ classification on the basis of a given variable (Macchion et al., 2015; Wu and Pagell,

2011), it was assumed that survey’s subjects could be further categorized according to the match

of the declared competitive role of sustainability. Combining this assumption with the clusters’

classification obtained by dividing companies according to their commitment in implementing

sustainable practices (answer to RQ1), it was assumed to classify companies according to their

sustainable strategic fit or misfit and their commitment in implementing green and social

initiatives.

Considering previous research works and in particular, the thesis work that preceded the current

one, there are evidences that the implementation of certain sustainable practices has a direct

positive impact on triple bottom line performance. For instance, the preceding thesis concluded

that production management practices such as: use of a waste management system, the use of

recycled raw materials, the use of energy from renewable sources and the realization of

recyclable/reusable packaging, improve internal supply chain costs performance. Purchasing

practices such as: collaborations with suppliers to improve their sustainable performance have a

positive impact on the firm’s green image and reputation. Finally, the adoption of environmental

and social certification, organization of training courses for a correct use and disposal of products

for customers and employees and the sponsorship of green and social initiatives of no-profit

organizations, significantly improve stakeholders’ satisfaction level and corporate green image.

Moreover, in the recent Literature there are plenty of papers offering insight on potential

patterns of supply chain relations for improving environmental performance (Florida, 1996a;

Florida and Davison, 2001; Geffen and Rothenberg, 2000; Green et al., 1996; Handfield et al.,

2002; Sarkis, 1995). Finally, in the lights of the conclusions obtained in the preceding thesis work

and in line with a number of research papers that dealt with the relationships between

104

implementation of sustainable practices and the evident improvement of corporate performance

(Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Zhu et al., 2007, Samal, 2008; Zhu et al., 2008), considering also the results

of some scientific studies showing that companies implemented different practices according to

the different competitive role of sustainability in their corporate strategy (Wu and Pagell, 2011;

Cabot et al., 2009), it is reasonable to postulate that: when the sustainable strategic fit between

stated role of sustainability and effective implemented practices is in its optimal condition, then

the company experiences the highest level of triple bottom line performance. This assumption led

to the formulation of the following research hypothesis:

Hp1: Companies that match the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition, are expected to

experience higher performance than all other companies.

Figure 42 - Research Framework

According to the classification proposed by Hill (2000), an order winner is a characteristic of the

product or the service that will win the bid or customer's purchase. In general, the factors that

can be considered as order winners are the competitive advantages such as quality, delivery

speed, reliability, product design, flexibility, and image that cause a firm's customers to select that

company's products or services. Thus, in case sustainability is considered an order winner, it

means it is the key characteristic of the product that determine the customer’s purchasing

decision. A market qualifier is a characteristic of a product or service that is required in order for

the product/service to even be considered by a customer (Hill, 2000). So, in other words it is the

105

competitive advantages that a company must demonstrate in order to be a viable competitor in

the business arena. Sustainability is labeled as MQ when it represents a necessary standard to

operate in the market and companies must necessarily respect it if they want to be competitive.

Finally, sustainability is considered a non-strategic factor (DA) when the firm doesn’t put much

effort on it and limits itself to comply with environmental and social laws. In this case, the

absence of the sustainability factor does not preclude the customer’s purchase.

Starting from the previous considerations, the concepts of order winner, market qualifier and

desirable attribute have been further detailed and separated in order to offer to companies a

wider range of sustainability’s shades to choose. In the following table (Table 23) all the available

options are summarized.

DESIRABLE ATTRIBUTE MARKET QUALIFIER ORDER WINNER

Not so important compared to other competitive factors (e.g: quality, price…)

Not strategic but still desirable characteristic ("nice to have")

A necessary condition to operate in Our sector

A required characteristic of a product in order for the product to be even considered by a customer

Very important for Us to win orders

A characteristic that will win the bid or customer's purchase

Table 23 - Sustainability's interpretations

The most suitable way to collect reliable information regarding the companies’ sustainable

behavior, the implemented practices and the change in corporate performance is the survey.

Thus, after an exhaustive Literature review on the topic, a questionnaire encompassing all the

arguments cited till now has been built. The construction of the survey has been performed

considering the Literature gaps previously highlighted, thus the final goal of the investigation was

to answer to the questions that have emerged from the Literature review.

6.4 Research Methodology

6.4.1 Selection of the Furniture Industry as field of analysis

The reasons that led to the selection of the Furniture industry as field for this analysis are mainly

three. First, in the wooden Furniture industry, together with the Fashion industry and the food

sector, is one of the pillars of the Made in Italy production. The total volume of production of the

Furniture sector accounts for 6% of total Italian manufacturing industry. The most significant

market appears to be offices and stores furniture manufacturing with a 29% share of the total

106

market group, followed by the other furniture manufacturing, with a share of 24.8% and chair and

seats production with a 21.8% share. The kitchen furniture manufacturing share seems to be the

lowest one (20.6%) (IPI, 2005). In the light of these considerations, the Furniture sector has been

selected as representing one of the most interesting Italian sectors currently. Moreover, the main

raw material for furnishing production is wood. Being wood a natural, non-renewable resource, it

is quite reasonably to suppose that Furniture industry is one of the sectors concerned with the

environmental issue and in general with the sustainability theme. Thus, the Furniture industry

was selected also to test the responsiveness of the sector to the current changes. Finally, more

operatively speaking, the Salone del Mobile held in Milan every year during Spring represents a

big opportunity to meet field professionals and simultaneously collect information on the

evolution of the sustainability theme in the sector. Moreover, thanks to this occasion it is possible

to collect e-mail addresses, contacts and other relevant data for the construction of a database

useful for future researches.

6.4.2 Research Methodology: the use of the survey

If we compare contemporary research in Operations Management (OM) with that conducted in

the early 1980s, we notice an increase in the use of empirical data (derived from field observation

and taken from industry) to supplement mathematics, modelling and simulation to develop and

test theories (Forza, 2012). Survey research, like the other types of field study, can contribute to

the advance of scientific knowledge in different ways (Babbie, 1990; Kerlinger 1986). Accordingly,

researches often distinguish between three types of surveys:

- Exploratory survey research: usually employed during the early stages of research into a

phenomenon. Typically, exploratory studies can help to determine the concepts to be

measured in relation to the phenomenon of interest, how best to measure them and how

to discover new facets of the phenomenon under studies (Forza, 2012).

- Confirmatory (or theory testing or explanatory) survey research: it is used when there is

already some knowledge about the phenomenon and the theoretical form, models and

propositions have been already identified (Forza, 2012).

- Descriptive survey research: this is not a research survey designed for theory

development, but it can provide useful hints both for theory building and for theory

refinement (Dubin, 1978; Malhotra and Grover, 1998; Wacker, 1998).

107

For the aim of this thesis, an exploratory survey research resulted the most indicated way of

surveying the market. Theory testing survey research is a long process which presupposes the pre-

existence of a theoretical model (or a conceptual framework). It includes a number of related sub-

processes: the process of translating the theoretical domain into the empirical domain; the design

and pilot testing processes; the process of collecting data for theory testing; the data analysis

process and the process of interpreting the results and writing the report (Forza, 2012). This

theory testing survey research process is illustrated in Fig. 43.

Figure 43 - Theory-testing survey research process (Forza, 2012)

Surveyors today have multiple ways to contact people, but their efforts are often thwarted by

buffers designed to keep unsolicited messages at bay. Receptionists or guards prevent access to

buildings. Answering machines, voice mail, and caller ID technology filter telephone calls. E-mail

108

filters and the ability to preview e-mails without opening them make e-mail survey requests less

likely to be seen and answered. Thus, the technology that makes unprecedented and speedy

access possible also provides the means of avoiding or ignoring it. In addition, cultural norms have

evolved so that control over whether a survey request is received and responded to rests

increasingly with the individual to whom the request is being made, and not with the individual

making it (Forza, 2012).

Among the different survey’s modes available (telephone questionnaires, web questionnaires,

mail questionnaires and mixed-model questionnaires), the mail questionnaire showed to be the

most appropriate tool for this study. In our modern society, indeed, private communications via

postal mail have been almost entirely replaced by electronic communications in the form of e-

mails, text messages or updates and messages sent through social networking sites (Dillman et al.,

2014). Thus, many surveyors abandoned mail as a survey mode.

6.4.3 Development of the Survey based on the Research

Framework

It was crucial, for the aim of this study, to collect real and quantifiable data from the field. After

an accurate research of the most effective research methods, it was agreed that the survey was

the most suitable one. The following scheme clarifies the steps that have been followed during

the work. The development of the research survey is the initial phase (Figure 44)

109

Figure 44 - Steps of the analysis - Survey's development and sending

The first step to build an objective, complete and structured survey, is a deep Literature review on

the topics of interest; in this case, they were: the drivers for the development of sustainable

strategies, the implementation of sustainable practices and their impact on the TBL performance

(environmental, social and economic). This activity allowed to have a clear view of the overall

Research situation and to ensure solid basis for the construction of the survey.

The survey was built during the month of March 2016 and, for a matter of comprehension, it was

realized both in Italian and in English. The first occasion to test the survey was the Salone del

Mobile 2016 held in Milan from April the 12th to April the 17th. During the event, the survey was

submitted to the participants and some questions regarding the wood supply chain and the role

of sustainability in the furniture industry were asked. During the Salone del Mobile, many e-mail

addresses and contact information were collected. Right after the conclusion of the first-test

phase, indeed, a database containing all the relevant information of the companies interviewed

during the Salone del Mobile and those found by surfing the web was created. With the support

of Survey Monkey the questionnaire has been uploaded and subsequently sent to a large number

of recipients. Overall, 1580 mail questionnaires were sent, considering first sending, reminders

and second sending. The companies, were firstly contacted through an e-mail explaining the

110

project and containing the link to Survey Monkey for the fulfillment of the questionnaire. Then, a

reminder was sent to those companies that didn’t ultimate the questionnaire the first time.

Companies that didn’t reply to the first call, but resulted particularly involved with the

sustainability issue were approached a second time either by telephone or by e-mail. The phase of

questionnaires sending lasted more or less 4 months: from May to September 2016 (excluding

August 2016) and the response modes were either by filling the survey sent by e-mail or by

arranging a telephone call. The total answers received were 76 of which 18 were incomplete, thus

the answers considered valid for the study were 58.

The survey was composed by twenty-two questions and was divided in the following sections:

PART 1: The supply chain structure: which are the firm’s customers and suppliers

PART 2: The importance of environmental and social sustainability as competitive factors

PART 3: Drivers and factors that pushed the company towards the adoption of

sustainable practices

PART 4: Sustainability and Supply Chain practices (about design, purchasing, production,

distribution and new product development)

PART 5: Performance

PART 6: Product and process features

The whole survey was structured using a Likert Scale, in each section the respondent was required

to assign a value ranging from a minimum to a maximum number. The range of values varied

according to the question posed:

- In Part 2, the strategic role of sustainability (social and environmental) was evaluated on a

six-points scale, where each value correspond to a different perception of sustainability:

1. Not so important compared to other competitive factors (e.g: quality, price..)

2. Not strategic but still desirable characteristic ("nice to have")

3. A necessary condition to operate in Our sector

4. A required characteristic of a product in order for the product to be even

considered by a customer

111

5. Very important for Us to win orders

6. A characteristic that will win the bid or customer's purchase

- In Part 3, it was asked how much the drivers influenced the company’s decision to

implement sustainable practices. They were evaluated on a five points scale, where 1

means “not at all” and 5 means “a lot”.

- In part 4, it was asked at what level of implementation were the practices proposed in the

survey. They were evaluated on a five points scale, where 1 means “Not implemented at

all” and five stands for “Fully implemented”.

- Finally, in part 5, it was asked how much the listed performance improved in the last year

compared to the market average. In this case a range of five options were proposed

where:

1. The performance has improved much less than the market average

2. The performance has improved less than the market average

3. The performance is in line with the market average

4. The performance has improved more than the market average

5. The performance has improved much more than the market average

The first part dealt mainly with the supply chain’s characteristics, the purpose of this section was

to delineate the company’s profile on the basis of its size (revenues and employees) and its

position along the supply chain. This latter information was particularly interesting for the analysis

because company’s role in the SC was one of the key factors analyzed in the study. Thus, to better

classify the interviewed firms, in the survey it was asked to specify the core business of the

company (components production or production/assembly of final furnishings). Moreover, in the

survey it was expressly required to select a product family and to respond the entire

questionnaire referring to that family.

The sample was quite heterogeneous: the average revenues of respondents were 32.638.863 €,

the highest value specified was 411.587.464 € while the lowest one was 400.000 €. The biggest

company in terms of employees had 1600 employees, the smallest one had 3. Companies

participating to the survey were codified with two types of identifiers: PR for finished furniture

112

manufacturers and FOR for components’ suppliers. In total the research’s sample was composed

by fifty-eight companies, forty-six manufacturers (PR) and twelve suppliers (FOR). Companies’

identities will not be revealed in the study, because it was guaranteed to firms, that the

questionnaire was anonymous and the analysis of results would have been done ensuring full

respect of privacy. The following table show the detail of the size dimensions (revenues and

number of employees) of firms. The survey’s question asking to specify the revenues and the

number of employees was not mandatory, so some respondents decided to skip this part. In these

cases, the size dimensions of the firm have been estimated after an internet research and are

indicated in blue in the following chart.

Company ID Revenues N. of Employees

FOR12 16.000.000 € 50

PR46 19.434.217 € 50

PR1 16.185.550 € 52

PR2 17.000.000 € 146

FOR1 2.000.000 € 10

FOR2 22.988.121 € 50

PR3 5.297.000 € 43

PR4 1.200.000 € 3

PR5 2.000.000 € 20

PR6 500.000 € ÷ 1.500.000 € 6 ÷ 9

FOR3 6.000.000 € ÷ 30.000.000 € 56

PR7 3.000.000 € 24

PR8 320.000.000 € 700

FOR4 11.500.000 € 28

PR9 4.000.000 € 20

113

FOR5 6.000.000 € 24

FOR6 8.300.000 € 49

PR10 25.000.000 € 80

PR11 1.900.000 € 20

PR12 2.500.000 € ÷ 5.000.000 € 10 ÷ 19

PR13 25.000.000 € 70

FOR7 1.000.000 € 10

PR14 10.000.000 € ÷ 25.000.000 € 100 ÷ 249

FOR8 2.000.000 € 18

FOR9 500.000 € ÷ 1.500.000 € 2 ÷ 5

PR15 600.000 € 9

PR16 1.500.00 € ÷ 2.500.000 € 12

FOR10 500.000 € ÷ 1.500.000 € 5

PR17 20.000.000 € circa 50

PR19 33.000.000 € 170

PR18 411.587.464 € 1600

PR20 67.000.000 € 198

FOR11 2.200.000 € 14

PR21 150.000.000 € 750

PR22 3.800.000 € 14

PR23 19.357.839 € 102

PR24 5.600.000 € 35

114

PR26 3.000.000 € 5

PR27 2.500.000 € 30

PR28 80.000.000 € 140

PR29 12.000.000 € 14

PR30 2.000.000 € 10

PR31 500.000 € ÷ 1.500.000 € 2 ÷ 5

PR32 7.000.000 € 47

PR33 8.000.000 € 25

PR34 2.200.000 € 18

PR35 500.000 € 4

PR36 13.472.094 € 87

PR37 500.000 € ÷ 1.500.000 € 30

PR38 60.000.000 € 315

PR39 75.000.000 € 56000

PR25 6.000.000 € 15

PR40 17.250.000 € 104

PR41 14.000.000 € 44

PR42 3.500.000 15

PR43 23.612.109 € 156

PR44 500.000 € ÷ 1.500.000 € 2 ÷ 5

PR45 400.000 € 7

Table 24 - Companies' features

115

All the respondents were Italian companies, among these 12 were components producers while

the remaining were assemblers or manufacturers (Fig. 45).

Figure 45 - Role of companies along the SC

The components suppliers selected different families of products: 5 of them selected the option

wooden semi-finished items, 4 of them selected wooden panels and 3 of the suppliers chose

tables as product family of reference. For what concerned the manufacturers, 16 selected chairs,

11 selected sofas and armchairs, 6 selected wardrobes, 6 selected tables, 5 selected kitchen

furniture, 1 selected beds and 1 selected garden furniture (Fig. 46).

116

Figure 46 - Product family selected

In the survey was asked to specified who are the direct customers of the interviewed company,

for this question non-mutually exclusive answers were provided, thus one single respondent was

allowed to select more than one option. 25 firms indicated retailers as main distribution channel,

25 chose multi-brand sores as option, 24 of the overall respondents answered that furniture

manufacturers were their clients, 20 indicated other manufacturers (including architecture and

design studios, construction company as their direct customers, 6 chose wholesalers, only 5 used

their single brand stores to distribute their products and just 1 indicated franchise stores as

option. The following chart is helpful to visualize the overlapping categories (Fig. 47).

117

Figure 47 - Direct customers

Finally, the last question included in this first part of the questionnaire regarded the execution of

the design activity: 26 of the respondents answered that the design activity is performed inside

the company, while the remaining 32 stated that they outsource this activity (Fig. 48).

Figure 48 - Is the product design activity performed directly by the company?

While the first part of the questionnaire was very helpful to contextualize the companies inside

the furniture or the wood industry, the following parts regard the sustainable behavior of each

firm, thus the remaining survey’s questions are intended to collect quantitative data that have

been further analyzed to obtain robust results. In particular, the second part of the questionnaire

118

introduced the theme of sustainability as a competitive factor. In the survey was scheduled a

question asking to rate the social and environmental sustainability as competitive factors. As

already mentioned above, the respondents could choose among a set of options: if they believed

that sustainability was a non-strategic factor, in other words a nice to have or a desirable attribute

(DA), they could select the options 1 or 2 respectively: “Not so important compared to other

competitive factors (e.g: quality, price..)” and “Not strategic but still desirable characteristic (nice

to have)”. Conversely, if social and environmental sustainability have a fair value in the corporate

strategy and it can be considered a market qualifier for the firm, then companies should indicate

it either as “A necessary condition to operate in Our sector” or as “A required characteristic of a

product in order for the product to be even considered by a customer”, options 3 and 4

respectively. Finally, if sustainability is perceived by the firm as a strategic competitive factor, in

other words if it is an order winner for the company, then the respondents should select the

options 5 or 6 corresponding to: “Very important for Us to win orders” and “A characteristic that

will win the bid or customer's purchase”.

The following table (Table 25) shows how the question has been formulated in the survey.

How do you judge the following competitive factors?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Not so important compared to other competitive factors (e.g: quality, price..)

Not strategic but still desirable characteristic ("nice to have")

A necessary condition to operate in Our sector

A required characteristic of a product in order for the product to be even considered by a customer

Very important for Us to win orders

A characteristic that will win the bid or customer's purchase

Environmental

sustainability

Social sustainability

Table 25 – Competitive role of Social and Environmental Sustainability

6.4.3.1 Drivers

The third part of the questionnaire was intended to identify which were the drivers, both internal

or external to the company, that mostly encouraged firms to implement sustainable practices. To

build this section of the survey, a review on the Literature has been conducted. In particular, the

attention was put on the papers dealing with the drivers that catalyze the development of a

sustainable strategy. A wide summary of the drivers found in Literature has been already

119

presented in the first part of this work, for the purpose of the questionnaire a selection on the

initially individuated factors was performed. Finally, the drivers included in the survey were nine:

only the most significant ones that are further exposed in Table 26. Concretely, in the survey was

asked how much each of the factors influence the company’s decision to undertake some

sustainability practices assigning a value from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot).

DRIVERS Reference

Central and regional governmental environmental

regulations

Zhu et al., 2007, Zhang at al.,

2014

Avoiding potential costs and liabilities for disposal of

hazardous materials

Zhu et al., 2007, Zhang at al.,

2014

Establishing company's green image Zhu et al., 2007, Zhang at al.,

2014

Reacting to competitors' green initiatives Zhu et al., 2007; Walker et al.,

2007, Polonsky et al., 2001

Pressures coming from customers' environmental awareness

Zhu et al., 2008 and Christmann

and Taylor, 2001, Zhu et al.,

2007, Polonsky et al., 2001,

Zhang at al., 2014

Pressures coming from local communities Azzone, Bertelè, 1994, Kovács,

2008

Pressures coming from suppliers for the joint development

of environmentally friendly goods

Zhu et al., 2007, Zhang at al.,

2014

Pressures coming from firm's employees Zhang at al., 2014

Pressures coming from firm's shareholders Zhang at al., 2014

Table 26 - Drivers included in the survey

The fourth part of the survey was dedicated to the sustainable practices implementation. In

Literature, there are plenty of studies dealing with this topic, part of them are focusing on

practices of green design, green production and in general on sustainable practices adopted by

the focal company. There is then a second part of studies analyzing the implementation of

sustainable practices along the supply chain. These studies are generally focused on practices

involving different actors of the chain such as: collaboration with suppliers for greening the

process, suppliers’ assessment based on sustainable criteria and so on. The sustainable practices

120

individuated for this work are both company’s specific and supply chain’s specific. The selection of

the practices has been realized after a previous wider categorization, that has been better

exposed in the first chapter. In the end, the chosen practices were fifty: eight of green design, ten

of sustainable production, nine of suppliers’ selection and evaluation, ten of collaboration with

suppliers, five of collaboration with customers, three of supply chain network and five of green

logistics.

In the following tables the practices included in the research questionnaire are presented:

6.4.3.2 Green Design practices

PRACTICE Subcategory Reference

Design for disassembly (design

of the product for quickly,

easily and cheaply disassemble

it at the end of its life)

Green Design

Shrivastava, 1995b; Carter and

Carter, 1998; Gupta, 1995;

Klassen and McLaughlin, 1993;

Kriwet et al., 1995; Gonzalez

et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2008a;

and Holt and Ghobadian, 2009

Design for durability (design of

the product that ensure a long

life of it and the minimum

number of interventions on it)

Carter and Carter, 1998;

Gupta, 1995; Klassen and

McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet et

al., 1995

Design for maintainability

(design of the product for

quickly, easily and cheaply

maintain and repair it during

its life)

Carter and Carter, 1998;

Gupta, 1995; Klassen and

McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet et

al., 1995

Design for disposability (design

of the product for quickly,

easily and cheaply dispose it at

the end of its life)

Carter and Carter, 1998;

Gupta, 1995; Klassen and

McLaughlin, 1993; Kriwet et

al., 1995

Design for reuse, recycle or

material recovery Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis,

Kee-hung Lai, 2007

Design of "Low environmental

impact products" (design of

the product considering not

only the functional aspects,

but also the life cycle of the

product and its final disposal)

Walton, S. V., Handfield, R. B.,

& Melnyk, S. A; Chen, 2011

121

Use of Life Cycle Assessment

(environmental impact

assessment of the product

throughout its life cycle)

Davis, 1993; Davis, 1993;

Walton et al. (1998)

Sarkis (2001); Bovea e Vidal

(2003); Rao e Holt (2005);

Pagell e Wu (2009); Zailani et

al. (2012)

Lightweight design (design of

the product using light but

resistant materials)

Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis,

Kee-hung Lai, 2007

Table 27 - Green Design practices included in the survey

6.4.3.3 Sustainable Production practices

PRACTICE Subcategory Reference

Waste Management System

(management and recovery of

the energy amount, water used

and produced and recycled

waste)

Green Production

Klassen e McLaughlin (1996);

Min e Galle (1997);

Azevedo et al. (2011)

Use of renewable energy in

manufacturing

González-García et al., 2011;

Azevedo et al. (2011); Harms

et al. (2012); Mitra e Datta

(2014); Zailani et al. (2012)

Reduction in energy consumption

during the production process

Rao and Holt, 2005; Gonzalez

et al., 2008; Holt and

Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj,

2009; S. González-García et

al., 2011

Use of environment friendly

materials/components/products

(wood and fabric from

sustainable sources)

Rao and Holt, 2005; Gonzalez

et al., 2008; Holt and

Ghobadian, 2009; San, H.P. et

al., 2015; D.R. Iritani et al.,

2015; S. González-García et

al., 2011

Use of filters and controls for

emissions and discharges

Gonzalez et al., 2008;

Handfield et al., 1997;

Azevedo et al. (2011); Sarkis

122

(2001)

Reduction in air emissions, liquid

and solid wastes

Rao and Holt, 2005; Gonzalez

et al., 2008; Holt and

Ghobadian, 2009; San, H.P. et

al., 2015; D.R. Iritani et al.,

2015; S. González-García et

al., 2011

Reuse, recycling and

remanufacturing materials

Carter and Carter, 1998;

Carter and Ellram, 1998;

Carter et al., 1998; Murphy et

al., 1995; Rao and Holt, 2005;

Vachon, 2007; Gonzalez et

al., 2008; Holt and

Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj,

2009; Walton, S. V. et al.,

1998; Ashford, 1993; Dechant

& Altman, 1994; Florida,

1996; Hart, 1995; Porter &

van der Linde, 1995a, 1995b;

Polonsky, M. J., &

Rosenberger, P. J., 2001

Pollution prevention practices

(reduction of the amount of raw

materials, reduction of source)

S. L. Hart, 1995; P.

Christmann, 2000; Ashford,

1993; Porter & van der Linde,

1995a, 1995b

Adoption of environmental

certification (e.g. ISO 14001)

Green Management

Daily e Huang (2001); Rao e

Holt (2005); Vachon e Klassen

(2006); Zhu et al. (2008);

Nawrocka et al. (2009);

Azevedo et al. (2011)

Adoption of health & safety

certification (e.g. ISO 18001)

Daily e Huang (2001);

Kleindorfer et al. (2005);

Pheng e Kwang (2005)

Table 28 - Sustainable Production practices included in the survey

123

6.4.3.4 Suppliers selection and evaluation practices

PRACTICE Subcategory Reference

Selection of suppliers who

comply with the minimum

standards and regulations

regarding sustainability and

have environmental and social

certifications (ISO 14001,

SA8000)

Suppliers’ green Management

Walton et al. (1998); Zsidisin e

Siferd (2001; Handfield et al.

(2002); Azevedo et al. (2011);

Mitra e Datta (2014)

Selection of suppliers that

proactively support sustainable

innovation

Carter et al. (1998); Mamic

(2005); Narasimhan et al.

(2006); Pagell e Wu (2009);

Reuter et al. (2010)

Choice of suppliers with a solid

sustainable reputation Walton, S. V. et al., 1998

Environmental and social

monitoring of suppliers (through

supplier's self-evaluation)

Hu and Hsu, 2006; Vachon,

2007; Zhu et al., 2008a; Holt

and Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj,

2009; Zhu et al., 2008b

Environmental and social

monitoring of suppliers (through

audits at the supplier's situ)

Zsidisin e Siferd (2001);

Handfield et al. (2002); Pagell e

Wu (2009); Large e Gimenez

(2011); Harms et al. (2013)

Environmental and social

monitoring of second-tier

suppliers (through supplier's

self-evaluation)

Hu and Hsu, 2006; Vachon,

2007; Zhu et al., 2008a; Holt

and Ghobadian, 2009; Paulraj,

2009; Zhu et al., 2008b

Environmental and social

monitoring of second-tier

suppliers (through audits at the

supplier's situ)

Walton et al. (1998); Preuss

(2001); Holt (2004); Vachon

(2007); Zhu et al. (2008); Holt

and Ghobadian (2009); Paulraj

(2009); De Marchi et al. (2013)

Definition of a Code of Conduct

for suppliers

F. Caniato et al., 2012; David

Styles et al., 2012¸ Pedersen e

Andersen (2006); Harms et al.

(2013)

Development of suppliers'

Environmental Management

System (EMS) Handfield et al. (1997)

Table 29 - Suppliers selection and evaluation practices included in the survey

124

6.4.3.5 Collaboration with suppliers’ practices

PRACTICE Subcategory Reference

Communication with suppliers

to ensure their compliance to

environmental and ethical

requirements

Green Purchasing

Hu and Hsu, 2006; Zhu et al.,

2008a; Holt and Ghobadian,

2009; Carter et al., (1998)

Collaboration with suppliers to

improve their manufacturing

processes in order to reduce

their environmental impact

Walton et al. (1998); Krause et

al.

(2000); Bowen et al. (2001);

Zsidisin e Siferd (2001); Styles

et al. (2012); De Marchi et al.;

(2013)

Jointly setting targets for

suppliers for improving their

environmental sustainability

performances

Walton et al. (1998); Krause et

al.

(2000); Bowen et al. (2001);

Zsidisin e Siferd (2001); Styles

et al. (2012); De Marchi et al.;

(2013)

Development of training

programs for suppliers for

enhance their environmental

sustainability performances

Harms et al. (2013)

Encouraging suppliers to take

back packaging

Rao and Holt, 2005; Holt and

Ghobadian, 2009

Rewarding suppliers with

monetary or image incentives

for the achievement of

environmental sustainability

performances

Krause et al. (2000); Peters

(2010); Gimenez e Sierra

(2012); Harms et al. (2013)

Jointly setting targets for

suppliers for improving their

social sustainability

performances

Ringov e Zollo (2007)

Development of training

programs for suppliers for

enhance their social

sustainability performances

Harms et al. (2013)

125

Rewarding suppliers with

monetary of images incentives

for the achievement of social

sustainability performances

Krause et al. (2000); Peters

(2010); Gimenez e Sierra

(2012); Harms et al. (2013)

Collaboration with suppliers to

improve their working

conditions

Ringov e Zollo (2007)

Table 30 - Collaboration with suppliers’ practices included in the survey

6.4.3.6 Collaboration with customers’ practices

PRACTICE Subcategory Reference

Development of training

programs for clients to

enhance their environmental

performance

Green customer management

Routroy, 2009; Porter e van

der Linde (1995); Hart (1997);

Geffen e Rothenberg, (2000);

Bowen et al. (2001); Gold et al.

(2010); Vachon e Klassen

(2008); Pagell e Wu (2009)

Development of training

programs for clients to

enhance their social

performance

Routroy, 2009; Porter e van

der Linde (1995); Hart (1997);

Geffen e Rothenberg, (2000);

Bowen et al. (2001); Gold et al.

(2010); Vachon e Klassen

(2008); Pagell e Wu (2009)

Collaboration with clients for

eco-design

Zhu et al., 2008 a, b; Q. Zhu, J.

Sarkis, 2004; Porter e van der

Linde (1995); Hart (1997);

Geffen e Rothenberg, (2000);

Bowen et al. (2001); Gold et al.

(2010);

Collaboration with clients for

cleaner production (a

preventive environmental

protection initiative. It is

intended to minimize waste

and emissions and maximize

product output)

Zhu et al., 2008 a, b; Q. Zhu, J.

Sarkis, 2004

Collaboration with clients for

green packaging

Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, 2004;

Routroy, 2009

126

Table 31 - Collaboration with customers’ practices included in the survey

6.4.3.7 Supply chain network design practices

PRACTICE Subcategory Reference

Local sourcing: choice of local

suppliers rather than

geographically scattered ones

in order to reduce the

environmental and social

impact

Design of the Network

practices

David Styles et al., 2012;

Narashiman and Nair (2005);

Beamon (2008); Halldorsson et

al. (2009); Pagell e Wu (2009);

Azevedo et al. (2011)

Presence of a reverse logistics

system (product recollection

after its usage and its rework

or recycling)

Wu & Dunn, 1995; Kroon e

Vrijens (1995); Thierry et al.

(1995); Stock (1998); Rogers e

Tibben- Lembke (2001); De

Brito e Dekker (2003);

Azevedo et al. (2011); Dekker

et al. (2012)

Suppliers' base reduction

(reduction of the number of

suppliers in case some of them

didn't respect the sustainable

policy of the company

Lamming and Hampson

(1996); Handfield et al.

(1997); Delmas and Montiel

(2009)

Table 32 - Supply chain network design practices included in the survey

127

6.4.3.8 Green logistics practices

PRACTICE Subcategories Reference

Packaging size optimization to

reduce energy and materials

consumption

Green Logistics

Wu e Dunn (1995); Rao e Holt

(2005); Azevedo et al. (2011);

Thiell et al. (2011); Dekker et

al. (2012)

Development of a

reusable/recyclable packaging

Zhang et al., 2014; Wu e Dunn

(1995);Rao e Holt (2005);

Azevedo et al. (2011); Thiell et

al. (2011); Dekker et al. (2012)

Use of recyclable pallets

Sustainable warehousing

Stock (1998); Thiell et al.

(2011)

Cross docking (unloading

materials from an incoming

semitrailer truck and loading

these materials directly into

outbound trucks with little or

no storage in between)

Wu & Dunn, 1995

Use of biofuels to feed the

vehicles (biomethane,

bioethanol, biodiesel) Green distribution

Rao et al. (1991); Wu e Dunn

(1995); Thiell et al. (2011);

Dekker et al. (2012); Zhang et

al. (2014)

Table 33 - Green logistics practices included in the survey

128

6.4.3.9 Performance

The fifth part of the questionnaire was dedicated to the measurement of the TBL performance of

the interviewed company. The performance included in the survey regarded all the pillars of

sustainable development, thus firms were questioned on their environmental, social and

economic performance. In particular, the question proposed in the questionnaire was formulated

in the following way: “how much have the following performance improved over last year?”. The

formulation of the question was intended to investigate the change in corporate performance

with respect to the market average. As for practices, also for performance the final list included in

the survey was the result of a previous wider classification that is better explained in the first

chapter of this study. The following table (Table 34) summarizes the performance contained in the

survey.

PERFORMANCE Category Reference

Productivity of the production

process

Economic

Shah e Ward (2003); Zhu et al. (2005);

Pochampally et al. (2009); Tsai e Hung

(2009); Azevedo et al. (2011)

Manufacturing costs Shah e Ward (2003); Zhu et al. (2005);

Pochampally et al. (2009); Tsai e Hung

(2009); Azevedo et al. (2011)

Raw materials purchasing cost Shah e Ward (2003); Zhu et al. (2005);

Pochampally et al. (2009); Tsai e Hung

(2009); Azevedo et al. (2011)

Transport costs

Shah e Ward (2003); Zhu et al. (2005);

Pochampally et al. (2009); Tsai e Hung

(2009); Azevedo et al. (2011)

Warranty costs

Shah e Ward (2003); Zhu et al. (2005);

Pochampally et al. (2009); Tsai e Hung

(2009); Azevedo et al. (2011)

Cost of scraps/reworks AlKhidir e Zailani (2009); Nawrocka et

al. (2009)

Inventory costs Susana G. Azevedo et al., 2011

Workers satisfaction

Social

Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004;

Hutchins and Sutherland (2008); Eccles

et al. (2012); Mitra and Datta (2014);

Wiengarten and Longoni (2015); GRI

Health and safety conditions Margot J. Hutchins and John W.

Sutherland, 2008; Qinghua Zhu and

Joseph Sarkis, 2004; Hutchins e

129

Sutherland (2008); Eccles et al. (2012);

Mitra e Datta (2014); Wiengarten e

Longoni (2015); GRI

Energy, water and materials

consumption

Environmental

Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004;

Hart e Ahuja (1996); Hervani et al.

(2005); Zhu et al. (2005); Rusinko

(2007); Omer (2007)

Waste disposing costs

Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004;

Walley e Whitehead (1994); Hart e

Ahuja (1996); Russo e Fouts (1997);

King e Lenox (2001); King e Shaver

(2001); Zhu et al. (2005); Cowan et al.

(2010)

Cost for non-compliance to

environmental law and regulations

Porter & van der Linde, 1995b;

Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004;

Ashford, 1993; Shrivastava, 1995a

Emissions of CO2 and other

hazardous and / or polluting

materials

Qinghua Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, 2004;

Walley and Whitehead (1994); Russo e

Fouts (1997); King e Lenox (2001); King

e Shaver (2001); Zhu et al. (2005);

Rusinko (2007); Pullman et al. (2009);

Eccles et al. (2012); Wiengarten and

Longoni (2015)

Sustainable image/reputation

Imagine

Min e Galle (2001); Melnyk et al.

(2002); Hervani et al. (2005);

Cetindamar (2007); Nair and Menon

(2008); Pochampally et al.

(2009); Mitra and Datta (2014)

Customer satisfaction

Kainuma e Tawara (2006); Nair e

Menon (2008); Vachon e Klassen

(2008); Pochampally et al. (2009);

Azevedo et al. (2011); Mitra e Datta

(2014)

Local communities’ satisfaction Cetindamar (2007); Hutchins e

Sutherland (2008)

Table 34 - Performance included in the survey

Finally, in part six of the questionnaire product and process features were further investigated. In

particular, one of the request was to describe the average concentration of the supply market.

Fifteen of the fifty-eight respondents (of which five were wooden panels producers), stated that

the average concentration of the supply market was high, ten (of which two were components

130

suppliers) stated it was low, twenty-eight (of which 5 suppliers) indicated that it was medium, two

of the manufacturers indicated the option “very high”, while three of the respondents chose the

option “very low”. The next question regarded the level of innovation of the company’s

manufacturing technologies. Three of the respondents, two producers and one suppliers,

answered that their technologies were completely new, twenty-two of the interviewed (of which

five suppliers) stated that they had modestly established production technologies, twenty-one of

them (of which five suppliers) indicated the option “mature”, only four manufacturers selected

the option “very well established” while seven manufacturers and one supplier considered their

technologies not very established. The same question was asked about the suppliers’

manufacturing technologies. Most the respondents (thirty-four, of which eight suppliers) believed

that their suppliers had modestly established manufacturing technologies. Fifteen (of which three

panels manufacturers) indicated their suppliers’ technologies as mature, three furniture

producers indicated the option “very well established” while six of the manufacturers chose “not

so established”. Finally, two questions regarding the lead time of the production process of the

focal company and of its suppliers were asked. For what concerned the lead time of the

respondent, it emerged that according to thirteen of the fifty-eight respondents (including three

suppliers) the lead time of the their production process was constant, for two of the interviewed

it coul vary very widely, for five of them (two suppliers) it varies a lot, according to thirteen of the

companies (of which five suppliers) it modestly varies, but for the majority of the respondents

(twenty-five of which two suppliers) the LT of their production process varies little (Fig. 48)

Figure 49 - production process LT

131

For what concerned the LT of the suppliers the results were: ten respondents (1 suppliers)

answered that their suppliers’ LT is constant, just one (a manufacturing company) indicated “it

can change widely” as option, eight companies (two suppliers) selected the option “varies a lot”,

fourteen of the respondents (two suppliers) believed that their suppliers’ LT varies modestly, but

even in this case most the respondents (twenty-five of which five suppliers) stated that their

suppliers’ LT varies little (Fig. 50).

Figure 50 - Suppliers' LT

The last question asked in the survey regarded the demand trend in the furniture market. It was

asked how much the demand of the customers varies compared to its average value. Only two

respondents said that the demand was stable with respect to its average value. Fourteen

companies (of which five suppliers) stated that the demand varies a lot, seven firms and one

suppliers instead indicated that the demand can varies very widely with respect to its average

value. Twenty-four of the respondents (of which four panels producers) answered that the

demand of their customers can have variations of medium entity. Finally, ten of the interviewed

companies (two suppliers) selected the option “it has variations of small entity”.

6.4.4 Factor analysis

After the conclusion of the data collection phase, a huge amount of information was recorded. It

was fundamental to find a smart and efficient way to manage all the data collected and valorize

the underlying features. It was agreed that running a factor analysis on drivers, practices and

performance was the best way to easily handle the large volume of information available, in line

with the several Literature references that pursued similar paths (Zhang et al., 2014; Zhu et al.,

132

2008; Zhu et al., 2007; Macchion et al., 2015; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Luthra et al., 2016). The

software chosen to run the analysis was SPSS.

Figure 51 - Steps of the analysis - factor analysis

Factor analysis identifies unobserved variables (factors) that explain patterns of correlations

within a set of observed variables. It is often used to identify a small number of factors that

explain most of the variance embedded in a larger number of variables. Thus, factor analysis is

about data reduction. It can also be used to generate hypotheses regarding the composition of

factors. Furthermore, factor analysis is often used to screen variables for subsequent analysis

(e.g., to identify collinearity prior to performing a linear regression analysis). There are three types

of factor analyses, namely (i) exploratory factor analysis, (ii) confirmatory factor analysis, and (iii)

structural equation modeling (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011). The first two techniques are identical

from a statistical point of view; however, they are used in different ways. Exploratory factor

analysis is used to reveal the number of factors and the variables that belong to specific factors.

When a confirmatory factor analysis is conduced, we have clear expectations regarding the factor

structure (e.g., because we make use of a previously used survey) and we want to test if the

expected structure is indeed present. Structural equation modeling differs from those two

techniques, both statistically and practically. It is used to evaluate how well variables relate to

133

factors and what the relationships between the factors are (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011). Generally,

the sequence of steps for the execution of a factor analysis can be represented as in Fig. 52.

Figure 52 - Steps involved in conducting a principal components analysis (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011)

For the aim of this project, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed. During the phase of

survey’s construction, all drivers, practices and performance were preemptively divided in

subcategories (as shown in the previous table) with the prospect of the future factor analysis. The

subcategories were defined, when feasible, with a Literature reference. Therefore, scientific

papers showing the results of previous factor analysis on drivers, practices and performance were

carefully analyzed and, where possible, the constructs identified were imported in this study to

form the new ones.

Operatively speaking, in a confirmatory factor analysis, constructs (ξ) can be presented as circles

or ovals, and measured variables (x) can be presented as square or rectangular. Other elements

include: the relationships between the constructs and respective items (λ), the error terms (σ)

that capture the extent to which a construct does not explain the item, and the correlations

between the constructs of interest (φ). Figure 53 shows the hypothesized relationship between

the observed items and constructs.

134

Figure 53 - Example of a path diagram (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011)

An important element of a confirmatory factor analysis, which is crucial when working with scales,

is the reliability analysis. SPSS offers the opportunity to run the Cronbach’s Alpha test. Cronbach’s

Alpha coefficient varies from 0 to 1, whereas a generally agreed lower limit for the coefficient is

0.70. However, in exploratory studies, a value of 0.60 is acceptable, while in the more advanced

stages of research, values of 0.80 or higher are regarded as satisfactory.

6.4.5 Cluster Analysis

Another interesting feature of SPSS was the possibility of perform a cluster analysis. This was a

key step in the study because one of the targets that were set at the end of the data collection

phase, was to try to classify companies according to their goodness in implementing sustainable

practices. Therefore, running a cluster analysis on practices represented the best way to create

categories in line with the Literature references found that confirm this theory (Chen et al., 2012;

Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). Specifically, the analysis was performed on the practices factors, previously

computed thanks to the factor analysis. Using the factors as input for the cluster analysis allows to

reduce the sample size and consequently the likelihood of obtain wrong clusters.

135

Figure 54 -Steps of the analysis - cluster analysis

Cluster analysis is a convenient method for identifying homogenous groups of objects called

clusters. Objects (or cases, observations) in a specific cluster share many characteristics, but are

very dissimilar to objects not belonging to that cluster. The most popular approaches in market

research, that can be easily computed using SPSS, are: (i) hierarchical methods, (ii) partitioning

methods (more precisely, k-means), and (iii) two-step clustering, which is largely a combination of

the first two methods. Each of these procedures follows a different approach to grouping the

most similar objects into a cluster and to determining each object’s cluster membership. In other

words, whereas an object in a certain cluster should be as similar as possible to all the other

objects in the same cluster, it should likewise be as distinct as possible from objects in different

clusters (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011).

Figure 55 illustrates the steps associated with a cluster analysis.

136

Figure 55 - Steps in a cluster analysis (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011)

In this thesis work, a two-step cluster analysis was performed, however a hierarchical cluster

analysis was also performed as a confirm of the results obtained with the first analysis. The two-

step cluster analysis developed by Chiu et al. (2001) can effectively cope with very large datasets.

The name two-step clustering is already an indication that the algorithm is based on a two-stage

approach: In the first stage, the algorithm undertakes a procedure that is very similar to the k-

means algorithm (specifically, the procedure aims at segmenting the data in such a way that the

within-cluster variation is minimized). Based on these results, the two-step procedure conducts a

modified hierarchical agglomerative clustering procedure that combines the objects sequentially

to form homogenous clusters. This is done by building a so-called cluster feature tree whose

“leaves” represent distinct objects in the dataset. The procedure can handle categorical and

continuous variables simultaneously and offers the user the flexibility to specify the cluster

numbers as well as the maximum number of clusters, or to allow the technique to automatically

choose the number of clusters on the basis of statistical evaluation criteria. Likewise, the

procedure guides the decision of how many clusters to retain from the data by calculating

measures-of-fit such as Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) or Bayes Information Criterion (BIC).

Furthermore, the procedure indicates each variable’s importance for the construction of a specific

cluster (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011).

137

6.4.6 ANOVA

The ANOVA test was fundamental to investigate whether there was a significant difference in

performance of companies belonging to different classes of sustainable strategic fit. Moreover, it

was also applied to drivers to understand which were the most impacting on firms’ decision to

implement sustainable practices, similarly of what ANOVA Salam (2008) did in his paper.

Figure 56 - Steps of the analysis - ANOVA analysis

ANOVA is useful for complex research questions, such as when three or more means need to be

compared, as ANOVA can analyze multiple differences in one analysis. The most common types of

ANOVA are the one-way and two-way ANOVA. For the goal of this study, the one-way ANOVA has

been selected as best choice. ANOVA is used to examine mean differences between more than

two groups. In more formal terms, the objective of one-way ANOVA is to test the null hypothesis

that the population means of the groups under consideration (defined by the factor and its levels)

are equal. For example, if we compare three groups, the null hypothesis is:

H0 = μ1 = μ2 = μ3

This hypothesis implies that the population means of all three promotion campaigns are identical.

138

The alternative hypothesis is:

H1 = at least two of μ1, μ2 and μ3 are different

which implies that at least two population means differ significantly. Of course, before we even

think of running an ANOVA in SPSS, we have to come up with a problem formulation, which

requires us to identify the dependent variable and the factor, as well as its levels (Mooi and

Sarstedt, 2011). Once this task is done, we can dig deeper into the ANOVA by following the steps

described in Fig. 57.

Figure 57 - Steps in ANOVA (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2011)

139

7 Analysis of the

results

140

7.1 General considerations on the analyses

conducted The central purpose of this work, was to investigate the impact that a sustainable strategic fit (or

the lack of it) between the strategic role of sustainability (order winner, market qualifier or

desirable attribute) and the actual implementation of green and social practices has on corporate

performance. Moreover, it was interesting to look for possible relationships between external and

internal drivers and company’s commitment to develop a sustainable corporate strategy. Finally,

the analysis focused on the different behaviors of producers and suppliers, with the same

consideration of sustainability as a competitive factor, when they develop sustainable practices.

To answer these questions, a structured questionnaire was developed and sent to many

companies operating in the wood and furniture industry. Both furniture manufacturers and

panels producers were included in the sample, this was made to enlarge the analysis to

companies with different positions along the chain (RQ3). To manage the vast amount of data

gathered, a dimension reduction analysis was performed, specifically a factor analysis was

conducted on drivers, practices and performance. Factors obtained from the factor analysis on

practices, were used as input for a further statistical analysis: the cluster analysis. This additional

step, allowed to split the subjects into groups. These groups were defined according to

companies’ goodness in implementing sustainable practices (RQ1). An ANOVA analysis on drivers’

factors was run to valorize eventual relationships between external or internal driving forces and

the implementation of sustainable practices (RQ2). Afterwards, combining the clusters previously

found with companies’ declaration of sustainability’s strategic role, nine firms’ labels were

formed. However, the real added-value of this project is brought by the definition of the link

between the labels and the change in corporate triple bottom line performance (RQ4). This result

was achieved thanks to the execution of an ANOVA analysis on performance with the aim of

identifying eventual significant differences in performance’s means of companies belonging to

different labels.

The research framework presented in the previous chapter, fairly enshrines all the point of

interests of the work (Fig. 58).

141

Figure 58 - Research framework

While the practices can be considered the starting point of this analysis, the second interesting

issue faced in this work is their relationships with drivers, this link is well represented in the

framework. Research question two aims at investigating what is the impact that company’s

position along the supply chain has on the effort to develop green and social practices. In the

framework, it is also included the impact that external and internal drivers may have on the

implementation of sustainable practices. Finally, the green box encompassing the strategic role of

sustainability and the practices implemented can be easily associated with the definition of

sustainable strategic fit introduced in the Research framework and Methodology chapter. The

impact that the sustainable strategic fit has on performance is graphically represented by the

arrow connecting the green box with the performance box.

In the following sections, the results of each analysis conducted will be presented, concurrently

the answers to RQ1, RW2, RQ3 and RQ4 will be provided.

7.2 Analysis of the survey’s results and

considerations Of the 1580 surveys sent, only 76 returned filled. Of these, only 58 were complete and so suitable

for the analysis. Forty-six of the respondents were recognized as furniture manufacturers, while

the remaining twelve were components suppliers such as panels producers or wooden semi-

142

finished item manufacturers. The sample was quite heterogeneous: the average revenues of

respondents were 32.638.863 €, the highest value specified was 411.587.464 € while the lowest

one was 400.000 €. The biggest company in terms of employees had 1600 employees, the

smallest one had 3.

Competitive role of social and environmental sustainability: the survey’s results

After the first introductive part of the questionnaire that collected the main features of the

company’s supply chain network, the core part of the survey began with a question focused on

the strategic role of sustainability. Firms were asked to indicate an attribute for both social and

environmental sustainability, they could choose among six options: 1) Not so important compared

to other competitive factors (e.g.: quality, price...), 2) Not strategic but still desirable characteristic

("nice to have"), 3) A necessary condition to operate in Our sector, 4) A required characteristic of

a product in order for the product to be even considered by a customer, 5) Very important for Us

to win orders and 6) A characteristic that will win the bid or customer's purchase. The first and

second options correspond to the Desirable Attribute concept introduced in the Research

framework and Methodology chapter, they both indicate that sustainability, either social or

environmental, is not a competitive factor for the company. Options 3 and 4 reflect the idea that

sustainability is a market qualifier for the company while options 5 and 6 correspond to the

concept of order winner. These further breakdowns were proposed to allow respondents to

choose among a wider range of options and to not limit their answers to only three degrees of

relevance.

Companies expressed separately their opinion on social and environmental sustainability, in few

cases respondents ranked them differently, sometimes assigning very distant values to social and

environmental sustainability. To keep and valorize the distinction between the two aspects, the

subsequent analyses have been conducted separately in accordance with the companies’

answers.

Considering the fifty-eight complete answers to the question, ten companies indicated that

environmental sustainability was an order winner, the same happened for social sustainability.

However, while twenty-four interviewees believed environmental sustainability was a market

qualifier, only twenty considered social sustainability with the same importance. Consequently,

the remaining twenty-eight firms indicated social sustainability as a desirable attribute, while only

twenty-four considered environmental sustainability a desirable attribute. Therefore, at a very

143

draft level of observation, it emerged that environmental sustainability was generally considered

a more strategic competitive factor than social sustainability.

In detail, three of participants to the study indicated environmental sustainability as not so

important compared to other competitive factors (e.g.: quality, price...), twenty-one stated that

environmental sustainability was a not strategic but still desirable characteristic ("nice to have"),

eight selected the option “a necessary condition to operate in Our sector”, sixteen of the total

sample claimed that environmental sustainability was a required characteristic of a product in

order for the product to be even considered by a customer, seven considered it as very important

for them to win orders and three of the respondents stated it was a characteristic that will win

the bid or customer's purchase. For what concerned social sustainability: sixteen of the fifty-eight

firms considered it as not so important compared to other competitive factors (e.g.: quality,

price...), twelve selected the option “not strategic but still desirable characteristic ("nice to

have")”, twelve claimed it was a necessary condition to operate in their sector, eight considered

social sustainability a required characteristic of a product in order for the product to be even

considered by a customer, seven of the respondents believed it was as very important for them to

win orders and according to the three of the total sample it was a characteristic that will win the

bid or customer's purchase. Table 35 summarized these considerations.

How do you judge the following competitive factors?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Not so important

compared to

other

competitive

factors (e.g.:

quality, price...)

Not strategic

but still

desirable

characteristic

("nice to have")

A necessary

condition to

operate in

Our sector

A required characteristic

of a product in order for

the product to be even

considered by a

customer

Very

important for

Us to win

orders

A characteristic

that will win the

bid or

customer's

purchase

Environmental

sustainability

3/58 21/58 8/58 16/58 7/58 3/58

Social

sustainability

16/58 12/58 12/58 8/58 7/58 3/58

Table 35 - Strategic role of environmental and social sustainability (overall answers)

From these results, it is possible to observe how social sustainability is considered from almost

half of the respondents a desirable attribute, while only twenty indicated it as a market qualifier

and even fewer, just ten, believed it was an order winner. This result can be justified by the fact

that all companies are already required to comply with employees’ health and safety national

regulations and certifications and consequently they are forced to introduce measures to improve

144

corporate social sustainability. For these reasons, it is reasonable that social sustainability is not

considered a strategic factor from many participants to the survey, as it is a widely diffused

concept and it cannot represent a competitive advantage. Conversely, environmental

sustainability seems to be considered more strategic than social one. Many respondents indicated

it as a “nice to have” characteristic, but many others considered it a market qualifier. This is an

incredible progress if we consider that ten years ago very few firms would have included

environmental sustainability among the factors that allow the company to compete on the

market.

7.2.1 Drivers impact on practices implementation: the survey’s

results

The driver that the interviewees indicated as most impacting is central and regional governmental

environmental regulations, followed by establishing company's green image and pressures

coming from customers' environmental awareness. All the details of the answers are showed in

the following table (Table 36).

145

How much did the following factors influence your decision to undertake sustainability

practices?

DRIVERS 1 = Not

at all 2 3 4 5 = A lot

Central and regional governmental

environmental regulations 7/58 5/58 16/58 15/58 15/58

Pressures coming from customers'

environmental awareness 8/58 15/58 11/58 17/58 7/58

Establishing company's green image 4/58 9/58 15/58 20/58 10/58

Reacting to competitors' green

initiatives 12/58 16/58 17/58 11/58 2/58

Pressures coming from local

communities 32/58 17/58 7/58 1/58 1/58

Pressures coming from suppliers for

the joint development of

environmentally friendly goods

29/58 16/58 12/58 1/58 0/58

Pressures coming from firm's

employees 29/58 16/58 10/58 2/58 1/58

Pressures coming from firm's

shareholders 26/58 13/58 9/58 5/58 5/58

Avoiding potential costs and liabilities

for disposal of hazardous materials 15/58 13/58 18/58 10/58 2/58

Table 36 - Degree of relevance of drivers (survey's answers)

It is understandable that a relevant part of the respondents indicated compliance with

environmental regulations as one of the main driving forces. They are forced to respect laws’

requirement, otherwise they have to pay hefty fines. A consistent share of the interviewees,

answered that improve their company’s image to make it more green and pressures coming from

customers are two other important stimuli for the development of a corporate sustainable

strategy. As widely observed in Literature, customers are becoming more and more aware of their

purchasing behavior and their buying decisions are increasingly led by the general environmental

and social concerns. Therefore, companies are somehow obliged to review their approach to

sustainability and increase their involvement in green initiatives, if they want to remain

competitive on the modern market. As a matter of competitiveness, reacting to competitors'

146

green initiatives is the fourth driver, in terms of importance, indicated by companies, followed by

avoiding potential costs and liabilities for disposal of hazardous materials. Conversely, pressures

coming from the firm’s main shareholders and stakeholders (i.e. suppliers, local communities and

employees) are the weakest factors pushing companies to the implementation of green and social

practices. This could be attributed to the scarce information among the stakeholders about the

importance of integrating sustainability principles into the firm’s activities.

7.2.2 Sustainable practices implementation: the survey’s results

The overall practices included in the survey were fifty, divided in seven sections: green design,

sustainable production, suppliers’ selection and evaluation, collaboration with suppliers,

collaboration with customers, supply chain network design and green logistics. The results of all

these sections will be exposed in the following pages and progressively commented.

The first family of practices proposed it the survey were Green Design practices. In many cases

respondents assigned very low values to these practices because they outsourced the design

activity, thus they did not dedicate resources to the design activity. Specifically, twenty-six of the

firms participating to the analysis performed the design activity internally, while the remaining

thirty-two outsourced the design activity.

The most implemented design practice is design for durability. This is not an unexpected result, as

it is reasonable that also firms that are not particularly concerned about sustainability, aim to

design durable products. Reasonably, those that are involved with sustainable initiatives, should

have selected very high values. Similar considerations can be drawn for design for maintainability,

that is the second most voted practice. Maintainability represents a cost even for companies that

do not consider sustainability as a strategic factor, thus it is reasonable that design for

maintainability is one of the most quoted practice. Lightweight design, Design of low

environmental impact products, Design for reuse, recycle or material recovery and Design for

disposability obtained similar values. These are practices that are very much related to the

environmental sphere, thus it is likely that interviewees that are not sensitive to the theme

assigned very low values to these practices. Finally, Use of Life Cycle Assessment and Design for

disassembly close the rank with the lowest scores.

The following table (Table 37) contains the details of the answers to the green design question.

147

Think about sustainable practices which may have been implemented by your company in the

previous year. If you have fully implemented or fully developed (with relevant investment of

time and resources) any of these practices previous to the one-year time frame, indicate this

by choosing 5, while 1 means that you have not implemented or developed this at all. Please

always refer to the chosen product family

GREEN DESIGN

1 = not

impleme

nted at

all

2 3 4 5 = fully

impleme

nted

Design for disassembly (design of the

product for quickly, easily and cheaply

disassemble it at the end of its life)

18/58 24/58 4/58 7/58 5/58

Design for durability (design of the

product that ensure a long life of it and

the minimum number of interventions

on it)

5/58 7/58 11/58 20/58 15/58

Design for maintainability (design of

the product for quickly, easily and

cheaply maintain and repair it during

its life)

5/58 8/58 17/58 18/58 10/58

Design for disposability (design of the

product for quickly, easily and cheaply

dispose it at the end of its life)

12/58 19/58 11/58 10/58 6/58

Design for reuse, recycle or material

recovery 10/58 21/58 16/58 7/58 4/58

Design of "Low environmental impact

products" (design of the product

considering not only the functional

aspects, but also the life cycle of the

product and its final disposal)

18/58 7/58 15/58 10/58 8/58

Use of Life Cycle Assessment

(environmental impact assessment of

the product throughout its life cycle)

11/58 16/58 16/58 5/58 10/58

Lightweight design (design of the

product using light but resistant

materials)

20/58 13/58 11/58 8/58 6/58

Table 37- Green design practices (survey's results)

148

The details showed in Table 37 confirmed fifteen of the respondents have already fully

implemented design for durability practices, while ten have already developed design for

maintainability measures. As a confirm of the conclusion previously drawn, the eighteen of the

interviewees has not implemented design for disassembly practices at all, while twenty of them

has no experience in Life Cycle Assessment instruments.

The second category of practices included in the questionnaire was Sustainable Production one.

This group of practices was very much focused on the production process of the company and on

how many efforts the interviewee put in improving the environmental and social conditions of its

factories.

The use of filters and controls for emissions and discharges is the most diffused practices

according to the surveyed firms. Installation of filters and controls is often a mandatory

requirement of norms regulating the production activities of companies. Thus, more and more

firms are adopting this measure to comply with the legislation. Installation of a Waste

Management System and adoption of Pollution prevention practices are the second-ranked

production practices. It is known that pollution prevention, not only allows to reach consistent

savings when correctly performed, but also contribute to prevent the generation of pollution.

Similarly, waste management system helps company to correctly manage their wastes and, when

possible, to reduce the amount of waste produced. Reduction in energy consumption during the

production process is the fourth most implemented practices in the sustainable production

category, followed by use of environment friendly materials/components/products, reduction in

air emissions, liquid and solid wastes, use of renewable energy in manufacturing and reuse,

recycling and remanufacturing materials. These practices are related with the environmental

sphere and sometimes they required a high initial investment to have significant return in the

future. Therefore, companies are often reluctant to undertake these type of initiatives, only those

truly interested in sustainability usually don’t face resistance in implementing these practices.

Finally, the least widespread sustainable practices are adoption of environmental certification

(e.g. ISO 14001) and adoption of health & safety certification (e.g. ISO 18001). In the following

table (Table 38) these considerations will be further confirmed by the detail of the answers.

149

Think about sustainable practices which may have been implemented by your company in the

previous year. If you have fully implemented or fully developed (with relevant investment of

time and resources) any of these practices previous to the one-year time frame, indicate this by

choosing 5, while 1 means that you have not implemented or developed this at all. Please

always refer to the chosen product family

SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION

1 = not

impleme

nted at

all

2 3 4

5 = fully

impleme

nted

Waste Management System

(management and recovery of the

energy amount, water used and

produced and recycled waste)

6/58 11/58 15/58 18/58 8/58

Use of filters and controls for emissions

and discharges 7/58 5/58 15/58 20/58 11/58

Use of renewable energy in

manufacturing 15/58 6/58 18/58 9/58 10/58

Adoption of environmental certification

(e.g. ISO 14001) 27/58 6/58 6/58 4/58 15/58

Adoption of health&safety certification

(e.g. ISO 18001) 25/58 7/58 7/58 9/58 10/58

Use of environment friendly

materials/components/products (wood

and fabric from sustainable sources)

13/58 10/58 11/58 14/58 10/58

Reuse, recycling and remanufacturing

materials 14/58 12/58 14/58 9/58 9/58

Reduction in energy consumption during

the production process 3/58 16/58 18/58 11/58 10/58

Reduction in air emissions, liquid and

solid wastes 12/58 11/58 15/58 11/58 9/58

Pollution prevention practices (reduction

of the amount of raw materials,

reduction of source)

5/58 14/58 14/58 15/58 10/58

Table 38 - Sustainable production (survey's results)

150

At this point, a sequence of practices involving the whole supply chain were proposed to the

interviewees. Practices that engage the entire chain are much more challenging than those

focused only on the focal company. For a successful implementation of sustainable supply chain

practices, all players must be deeply involved with the problem and all actors must contribute to

solve it. Sustainable supply chain practices proposed in the questionnaire regard relationships

with suppliers, relationships with customers and supply chain network design.

The first category of practices was suppliers’ selection and evaluation. This is a fundamental step

to build a solid network of sustainable practices. The core concept behind the implementation of

this group of initiatives is that suppliers should be selected based on their sustainable

performance.

Companies participating to the study, attributed great importance to the selection of suppliers

that proactively support sustainable innovation and that present a solid sustainable reputation.

They also preferred suppliers who comply with the minimum standards and regulations regarding

sustainability and have environmental and social certifications (ISO 14001, SA8000). As already

mentioned, carry on these initiatives is quite complex and challenging, thus, companies that

assigned a high value to these practices are reasonably supporters of sustainable supply chain

development. Conversely, respondents attributed lower importance to the environmental and

social monitoring of suppliers (first and second tier) through site inspection or self-evaluations.

The following table (Table 39) summarized the detailed answers to these questions.

151

Think about sustainable practices which may have been implemented by your company in the

previous year. If you have fully implemented or fully developed (with relevant investment of time

and resources) any of these practices previous to the one-year time frame, indicate this by

choosing 5, while 1 means that you have not implemented or developed this at all. Please always

refer to the chosen product family

SUPPLIERS’ SELECTION AND

EVALUATION

1 = not

impleme

nted at

all

2 3 4

5 = fully

impleme

nted

Selection of suppliers who comply with

the minimum standards and regulations

regarding sustainability and have

environmental and social certifications

(ISO 14001, SA8000)

10/58 9/58 14/58 22/58 3/58

Selection of suppliers that proactively

support sustainable innovation 8/58 7/58 13/58 26/58 4/58

Choice of suppliers with a solid

sustainable reputation 9/58 8/58 16/58 23/58 2/58

Environmental and social monitoring of

suppliers (through supplier's self-

evaluation)

16/58 16/58 15/58 11/58 0/58

Environmental and social monitoring of

suppliers (through audits at the

supplier's situ)

17/58 16/58 14/58 9/58 2/58

Environmental and social monitoring of

second-tier suppliers (through supplier's

self-evaluation)

26/58 14/58 14/58 3/58 1/58

Environmental and social monitoring of

second-tier suppliers (through audits at

the supplier's situ)

25/58 13/58 14/58 4/58 2/58

Definition of a Code of Conduct for

suppliers 19/58 15/58 16/58 6/58 2/58

Development of suppliers'

Environmental Management System

(EMS)

32/58 8/58 12/58 5/58 1/58

Table 39 - Suppliers' selection and evaluation (survey's results)

152

These detailed results, allow to draw some further conclusions: very few companies have fully

developed suppliers’ selection and evaluation practices. For instance, only four selected only

suppliers that proactively support sustainable innovation, while no one selected the option “fully

developed” for what concerned the environmental and social monitoring of suppliers through

supplier's self-evaluation. A significant share of respondents instead, did not implemented at all

this type of practices. For example, thirty-two of respondents do not consider owning an EMS an

added value when selecting a supplier, twenty-six of them did no environmental and social

monitoring of second-tier suppliers (nor through supplier's self-evaluation neither through audits

at the supplier's situ). These results can be partially justified considering the already developed

suppliers’ pool of the interviewees. Companies could have developed some strategic partnerships

with historical suppliers that cannot be easily replaced. Moreover, firms could have selected

historical suppliers based on different criteria such as: quality, price, reliability and so on, thus the

current partners could not be compliant with the sustainability selection criteria indicated in the

list.

Sustainable purchasing practices are quite numerous, especially those dealing with collaboration

and communication with suppliers. In the questionnaire, ten of these were selected and included

in the section called collaboration with suppliers. Collaborate, or even just communicate, with

suppliers for sustainable purposes, require a high degree of integration between the actors and at

least the same level of interest towards environmental and social issues. Usually, the focal

company is the first to introduce the sustainability theme in its business activities and

subsequently convince the other supply chain’s members to do the same. When collaboration and

communication among chain’s actors is fully developed, a sustainable supply chain is created.

Anyhow, currently there are very few companies that managed to build an entirely sustainable

supply chain. This difficulty in implementing suppliers’ collaboration practices emerges also from

the answers provided by interviewees to the survey’s dedicated question.

The most developed suppliers’ collaboration practices, according to the survey’s respondents,

were communication with suppliers to ensure their compliance to environmental and ethical

requirements. It is interesting to note that this is the only “communication” practice, the others

are all about “collaboration” with suppliers. Communicate with suppliers is much easier than

develop initiatives together or set join targets. Thus, is reasonable that this has been indicated as

most developed practice, because it doesn’t require big efforts to be implemented. Collaboration

with suppliers to improve their manufacturing processes in order to reduce their environmental

impact and collaboration with suppliers to improve their working conditions are the second and

153

the third ranked practices. While the least implemented practices, according to the survey’s

participants, are those requiring the assignment of monetary or image incentives.

Think about sustainable practices which may have been implemented by your company in the

previous year. If you have fully implemented or fully developed (with relevant investment of

time and resources) any of these practices previous to the one-year time frame, indicate this by

choosing 5, while 1 means that you have not implemented or developed this at all. Please

always refer to the chosen product family

COLLABORATION WITH SUPPLIERS

1 = not

impleme

nted at

all

2 3 4

5 = fully

impleme

nted

Communication with suppliers to

ensure their compliance to

environmental and ethical

requirements

7/58 12/58 19/58 17/58 3/58

Collaboration with suppliers to

improve their manufacturing

processes in order to reduce their

environmental impact

16/58 8/58 18/58 13/58 3/58

Collaboration with suppliers to

improve their working conditions 17/58 9/58 25/58 7/58 0/58

Jointly setting targets for suppliers

for improving their environmental

sustainability performances

18/58 12/58 17/58 10/58 1/58

Jointly setting targets for suppliers

for improving their social

sustainability performances

20/58 12/58 18/58 7/58 1/58

Development of training programs

for suppliers for enhance their

environmental sustainability

performances

30/58 13/58 8/58 6/58 1/58

Development of training programs

for suppliers for enhance their social

sustainability performances

30/58 14/58 9/58 5/58 0/58

Rewarding suppliers with monetary

or image incentives for the 42/58 10/58 5/58 1/58 0/58

154

achievement of environmental

sustainability performances

Rewarding suppliers with monetary

of images incentives for the

achievement of social sustainability

performances

41/58 11/58 5/58 1/58 0/58

Encouraging suppliers to take back

packaging 26/58 14/58 14/58 3/58 1/58

Table 40 - Suppliers' collaboration (survey's results)

From the details of the answers showed in Table 40, emerges that very few companies already

managed to fully implement collaboration practices with suppliers. In many cases, no one of the

respondents chose the option “fully developed” to explain the level of development of a practice.

On the contrary, the collaboration practices that companies interviewed did not implemented a

lot are numerous. Around the forty-two of firms belonging to the research sample do not provide

monetary or image incentives to suppliers that achieved environmental performance. Anyway,

this is not symptom of a lack of collaboration with suppliers, it just indicates that usually focal

companies expect the achievement of sustainable performance without offering nothing in turn.

However, if sustainable collaboration works well, there is no need to reward suppliers for their

results, because they are as involved in the cause as the focal company is.

Also for the downstream phase of the supply chain, a set of practices engaging the company and

its customers has been included in the questionnaire in the section named collaboration with

customers. If collaboration with suppliers is a challenging objective, collaboration with clients to

develop joint sustainable initiatives is even harder.

The value attributed to this practices are generally very low, however it is still possible to rank

them and see which is the most implemented one. Collaboration with clients for eco-design

results the initiatives with the highest average value. This practice, when correctly developed, can

bring consistent benefits to both manufacturer and customer. Design activity is one of the first

phases carried out by producer, thus a collaboration with customers could anticipate its

requirements in the product development process and improve customer’s satisfaction and

loyalty. Similar consideration can be drawn for the second and third ranked practices:

Collaboration with clients for cleaner production and collaboration with clients for green

packaging. Both these practices, as the first one, can bring economic advantages to product

manufacturer and customer. Only one of the respondents answered that they have fully

155

implemented training programs for clients to enhance their environmental performance or

collaboration with clients for cleaner production. The remaining details of the answers are

reported in Table 41.

Think about sustainable practices which may have been implemented by your company in the

previous year. If you have fully implemented or fully developed (with relevant investment of

time and resources) any of these practices previous to the one-year time frame, indicate this by

choosing 5, while 1 means that you have not implemented or developed this at all. Please

always refer to the chosen product family

COLLABORATION WITH CUSTOMERS

1 = not

impleme

nted at

all

2 3 4

5 = fully

impleme

nted

Development of training programs for

clients to enhance their environmental

performance

31/58 17/58 6/58 3/58 1/58

Development of training programs for

clients to enhance their social

performance

31/58 18/58 7/58 0/58 2/58

Collaboration with clients for eco-design 19/58 15/58 14/58 7/58 3/58

Collaboration with clients for cleaner

production (a preventive environmental

protection initiative. It is intended to

minimize waste and emissions and

maximize product output)

21/58 17/58 11/58 8/58 1/58

Collaboration with clients for green

packaging 23/58 12/58 14/58 7/58 2/58

Table 41- Customers' collaboration (survey's answers)

Practices regarding the supply chain network design are generally very rare and it is difficult to

find valid references in Literature. However, they are important for the correct construction of a

sustainable supply chain and so a section of the questionnaire was dedicated to them. The results

show that a fair share of the respondents implement the local sourcing practices, while a modest

part of interviewees adopt a reverse logistics system or perform a suppliers' base reduction in

case some of them didn't respect the sustainable policy of the company. For the aim of this study,

local sourcing was intended with a sustainable meaning (i.e. choice of local suppliers rather than

geographically scattered ones in order to reduce the environmental and social impact). However,

156

local sourcing can be implemented by companies even for economic or quality reasons: local

suppliers reduce the transport costs and respect the same quality standards of the focal company.

This could be one reason for the high value attributed to this practice.

Table 42 shows the popularity of the different supply chain network design practices. As

mentioned above, a large share of respondents (seventeen out of fifty-eight) has already fully

implemented local sourcing practices. Lower are the share of companies that already fully

implemented the remaining two practices. A lot of them (thirty-four out of fifty-eight) do not

adopt at all reverse logistic systems, while seventeen of them dedicate limited effort to the

suppliers’ base reduction in case of lack of sustainable criteria.

Think about sustainable practices which may have been implemented by your company in the

previous year. If you have fully implemented or fully developed (with relevant investment of

time and resources) any of these practices previous to the one-year time frame, indicate this by

choosing 5, while 1 means that you have not implemented or developed this at all. Please always

refer to the chosen product family

SUPPLY CHAIN NETWORK DESIGN

1 = not

impleme

nted at

all

2 3 4

5 = fully

impleme

nted

Local sourcing: choice of local

suppliers rather than geographically

scattered ones in order to reduce the

environmental and social impact

6/58 7/58 13/58 15/58 17/58

Presence of a reverse logistics system

(product recollection after its usage

and its rework or recycling)

34/58 12/58 8/58 3/58 1/58

Suppliers' base reduction (reduction

of the number of suppliers in case

some of them didn't respect the

sustainable policy of the company)

14/58 17/58 15/58 10/58 2/58

Table 42 - Supply chain network design (survey's results)

Finally, the section of the questionnaire dedicated a section to the implementation of green

logistic practices. Differently from the latter categories, this last group of practices is targeted on

the single company. While a very wide field of research exists on logistics practices, it is not the

same for sustainable logistics practices; in this category both sustainable packaging practices and

green transportation practices are included. Nevertheless, despite they are relatively new

157

measures, these initiatives can bring consistent savings to the company. Companies participating

to the research survey seemed to appreciate these type of practices, indeed they are among the

most implemented ones. Packaging size optimization to reduce energy and materials

consumption and development of a reusable/recyclable packaging are the two most developed

practices, followed by use of recyclable pallets and finally cross docking and use of biofuels to

feed the vehicles. Especially in the wooden furniture industry, the realization of recyclable

packaging can represent a big opportunity of savings. If companies can recover packaging and

recycle the packaging material, they can obtain consistent savings on the material purchasing

cost. Similar considerations can be drawn with the use of recyclable pallets, at the end of their

useful life firms can recover pallets and recycle them.

A large share of respondents, gave very high values (between four and five) to packaging size

optimization practice and development of a reusable/recyclable packaging practices: twelve and

fourteen declared they have fully implemented both practices, while seventeen and twenty

respectively admitted that have almost completed the development of the initiatives. This is also

true for the use of recyclable pallets, twelve of respondents stated they have already fully

implemented this practice, while sixteen is close to the finalization. Use of biofuels to feed the

vehicles is the least diffused practices among companies, indeed the forty-three of respondents

has not implemented it at all and, by contrast, zero declared a full development of this practice.

Think about sustainable practices which may have been implemented by your company in the

158

previous year. If you have fully implemented or fully developed (with relevant investment of

time and resources) any of these practices previous to the one-year time frame, indicate this

by choosing 5, while 1 means that you have not implemented or developed this at all. Please

always refer to the chosen product family

GREEN LOGISTICS

1 = not

impleme

nted at

all

2 3 4

5 = fully

impleme

nted

Packaging size optimization to reduce

energy and materials consumption 5/58 8/58 16/58 17/58 12/58

Development of a reusable/recyclable

packaging 8/58 8/58 8/58 20/58 14/58

Cross docking (unloading materials

from an incoming semitrailer truck and

loading these materials directly into

outbound trucks with little or no

storage in between)

30/58 10/58 7/58 9/58 2/58

Use of recyclable pallets 6/58 8/58 16/58 16/58 12/58

Use of biofuels to feed the vehicles

(biomethane, bioethanol, biodiesel) 43/58 8/58 5/58 2/58 0/58

Table 43 - Green logistics (survey's results)

7.2.3 Performance improvement: the survey’s results

As last, a list of environmental, social and economic performance was proposed in the survey.

Firms were asked to indicate how much each of the performance has improved with respect to

the market average during the last year. This question was extremely important, because it

allowed to observe if there was a relationship between companies that improved their

performance and those that dedicated many efforts for the development of sustainable practices

having declared that sustainability was a competitive strategic factor. If this happened, then it

could be concluded that there is a strategic fit between sustainable practices installation,

sustainability’s role declaration and TBL performance improvement.

In general, it can be said that performance trend of interviewed companies is in line with the

market average. However, looking Table 44, it is possible to note how some performance have

slightly improved with respect to the market average, for example: sustainable image/reputation,

customer satisfaction, cost for non-compliance to environmental law and regulations and

159

emissions of CO2 and other hazardous and / or polluting materials have improved in the last year.

The first two cited performance involve mainly the external environment such as customers and,

in general, the market. In particular, sustainable image/reputation improvement is a consequence

of sustainable actions, thus it reasonable to suppose that only capable companies indicated a

positive trend of this performance. Cost for non-compliance to environmental law and regulations

and emissions of CO2 and other hazardous and / or polluting materials have improved in the last

year. These performance, are much more related to the environmental sphere, thus only

companies that are proactively engaged with environmental initiatives should observe a positive

improvement of these values.

Performance that saw a negative trend with respect to the market average during the last year

are: manufacturing costs, raw material purchasing costs and inventory costs. It is known that

sustainable materials are generally more expensive than traditional ones (especially in industries

like the wooden furniture one where the raw materials are non-renewable substances). Thus, the

worsening of the material purchasing cost performance can be characteristic of the companies

that decided to develop sustainable purchasing practices.

The table (Table 44), shows in details the answers of companies questioned about the change in

their triple bottom line performance during the last year. It is interesting to note that very few

companies chose the first of the last options (the performance has improved much less than the

market average and the performance has improved much more than the market average,

respectively). Most of respondents indicate a neutral option: the performance is in line with the

market average. Firms are often reluctant to declare their weaknesses, but at the same time, they

also seem to be careful in declaring big improvement in their performance.

How much have the following performance improved over last year?

PERFORMANCE

The performance

has improved

much less than the

market average

The performance

has improved less

than the market

average

The performance is

in line with the

market average

The performance

has improved more

than the market

average

The performance

has improved

much more than

the market average

Productivity of

the production

process

0/58 5/58 34/58 19/58 0/58

Sustainable

image/reputation 0/58 2/58 22/58 29/58 5/58

Customer 0/58 0/58 26/58 29/58 3/58

160

satisfaction

Workers

satisfaction 0/58 3/58 33/58 21/58 1/58

Health and safety

conditions 0/58 3/58 24/58 25/58 6/58

Local

communities’

satisfaction

2/58 4/58 38/58 12/58 2/58

Manufacturing

costs 0/14 14/58 36/58 7/58 1/58

Raw materials

purchasing cost 0/58 12/58 35/58 11/58 0/58

Energy, water and

materials

consumption

1/58 4/58 39/58 12/58 2/58

Transport costs 0/58 4/58 44/58 9/58 1/58

Warranty costs 0/58 6/58 39/58 10/58 3/58

Waste disposing

costs 1/58 9/58 45/58 8/58 0/58

Cost of

scraps/reworks 1/58 4/58 45/58 8/58 0/58

Inventory costs 0/58 11/58 42/58 5/58 0/58

Cost for non-

compliance to

environmental

law and

regulations

1/58 4/58 35/58 15/58 3/58

Emissions of CO2

and other

hazardous and /

or polluting

materials

1/58 2/58 33/58 16/58 6/58

Table 44 - Performance (survey's results)

161

7.3 Answer to RQ1 Once collected all the relevant information from the survey, the analysis phase began. The first

research question of the analysis was the following:

RQ1: How companies can be classified according to their commitment in implementing

sustainable practices?

The ultimate goal of this question, was to investigate whether there were firms particularly good

in developing sustainable supply chain practices and, by contrast, if there was a class of

companies that invested little efforts in the implementation of green and social initiatives.

To answer Research Question one, survey’s results have been further analyzed and reprocessed.

First, companies participating to the survey were codified with two types of identifiers: PR for

finished furniture manufacturers and FOR for components’ suppliers. In total the research’s

sample was composed by fifty-eight companies, forty-six manufacturers (PR) and twelve suppliers

(FOR). Companies’ identities will not be revealed in the study, because it was guaranteed to firms,

that the questionnaire was anonymous and the analysis of results would have been done ensuring

full respect of privacy.

After this general consideration, a more intense analysis has been conducted on practices. In the

survey, practices were divided in seven sections: 1) Green design, 2) Sustainable production, 3)

Suppliers’ selection and evaluation, 4) Collaboration with suppliers, 5) Collaboration with

customers, 6) Supply chain network design and 7) Green logistics. However, during the

construction of the questionnaire, sustainable practices have been further detailed and grouped

in subcategories (or constructs). These groups were formed, when possible, based on Literature’s

references. The initial draft groups identified from the Literature’s review were: 1) Green design,

2) Green purchasing, 3) Green management, 4) Green production, 5) Green suppliers’

management, 6) Green customers’ management, 7) Supply chain network design 8) Sustainable

warehousing, 9) Green distribution. This was made to reduce the numerousness of practices in

each section, but it was a stand-alone analysis until this part of the assessment began.

To reduce the high number of practices listed in the questionnaire, in total they were fifty, a

dimension reduction analysis on the total sample of practices was run. In particular, several

explorative factor analyses were performed: one for each construct previously defined. The goal

of the analysis was to demonstrate that practices could effectively be divided in factors, and these

factors corresponded to the subcategories identified in the first part of the study.

162

The analysis was performed with the support of SPSS software, that gave the opportunity to show

as output the Coefficients, Significance levels, Reproduced correlation matrix as well as the KMO

and Barlett’s test of sphericity. When a factor analysis is run in SPSS, it is also necessary to select

the Extraction option. By default, SPSS sets this as the principal components, this is also the

extraction method used for this analysis as it is the most diffused and reliable one. Moreover, also

the rule for factor extraction can be manually modified: SPSS, by default, extracts all factors with

an Eigenvalue greater than one, the alternative is to impose to the software the number of factors

desired. As the aim of the factor analysis performed in this work was to prove that each construct

corresponds effectively to one factor, no imposition on the number of factors was made. The

same thing happens with the rotation method. SPSS allows to choose between several orthogonal

and oblique rotation methods. The Varimax procedure was the most indicated for this analysis

because there were no strong theoretical grounds for assuming (moderately) correlated factors.

Since the factors scores resulted from the dimension reduction analysis were meant to be the

input for a subsequent cluster analysis, they were saved as variables in SPSS.

The first important output of SPSS’s factor analysis is the correlation matrix. It shows whether the

variables are sufficiently correlated to conduct a principal components analysis. The threshold

value for the correlation is generally considered 0,30. If all the correlation matrix’s values lies

above the defined limit, then it can be concluded that the variables are sufficiently correlated and

so the analysis can continue. The coefficients included in the correlation matrices resulted from

the explorative factor analyses performed, were always higher than the threshold value, thus the

factor analysis has been considered an adequate analysis for each group of practices.

SPSS offers also two additional measures to determine whether the items are sufficiently

correlated. One is the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic, also called measure of sampling

adequacy (MSA), it indicates whether the correlations between variables can be explained by the

other variables in the dataset. The threshold values for KMO are summarized in the following

table (Figure 59):

Figure 59 - Threshold values for KMO and MSA (Kaiser, 1974)

163

Another powerful instrument provided by SPSS to analyze the variables’ correlation is Bartlett’s

test of sphericity, it can be used to test the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is a

diagonal matrix (i.e. all non-diagonal elements are zero) in the population. In other words, the null

hypothesis H0 claims that, in the population, all variables are uncorrelated. If the p value of this

test is significant (p < 0,05), it means that the null hypothesis can be rejected. Therefore, the

decision of whether the data are appropriate for a factor analysis should be based also on the

KMO statistic and on the Bartlett’s test of sphericity. In all the exploratory factor analyses

conducted, the KMO values were either middling or meritorious and the p values of the Bartlett’s

test of sphericity resulted significant for every construct. Therefore, it was concluded that all the

input data were adequate to continue the analysis.

The core part of the factor analysis is the total variance explained matrix. This chart shows how

many factors SPSS individuated in the analyzed sample. For the purpose of the performed

analysis, the ideal output of each explorative factor analysis, was that the majority of the sample’s

variance was explained by one single factor. In some cases, this didn’t happen and it was

necessary to further split the initially defined construct because SPSS showed that in that category

the total variance was explained by two factors instead of one. However, at the end of the

multiple factor analyses, twelve factors were determined:

25. Green design (GD)

26. Green management (GM)

27. Green production (GP)

28. Pollution prevention and control (PPC)

29. Suppliers green monitoring (SGM)

30. Suppliers green assessment (SGA)

31. Green collaboration with suppliers (GCS)

32. Socially responsible purchasing (SRP)

33. Green customer management (GCM)

34. Design del network (DDN)

35. Sustainable packaging (SP)

36. Green logistics (GL)

Each of these factors was representative of two or more practices. The following tables show how

this separation occurred:

164

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Design for disassembly (design of the

product for quickly, easily and cheaply

disassemble it at the end of its life)

GD1

GREEN DESIGN

(GD)

,889

Design for durability (design of the

product that ensure a long life of it and

the minimum number of interventions

on it)

GD2

Design for maintainability (design of

the product for quickly, easily and

cheaply mantainain and repair it during

its life)

GD3

Design for disposability (design of the

product for quickly, easily and cheaply

dispose it at the end of its life)

GD4

Design for reuse, recycle or material

recovery GD5

Lightweight design (design of the

product using light but resistent

materials)

GD6

Design of "Low environmental impact

products" (design of the product

considering not only the functional

aspects, but also the life cycle of the

product and its final disposal)

GD7

Table 45 - GD factor composition

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Adoption of environmental

certification (e.g. ISO 14001) GM1 GREEN

MANAGEMENT

(GM) ,825

Adoption of health&safety

certification (e.g. ISO 18001) GM2

Table 46 - GM factor composition

165

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Waste Management System

(management and recovery of the

energy amount, water used and

produced and recycled waste)

GP1

GREEN

PRODUCTION

(GP)

,772

Use of renewable energy in

manufacturing GP2

Reduction in energy consumption

during the production process GP3

Table 47 - GP factor composition

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Use of filters and controls for

emissions and discharges PPC1

POLLUTION

PREVENTION &

CONTROL (PPC)

,886

Reuse, recycling and remanufacturing

materials PPC2

Reduction in air emissions, liquid and

solid wastes PPC3

Pollution prevention practices

(reduction of the amount of raw

materials, reduction of source)

PPC4

Table 48 - PPC factor composition

166

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Environmental and social monitoring of

suppliers (through supplier's self

evaluation)

SGM1

SUPPLIER GREEN

MONITORING

(SGM)

,886

Environmental and social monitoring of

suppliers (through audits at the

supplier's situ)

SGM2

Environmental and social monitoring of

second-tier

suppliers (through supplier's self

evaluation)

SGM3

Environmental and social monitoring of

second-tier

suppliers (through audits at the

supplier's situ)

SGM4

Definition of a Code of Conduct for

suppliers SGM5

Development of suppliers'

Environmental Management System

(EMS)

SGM6

Use of Life Cycle Assessment

(environmental

impact assessment of the product

throughout its life cycle)

SGM7

Use of environment friendly

materials/components/products (wood

and fabric from sustainable sources)

SGM8

Table 49 - SGM factor composition

167

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Selection of suppliers who comply

with the minimum standards and

regulations regarding sustainability

and have environmental and social

certifications (ISO 14001, SA8000)

SGA1

SUPPLIER GREEN

ASSESSMENT

(SGA)

,942

Selection of suppliers that proactively

support sustainable innovation SGA2

Choice of suppliers with a solid

sustainable reputation SGA3

Table 50 - SGA factor composition

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Communication with suppliers to

ensure their compliance to

environmental and ethical

requirements

GCS1

GREEN

COLLABORATION

WITH SUPPLIERS

(GCS)

,845

Collaboration with suppliers to

improve their manufacturing

processes in order to reduce their

environmental impact

GCS2

Jointly setting targets for suppliers for

improving their environmental

sustainability performances

GCS3

Development of training programs for

suppliers for enhance their

environmental sustainability

performances

GCS4

Rewarding suppliers with monetary or

image incentives for the achievement

of environmental sustainability

performances

GCS5

Encouraging suppliers to take back

packaging GCS6

Table 51 - GCS factor composition

168

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Collaboration with suppliers to improve

their working conditions SRP1

SOCIALLY

RESPONSIBLE

PURCHASING

(SRP)

,816

Jointly setting targets for suppliers for

improving their social sustainability

performances

SRP2

Development of training programs for

suppliers for enhance their social

sustainability performances

SRP3

Rewarding suppliers with monetary of

images incentives for the achievement

of social sustainability performances

SRP4

Table 52 - SRP factor composition

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Development of training programs for

clients to enhance their environmental

performance

GCM1

GREEN

CUSTOMER

MANAGEMENT

(GCM)

,923

Development of training programs for

clients to enhance their social

performance

GCM2

Collaboration with clients for eco-

design GCM3

Collaboration with clients for cleaner

production (a preventive

environmental protection initiative. It is

intended to minimize waste and

emissions and maximize product

output)

GCM4

Collaboration with clients for green

packaging GCM5

Table 53 - GCM factor composition

169

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Local sourcing: choice of local suppliers

rather

than geographically scattered ones in

order to reduce the environmental and

social impact

DDN1

NETWORK

DESIGN (DDN)

,660

Presence of a reverse logistics system

(product recollection after its usage

and its rework or recycling)

DDN2

Suppliers' base reduction (reduction of

the number of suppliers in case some

of them didn't respect the sustainable

policy of the company)

DDN3

Table 54 - DDN factor composition

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Packaging size optimization to reduce

energy and materials consumption SP1

SUSTAINABLE

PACKAGING (SP)

,822

Development of a reusable/recyclable

packaging SP2

Use of recyclable pallets SP3

Table 55 - SP factor composition

Practice ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Cross docking (unloading materials

from an incoming semitrailer truck and

loading these materials directly into

outbound trucks with little or no

storage in between)

GL1 GREEN

LOGISTICS (GL)

,664

Use of biofuels to feed the vehicles

(biomethane, bioethanol, biodiesel) GL2

Table 56 - GL factor composition

170

For each factor, the Cronbach’s Alpha value was computed. Cronbach’s Alpha is a reliability

analysis function provided by SPSS that allow to assess whether the scale’s results are consistent.

In other words, it ensures that the perception of the constructs do not change significantly over

time. The commonly suggested threshold for Cronbach’s Alpha is 0,7, however 0,65 is still

considered an acceptable value. All the factors obtained by the explorative factor analyses had a

satisfactory Cronbach’s Alpha, thus it can be concluded that the scale exhibited a high degree of

reliability. In the Appendix it is possible to see the factor scores matrix obtained as output from

SPSS.

At this point, the objective of dimension reduction was met. The sample was no more composed

by fifty practices, but by twelve factors that were still maintaining the intrinsic value of the

extended practices. However, to answer the initial research question (RQ1), it was necessary run a

classification analysis. Specifically, a cluster analysis was performed with the support of SPSS. The

software offered three typologies of cluster analyses: Hierarchical cluster analysis, K-Means

cluster analysis and Two-Step cluster analysis. For the purpose of this study, a two-step cluster

analysis was the most adequate solution.

As the factors resulted from the factor analysis were preemptively saved as variables in SPSS, it

was straightforward to use them as input for the cluster analysis. Two-step cluster analysis input

requirements are very simple: the type of variables must be specified, whether it is a categorical

variable or a continuous variable, in this case all the data were continuous variables. SPSS allows

to select the distance measure based on which the analysis is performed, one can choose

between log-likelihood or Euclidean distance measure, for this analysis the first one was selected.

Another very useful option that is provided by the two-step cluster analysis performed with SPSS,

is the possibility to create a cluster membership variable. This was fundamental for the analysis

under discussion, as its final goal was to categorize practices’ factors in classes. Finally, the

number of clusters desired as output can be specified. Once again, no limitation on the number of

the output-clusters were indicated, because the scope of the cluster analysis was to find the

optimum statistic result.

The output of the two-step cluster analysis performed on factors’ scores was the following:

171

Figure 60 - Model summary (cluster analysisi)

SPSS classified factors into three clusters and it indicated that the quality of the analysis just

performed was fair. Moreover, it is possible to have further details on the composition of the

clusters by looking at the following chart (Fig. 61):

Figure 61- CLuster size (cluster analysis)

172

Figure graphically shows the distribution of factors in the three clusters. Cluster one contained the

19% of the total input data, cluster two was the biggest one, it represented the 55,2% of the total

sample and finally cluster three included 25,9% of the overall inputs. The biggest cluster

contained thirty-two companies, while the smallest eleven. However, this chart didn’t show which

firms belong to each cluster.

Since the creation of a cluster membership variable was required, SPSS automatically assigned to

each company, a cluster membership. The result, is shown in the following table (Table 57).

Cluster Membership Company ID

1

PR46

PR12

PR14

PR19

PR20

PR21

PR26

PR29

PR39

PR44

PR45

2

FOR12

PR1

FOR1

PR4

PR5

PR6

FOR3

PR8

PR9

FOR5

FOR6

PR11

PR13

FOR8

FOR9

PR15

FOR10

PR17

PR18

FOR11

PR22

PR27

PR28

PR30

PR33

PR36

PR37

PR25

PR40

PR41

PR42

PR43

3

PR2

FOR2

PR3

PR7

FOR4

PR10

FOR7

PR16

PR23

PR24

PR31

PR32

PR34

PR35

PR38

173

Table 57 - Cluster membership

At this point, to characterize each cluster and find which of three classes of companies was the

best in implementing sustainable supply chain practices and which was the worst, it was

necessary to look at a further output of SPSS two-step cluster analysis: the centroids matrix (Table

58).

174

Centroids

GD GM GP PPC SGM SGA GSC SRP GCM DDN SP GL

Mean Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation

Cluster

1 1,0864 ,94766 ,9555 ,65642 ,5155 ,68661 ,8236 ,71410 1,4745 ,52288 ,9209 ,50439 1,2455 ,61862 1,2064 ,58805 1,2427 ,85379 ,9055 ,84354 ,6973 ,65712 1,3073 1,12749

2 -,0488 ,77880 ,0009 1,00062 ,2472 ,96788 ,2500 ,74767 -,0228 ,64884 ,2534 ,63966 ,0891 ,72522 ,0066 ,80117 ,0088 ,76932 ,1200 ,80244 ,3338 ,75867 -,1225 ,74953

3 -,6913 ,80054 -,6973 ,55573 -,9053 ,66656 -1,1373 ,63964 -1,0313 ,31753 -1,2173 ,76420 -1,1053 ,29046 -,8933 ,62879 -,9280 ,31779 -,9187 ,74704 -1,2220 ,49804 -,6900 ,15834

Combined ,0003 ,99985 ,0014 1,00006 ,0000 1,00129 ,0000 1,00019 ,0003 1,00075 -,0003 1,00015 -,0005 ,99961 ,0014 ,99888 ,0005 ,99964 ,0003 1,00025 ,0003 ,99952 ,0019 ,99912

Table 58 - Centroids matrix

175

Looking at the “Mean” value of each cluster, it was clear that the first cluster had the highest

values for each practices’ factor, thus it was reasonable to suppose that in that cluster, there were

companies really capable in implementing sustainable supply chain practices. In other words, first

cluster was composed by firms that dedicated a consistent share of resources to the development

of green and social initiatives. The third cluster, instead, had the worst means for each practices’

factor. Therefore, it was likely composed by firms that were not engaged in the sustainability

issue and consequently didn’t implement sustainable practices. As confirmed by the mean values,

the second cluster was representative of hybrid firms. These companies assigned medium values

to practices in the survey, they were not particularly good in developing environmental initiatives,

neither were the worst in doing so.

Based on these considerations, the following nomenclature was proposed: companies belonging

to cluster one were defined “Highly capable companies”, those lying in the second cluster were

the “Medium capable companies” and those included in the third class were the “Shortly capable

companies” (Table 59).

Cluster N. Cases Name

1 11 HIGHLY CAPABLE

COMPANIES

2 32 MEDIUM CAPABLE

COMPANIES

3 15 SHORTLY CAPABLE

COMPANIES

Table 59 - Clusters definition

At this point, all the data needed to form the three clusters were available. Combining the

information extracted from the centroids matrix with those coming from the cluster membership

variable, it was possible to formulate the following classification of companies according to their

commitment in implementing sustainable practices, the table reporting the companies classified

is consultable in the ANNEX.

Once reached this result, it is possible to draw some considerations:

- Highly Capable Companies: means of cluster one are the highest for each factor of

practices, it is evident from the centroid matrix that companies belonging to the first

cluster have are also the best performing ones in terms of sustainable practices

implementation, as they resulted the group that assigned the highest value to all

categories of practices. The first cluster is formed by eleven firms, of which zero suppliers.

176

This is already a notable characteristic, no one of the suppliers participating to the study

showed to be particularly capable in implementing sustainable practices. However, at this

level of analysis it is premature to conclude that suppliers are not deeply engaged in

sustainability. Highly capable companies are the scarcest cluster and this could be

interpreted as symptom of a scarce knowledge in the sector of the practices available on

the market or of a low general interest towards sustainable initiatives in the furniture

industry.

It is interesting to analyze which are the most implemented sustainable practices

according to this set of firms. Based on the average values of each practices’ factors, the

following ranking has been built.

1. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

2. Green suppliers’ collaboration practices

3. Socially responsible purchasing practices

4. Green customer management practices

5. Green logistics practices

6. Green design practices

7. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

8. Network design practices

9. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

10. Sustainable packaging practices

11. Green production practices

The most developed initiatives of this first cluster, are mainly sustainable supply chain

practices. They focus a lot on the relationship with suppliers and on the collaboration with

customers. These practices, if well implemented, can bring big advantages, both in

economic and environmental terms. The fact that socially responsible purchasing is one of

the most implemented practices by highly capable companies, show that this set of

companies has also a good consideration for social aspect of sustainability and not only

for the environmental one. A good level of implementation is also obtained for green

logistics practices, green design practices suppliers’ green assessment practices and

177

network design practices, while the least implemented practices by this first cluster of

companies, are the sustainable packaging ones and green production practices.

- Medium Capable Companies: looking at the centroid matrix, cluster two show modest

mean values, companies laying in this group are averagely implementing sustainable

practices, thus they have been defined as medium capable companies. Cluster two is

composed by thirty-two companies of which nine are components suppliers. This is the

biggest cluster both in terms of numerousness and for what concerns suppliers’ position

(75% of suppliers is in this cluster). The same type of ranking realized for the first cluster

can be made for the second cluster of analysis:

1. Sustainable packaging practices

2. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

3. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

4. Green production practices

5. Network design practices

6. Green suppliers’ collaboration practices

7. Green customers’ management practices

8. Socially responsible purchasing practices

9. Green management practices

10. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

11. Green design practices

12. Green logistics practices

Differently from the previous class of firms, medium capable companies prefer other type

of practices. For example, the most implemented set of practices for this category of firms

is the sustainable packaging one, while in the previous cluster this practice was one of the

least developed. Among the firsts, there are also pollution prevention and pollution

control practices and green production practices that were previously ranked among the

lasts. For medium capable companies the least implemented practices are green design

and green logistic practices, but also suppliers’ green monitoring has a low position in the

rank. Generally, sustainable supply chain practices such as green suppliers’ collaboration,

green customers’ management and socially responsible purchasing, are modestly

implemented by these companies, indeed they are ranked in a medium position.

178

- Shortly capable companies: from the centroid matrix it emerged that cluster three had

the lowest mean values, this has been interpreted as a bad performance in terms of

sustainable practices implementation, so companies belonging to cluster three have been

named as shortly capable companies. It is formed by fifteen companies of which three are

components’ suppliers. Shortly capable companies have a complete different ranking with

respect to the firms of cluster one:

1. Green logistics practices

2. Green design practices

3. Green management practices

4. Socially responsible purchasing practices

5. Green production practices

6. Network design practices

7. Green customer management practices

8. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

9. Green suppliers’ collaboration

10. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

11. Suppliers’ green assessment

12. Sustainable packaging

The most implemented sustainable practices of shortly capable companies are those

mainly focused on the focal company production process. For instance, green logistics and

green design are the two most implemented sustainable practices, followed by green

management practices. Compared to sustainable supply chain practices such as green

customer management and suppliers’ green monitoring, company-focused practices are

cheaper and easier to develop. This may be one of the reasons why shortly capable

companies implemented these practices the most. As already said, according to this last

cluster, sustainable supply chain practices are shortly implemented, but even less

developed are the suppliers’ green assessment practices and the sustainable packaging

practices.

7.4 Answer to RQ2: Once companies have been classified according to their commitment in implementing sustainable

practices, it was noteworthy assess if some differences in behaviors existed between suppliers

and manufacturers listed in the different classes. Specifically, being the strategic role of

179

sustainability the same, the differences in the level of implementation of sustainable practices of

suppliers and manufacturers were investigated.

RQ2: Being the strategic role of sustainability equal, what are the sustainable practices

implemented by manufacturers and suppliers?

To do so, after the positioning of companies in the three clusters (highly capable, medium capable

and shortly capable) has been defined, furniture producers and suppliers have been treated

separately to see if substantial differences existed among their classification. In other words, a

focus on the suppliers’ group was made in order to detect eventual concentration of these

subjects in a single cluster. However, this possibility has been excluded from the cluster analysis,

that clearly showed that suppliers were homogenously distributed among the three clusters.

Therefore, to answer RQ2, the first step was to focus on the strategic role of social and

environmental sustainability claimed by suppliers and by manufacturers. Then, suppliers and

producers with the same level of sustainable competitiveness were compared to see if there were

similarities, or significant differences, in the implemented sustainable practices.

Going back to the survey’s first question and focusing on the suppliers’ cluster embedded in the

already analyzed sample, it is possible to draw some further considerations. Four of the suppliers

answering the question, indicated environmental sustainability as not so important compared to

other competitive factors (e.g.: quality, price...), four of them considered it as not strategic but

still desirable characteristic ("nice to have"), two of the suppliers defined it as a necessary

condition to operate in their sector, two of them believed it was very important to win orders, but

no one of them selected the options “A required characteristic of a product in order for the

product to be even considered by a customer” or “A characteristic that will win the bid or

customer's purchase”. Similar considerations can be made focusing on social sustainability.

Nobody considered social sustainability not so important compared to other competitive factors

(e.g.: quality, price...), three of the suppliers stated it was a non-strategic but still desirable

characteristic ("nice to have"), five of the suppliers claimed it was a necessary condition to

operate in their sector, four considered social sustainability a required characteristic of a product

in order for the product to be even considered by a customer, but no one of the respondents

selected the options “Very important for Us to win orders” or “A characteristic that will win the

bid or customer's purchase”. In the following Table 60 the previous considerations are

summarized.

180

How do you judge the following competitive factors?

(focus on suppliers)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Not so important

compared to other

competitive

factors (e.g.:

quality, price...)

Not strategic but

still desirable

characteristic

("nice to have")

A necessary

condition to

operate in

Our sector

A required characteristic

of a product in order for

the product to be even

considered by a

customer

Very

important

for Us to

win orders

A characteristic

that will win the

bid or customer's

purchase

Environmental

sustainability

4/12 4/12 2/12 0/12 2/12 0/12

Social

sustainability

4/12 4/12 2/12 0/12 2/12 0/12

Table 60 - Strategic role of environmental and social sustainability (suppliers' answers)

From these data, it can be concluded that suppliers attributed a lower importance, in terms of

strategic advantage, to environmental sustainability. Most of them considered it a desirable

attribute, while very few of them believed it was a market qualifier or an order winner.

Conversely, social sustainability is considered by suppliers as a necessary condition to compete on

the market.

Producers, instead, showed a different approach towards sustainability. For what concerned

environmental sustainability, eighteen of respondents indicated that it was a non-strategic but

still desirable characteristic (“nice to have”), concurrently another large share of manufacturers

twelve showed it was a required characteristic of a product in order for the product to be even

considered by a customer. The remaining furniture producers considered environmental

sustainability either necessary condition to operate in their sector (three) or very important for

them to win orders (seven). Only three of respondents believed environmental sustainability was

not so important compared to other competitive factors, other three instead considered it a

characteristic that will win the bid or customer’s purchase. In general, social sustainability is

considered by furnishing producers a desirable attribute. twelve of respondents stated it was not

so important compared to other competitive factors, eighteen considered it non-strategic but still

desirable characteristic (“nice to have”). Another significant share ten instead believed that social

sustainability was a necessary condition to operate in their sector, while eight stated it was a

required characteristic of a product in order for the product to be even considered by a customer.

Only four affirmed that social sustainability was very important to win orders, and just three

believed it was a characteristic that will win the bid or customer’s purchase.

181

How do you judge the following competitive factors?

(focus on producers)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Not so important

compared to

other competitive

factors (e.g.:

quality, price...)

Not strategic but

still desirable

characteristic

("nice to have")

A necessary

condition to

operate in

Our sector

A required

characteristic of a

product in order for

the product to be

even considered by a

customer

Very

important

for Us to

win orders

A characteristic

that will win the

bid or customer's

purchase

Environmental

sustainability

3/46 18/46 3/46 12/46 7/46 3/46

Social

sustainability

12/46 8/46 10/46 8/46 4/46 3/46

Table 61 - Strategic role of environmental and social sustainability (producers' answers)

Therefore, producers are typically less concerned about social sustainability, while only part of

them prefer to dedicate resources to environmental sustainability improvement.

Furniture market is a very competitive one, especially in the last years, green products have

gained popularity and they are more and more the preferred choice of environmental aware

customers. If furniture firms want to target the green segment of the market, wooden furniture

manufacturers must comply with green initiatives such as: green design, recyclable products,

adoption of environmental certifications and so on. The most competitive businesses, have

already integrated environmental sustainability among their corporate competitive factors

(quality, delivery time, cost…) and the most innovative of them also managed to transform it into

their competitive advantage. However, still a big portion of firms doesn’t consider environmental

sustainability a factor able to bring competitiveness. This share of subjects is composed not only

by producers, but also by suppliers. Suppliers participating to this survey indeed, were typically

more concerned about social sustainability rather than about environmental one.

One possible explanation of this mismatch of sustainability’s strategic role declaration between

suppliers and producers, could be the different sizes of the companies belonging to the two

groups. The smallest supplier of the sample had 1.000.000 € of revenues, while the biggest one

had 16.000.000 € of revenues, the average value of revenues of suppliers was 6.125.000 €. The

overall producers’ group had quite different features: the maximum value of revenues was

411.587.464 €, the minimum value was 400.000 €, the average value was: 38.474.696 €. Thus, it

was reasonable to suppose that the discriminating factor for the different declarations of

sustainability strategic role was size.

182

Therefore, a section of the producers was selected and further analyzed. Specifically, only

producers with sales features comparable with the suppliers’ ones were chose. Overall, thirteen

producers were considered, the lowest value of revenues of this new sample was 1.200.000 €, the

highest value was 14.000.000 €, the average value was 4.945.923 €. Thus, much more comparable

values were selected. At this point a benchmarking between the new producers’ sample and the

suppliers’ group was performed. The results obtained are shown in the following charts:

Despite a different point of view is adopted, it is clear there is still a mismatch between what

suppliers stated about the competitive role of sustainability and what producers with a

comparable dimension affirmed. Therefore, it can be concluded that size is not the variable

discerning between the different role of environmental and social sustainability.

After this first consideration, an analysis on the practices implemented by manufacturers and

suppliers that declared the same strategic role of sustainability was conducted. Since

environmental and social sustainability were treated separately in the survey’s first question, also

this analysis was performed maintaining the separation.

To see which practices were the most implemented by each group of firms, factors of practices

previously defined were considered. In particular, it was computed the average value for each

factor in order to rank them from the most developed to the least one. The first comparative

analysis was performed between suppliers and producers that considered environmental

sustainability a desirable attribute. The following table (Table 62) shows the practices ranking for

both groups.

183

Environmental Sustainability is a Desirable Attribute

Suppliers Producers

1. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

2. Sustainable packaging practices

3. Green design practices

4. Green production practices

5. Green management practices

6. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

7. Green customer management practices

8. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

9. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

10. Green logistics practices

11. Socially responsible purchasing practices

12. Network design practices

1. Socially responsible purchasing practices

2. Sustainable packaging practices

3. Network design practices

4. Green management practices

5. Green design practices

6. Green customer management practices

7. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

8. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

9. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

10. Green logistics practices

11. Green production practices

12. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

Table 62 - Suppliers producers comparison: Environmental sustainability is a DA

Generally, suppliers dedicate much efforts in the implementation of pollution prevention and

pollution control practices, sustainable packaging practices and green design practices, producers

instead focus more on socially responsible purchasing practices and network design practices and

they dedicate resource to sustainable packaging practices too. It is interesting to note that while

for suppliers pollution prevention and pollution control practices are the most implemented one,

for producers this is the least developed practice. Conversely, sustainable packaging practices,

green customer management practices, suppliers’ green monitoring practices and suppliers’

green assessment practices are ranked more or less in the same position in both cases.

Similar considerations can be drawn for suppliers and producers that consider social sustainability

a desirable attribute. For what concern practices implemented by suppliers, pollution prevention

and pollution control practices are still among the most developed ones, as also green production

practices. Things changed a lot for sustainable packaging practices that now is one of the least

implemented practices. While network design practices are still the less developed ones for what

concerned suppliers. Network design practices, green management practices and sustainable

packaging practices are among the favorite practices of producers that considered social

184

sustainability a desirable attribute. Overall, only socially responsible purchasing shows now a very

different position compared to the previous ranking.

Social Sustainability is a Desirable Attribute

Suppliers Producers

1. Green production practices

2. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

3. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

4. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

5. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

6. Green management practices

7. Green customer management practices

8. Socially responsible purchasing practices

9. Green design practices

10. Green logistics practices

11. Sustainable packaging practices

12. Network design practices

1. Network design practices

2. Green management practices

3. Green design practices

4. Sustainable packaging practices

5. Green production practices

6. Socially responsible purchasing practices

7. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

8. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

9. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

10. Green logistics practices

11. Green customer management practices

12. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

Table 63 - Suppliers producers comparison: Social sustainability is a DA

Moving the attention towards producers and suppliers that indicate sustainability as a market

qualifier, different conclusions can be drawn. Both suppliers and producers ranked green

collaboration with suppliers practices among the most implemented ones, a part from this case

the other top ranked practices are all different. However, it can be observed an improvement in

the sustainable supply chain practices such as: suppliers’ green monitoring, suppliers’ green

assessment for suppliers, that in the previous analysis had worst ranking positions and green

customer management practices and green collaboration with suppliers for producers that were

previously among the least implemented initiatives. Finally, green logistics practices and suppliers’

green assessment practices are evaluated in similar ways from suppliers and producers for which

environmental sustainability is a market qualifier, in both cases they are low ranked practices.

185

Environmental Sustainability is a Market Qualifier

Suppliers Producers

1. Green production practices

2. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

3. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

4. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

5. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

6. Green customer management practices

7. Socially responsible purchasing practices

8. Green logistics practices

9. Green management practices

10. Network design practices

11. Sustainable packaging practices

12. Green design practices

1. Green logistics practices

2. Green customer management practices

3. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

4. Green management practices

5. Sustainable packaging practices

6. Socially responsible purchasing practices

7. Green design practices

8. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

9. Green production practices

10. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

11. Network design practices

12. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

Table 64 - Suppliers producers comparison: Environmental sustainability is a MQ

As in the first case, suppliers and producers considering social sustainability a market qualifier,

prefer different practices. Here the gap between suppliers and producers is very marked.

Suppliers that considered social sustainability a market qualifier primarily implement sustainable

packaging practices, green management practices and green customer management practices,

while producers focus their resources on pollution prevention and control practices, green

collaboration with suppliers and socially responsible purchasing practices. Similar positions in the

two rankings are shown for green logistics practices, suppliers’ green assessment and network

design practices.

186

Social Sustainability is a Market Qualifier

Suppliers Producers

1. Sustainable packaging practices

2. Green management practices

3. Green customer management practices

4. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

5. Green design practices

6. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

7. Green production practices

8. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

9. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

10. Network design practices

11. Green logistics practices

12. Socially responsible purchasing practices

1. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

2. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

3. Socially responsible purchasing practices

4. Green customer management practices

5. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

6. Network design practices

7. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

8. Green design practices

9. Sustainable packaging practices

10. Green logistics practices

11. Green production practices

12. Green management practices

Table 65 - Suppliers producers comparison Social sustainability is a MQ

Finally, suppliers and producers that declared that sustainability was an order winner, were

compared. Starting from comparison between suppliers and producers that considered

environmental sustainability an order winner, it can be observed that network design

practices and green logistics practices are among the most implemented practices by both

groups. Specifically, suppliers prefer sustainable practices that are generally focused on the

focal company, while producers with this level of strategic sustainability, develop mostly

sustainable supply chain practices such as: Socially responsible purchasing practices, Green

collaboration with suppliers practices and network design practices. For both categories,

green logistics practices and network design practices have the same level of development.

187

Environmental Sustainability is an Order Winner

Suppliers Producers

1. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

2. Network design practices

3. Green production practices

4. Green management practices

5. Green logistics practices

6. Green design practices

7. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

8. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

9. Sustainable packaging practices

10. Green customer management practices

11. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

12. Socially responsible purchasing practices

1. Socially responsible purchasing practices

2. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

3. Network design practices

4. Green logistics practices

5. Green customer management practices

6. Sustainable packaging practices

7. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

8. Green design practices

9. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

10. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

11. Green management practices

12. Green production practices

Table 66 - Suppliers producers comparison: Environmental sustainability is a OW

As last, suppliers and producers with the same strategic role of social sustainability were

compared. Even for these two groups of companies some similarities and some differences exist.

Both suppliers and producers privileged green logistics and green customer management

practices. Very different opinion are expressed for green production practices, that are ranked at

the first place from suppliers and at the last place from producers. Similar positions are instead

found for pollution prevention and control practices, sustainable packaging practices and socially

responsible purchasing practices.

188

Social Sustainability is an Order Winner

Suppliers Producers

1. Green production practices

2. Green customer management practices

3. Green logistics practices

4. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

5. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

6. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

7. Sustainable packaging practices

8. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

9. Socially responsible purchasing practices

10. Network design practices

11. Green design practices

12. Green management practices

1. Green logistics practices

2. Green design practices

3. Suppliers’ green monitoring practices

4. Green management practices

5. Green customer management practices

6. Sustainable packaging practices

7. Network design practices

8. Pollution prevention and pollution control practices

9. Suppliers’ green assessment practices

10. Green collaboration with suppliers practices

11. Socially responsible purchasing practices

12. Green production practices

Table 67 - Suppliers producers comparison: Social sustainability is a OW

At this point, all possible combination of strategic role of social and environmental sustainability

for producers and suppliers have been considered. Some final general observations can be drawn

regardless of whether sustainability is social or environmental.

When sustainability is a desirable attribute, pollution prevention and pollution control practices

are among the most implemented practices of suppliers, while it they are among the least

interesting for producers. A similar consideration can be made for green production: it is often

widely developed by suppliers, but is modestly implemented by producers. The opposite

consideration can be made for network design practices that are among the lasts for suppliers,

while they are of quite relevant position in the producers’ ranking. For both suppliers and

producers, suppliers’ green assessment and suppliers’ green monitoring are mildly attractive,

while green logistics practices are of very low interest regardless of the position of the company

along the supply chain.

When sustainability is a market qualifier pollution prevention and pollution control practices and

suppliers’ green assessment are two of the most implemented practices by suppliers, they are

189

also modestly implemented by producers. While network design practices and green logistics

practices are among the least developed initiatives for suppliers, they are of medium interest for

producers. There are significant differences between suppliers and producers for green

production practices that are generally more developed from suppliers than from producers.

Similarities are found for green collaboration with suppliers practices and green customer

management that are mildly implemented by both suppliers and producers.

When sustainability is an order winner green production is ranked among the most widespread

sustainable practices from suppliers, while producers have very little consideration of this

category of practices. Both producers and suppliers dedicate consistent resources to the

development of green logistics practices, as it is considered among the first positions of the

ranking by both. On average, suppliers’ green assessment practices are more implemented by

suppliers than by producers, while they dedicate the same amount of resources to sustainable

packaging practices, suppliers’ green monitoring practices and supplies’ green assessment that

are generally a medium-ranked by both. Finally, pollution prevention and pollution control is in

general higher ranked by suppliers than by producers.

7.5 Answer to RQ3: After the previous analysis on practices and on the role of company’s position along the supply

chain in practices implementation, the study moved to analyze if external and internal driving

factors had some influence on companies’ sustainable initiatives. In other words, research

question three was faced and answered.

Research question three was formulated in the following way:

RQ3: How external and internal drivers impact on companies’ commitment for the

implementation of sustainable practices?

In the survey, there was a specific section dedicated to the impact that drivers had on companies’

decision to develop sustainable initiatives. In total, a list of nine drivers were proposed in the

survey. Selected drivers were both external (i.e. establishing company’s green image), or internal

(i.e. pressures coming from company’s internal stakeholders). Once collected the answers

provided by companies, the scope was to investigate whether there was a direct relation between

drivers and companies’ efforts for sustainable practices’ implementation. Once again, it was

decided to perform a dimension reduction analysis on the nine drivers to reduce the

numerousness of the sample. Therefore, an exploratory factor analysis on drivers was conducted

and the output was the identification of three factors of drivers:

190

6. Regulatory drivers (RD)

7. Drivers of image (DI)

8. Stakeholders drivers (SD)

The following table explain how drivers were merged from SPSS to form the factors:

Driver ID Factor

Cronbach's

Alpha

Central and regional governmental environmental

regulations RD1 REGULATOR

Y DRIVERS

(RD) ,640

Avoiding potential costs and liabilities for disposal of

hazardous materials RD2

Table 68 - RD Factor composition

Driver ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Establishing company's green image DI1 DRIVERS OF

IMAGE (DI) ,641 Reacting to competitors' green initiatives DI2

Table 69 - DI Factor composition

Driver ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Pressures coming from customers' environmental

awareness SD1

STAKEHOLDERS’

DRIVERS (SD)

,725

Pressures coming from local communities SD2

Pressures coming from suppliers for the joint

development of environmentally friendly goods SD3

Pressures coming from firm's employees SD4

Pressures coming from firm's shareholders SD5

Table 70 - SD Factor composition

Once obtained the factors, the most intuitive way to detect eventual relationships between

drivers and companies’ decision to dedicate a certain amount of resources to the development of

sustainable resources was to perform an ANOVA analysis on drivers’ factors.

191

The purpose of the ANOVA analysis, is to determine if significant differences exist between two or

more groups. In this case, the groups corresponded with the three clusters (highly capable,

medium capable and shortly capable companies) defined previously.

ANOVA test was performed with the SPSS support. SPSS needed as input for the analysis two

columns of data: one containing the dependent variable (in this case the drivers’ factors) and one

for the grouping variable or independent variable (in this case this variable had three levels: 1,2

and 3, one for each cluster). Before running the analysis, it was fundamental to check that the

ANOVA initial assumptions were respected: the dependent variable is measured on at least an

interval scale and is normally distributed in the population. Therefore, before starting the

analysis, a normality test was performed. In particular, SPSS allow to run two test of normality:

Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk, the output of the second analysis were considered to

decide whether the sample was normally distributed or not, because the Kolmogorov–Smirnov

test is more indicated for very big sized samples. In this analysis, the general convention of using a

5% significant level is followed. The null hypothesis H0 on which test of normality is built is that

data are normally distributed, the null hypothesis is rejected if the p-value is smaller than or equal

to the level of tolerance of the risk of rejecting a true null hypothesis. Therefore, if the p value

resulted higher than the threshold value the null hypothesis that the data are normally distributed

was accepted, while it the p value was lower than the significant level then the null hypothesis

was rejected. Being all the p values resulted from the Shapiro-Wilk test higher than the threshold

vale, it was concluded that all data were normally distributed.

Once verified the normality assumption, the one-way ANOVA test was performed. Among the

options, SPSS includes the possibility to plot the homogeneity of variance test, this is another

important step to understand how to interpret the results. As homogeneity of variance test, SPSS

propones the Levene’ test, that is founded on the null hypothesis H0 that the variances are

homogenous. Therefore, if the Levene’s test shows a p value higher than the 5% significant level,

than the null hypothesis that the variances are homogenous is rejected, while if the p value is

lower than 0,05 than the null hypothesis is accepted, all the variances are homogeneous. In the

case of drivers, all variances resulted homogenous. At this point the assumptions of normality of

distribution and of homogeneity of variances are both met, so to decide whether at least one

group mean differs from the others, it should be analyzed the regular F-test shown in the ANOVA

results table. The ANOVA calculates the ratio of the actual difference to the difference expected

due to chance alone. This ratio is called the F ratio and it can be compared to an F distribution, in

the same manner as a t ratio is compared to a t distribution. For an F ratio, the actual difference is

192

the variance between groups, and the expected difference is the variance within groups. In other

words, the F-test is based on the null hypothesis H0 that the means of the groups of variables are

equal. Thus, if the p value shown in the final ANOVA table is higher than 0,05, than the null

hypothesis that the means of the groups of variables are equal, conversely if the p value is lower

than the 5% significant level, than the null hypothesis can be rejected. In the case of drivers, in

two cases out of three the p value was higher than the threshold value, while in one case it was

lower. Specifically, for regulatory drivers (RD) and drivers of image (DI), the F-test’s null

hypothesis was rejected, while for stakeholders’ drivers (SD) it resulted that the means of the

groups analyzed were equal. At this point, it was only known that two group means differ

significantly, but to evaluate whether all groups were mutually different, a post-hoc multiple

comparison analysis was needed. After a careful analysis of the alternatives, the Hochberg’s GT2

post-hoc analysis was reputed the most adequate one. The results of the Hochberg’s GT2 post-

hoc analysis conducted on the three drivers’ factors are shown in the following tables. Please note

that the grouping variables for this ANOVA are the three clusters of companies that have been

indicated with numbers from 1 to 3 where:

- 1 = Highly capable companies

- 2 = Medium capable companies

- 3 = Shortly capable companies

Dependent Variable: RD

Hochberg

(I) CLUSTER

Mean Difference

(I-J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 ,38402 ,32366 ,557 -,4121 1,1801

3,00 1,16601* ,36121 ,006 ,2775 2,0545

2,00 1,00 -,38402 ,32366 ,557 -1,1801 ,4121

3,00 ,78199* ,28389 ,024 ,0837 1,4803

3,00 1,00 -1,16601* ,36121 ,006 -2,0545 -,2775

2,00 -,78199* ,28389 ,024 -1,4803 -,0837

Table 71 - ANOVA RD, Clusters 1,2,3

193

Dependent Variable: DI

Hochberg

(I) CLUSTER

Mean Difference

(I-J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 -,05333 ,29957 ,997 -,7902 ,6835

3,00 1,16849* ,33433 ,003 ,3461 1,9908

2,00 1,00 ,05333 ,29957 ,997 -,6835 ,7902

3,00 1,22182* ,26276 ,000 ,5755 1,8681

3,00 1,00 -1,16849* ,33433 ,003 -1,9908 -,3461

2,00 -1,22182* ,26276 ,000 -1,8681 -,5755

Table 72 -ANOVA DI, Clusters 1,2,3

Dependent Variable: SD

Hochberg

(I) CLUSTER

Mean Difference

(I-J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 ,31513 ,34178 ,735 -,5255 1,1558

3,00 ,82253 ,38143 ,102 -,1157 1,7608

2,00 1,00 -,31513 ,34178 ,735 -1,1558 ,5255

3,00 ,50740 ,29978 ,259 -,2300 1,2448

3,00 1,00 -,82253 ,38143 ,102 -1,7608 ,1157

2,00 -,50740 ,29978 ,259 -1,2448 ,2300

Table 73 - ANOVA SD, Clusters 1,2,3

As forecasted by the F-test, there are significant differences in the means of at least two groups,

now thanks to the Hochberg’s GT2 all the differences in the groups means are showed. The first

table (Table) is demonstrating that there are significant differences in the means of cluster one

and three and two and three for what concerned the dependent variable Regulatory Drivers. The

table reported also the mean difference, that is positive between one and three and two and

three, so it can be concluded that the mean of cluster one is higher than the mean of cluster three

and the mean of cluster two is also higher than the mean of cluster three. Similar considerations

can be drawn looking at the second table, even in this case there are significant differences in the

means of cluster one with respect to the means of cluster three and there are significant

differences in the means of cluster two with respect to cluster three. Once again looking at the

mean difference, it is clear that cluster one has a higher mean value with respect to cluster three

and cluster two has higher mean value than cluster three. As expected, there are no significant

194

differences in the clusters’ means for the third factor of drivers: stakeholders’ drivers, indeed all

the p value are lying above the threshold value (0,05), thus the null hypothesis that the groups’

means are equal is accepted.

Based on the previous considerations, the following charts have been developed to graphically

explain the results obtained through the ANOVA analysis on drivers’ factors.

HIGHLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

SHORTLY CAPABLE

SHORTLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

HIGHLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

SHORTLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

HIGHLY CAPABLE

MEDIUM CAPABLE

RD DI

SD

195

The first two charts, show where the impact of regulatory drivers and drivers of image is higher.

As resulted from the ANOVA analysis, the means of highly capable companies and medium

capable companies are significantly different to those of shortly capable companies for regulatory

drivers and drivers of image. Conversely, for what concerned stakeholders’ drivers, no differences

in groups’ means where detected by SPSS. Therefore, the meaning of the three charts should now

be clear: the sketched red tringle indicates which are the clusters of firms more influenced by that

given driver. It is important to highlight that the conclusion of this analysis, is not that only highly

capable companies and medium capable companies are influenced by regulatory drivers and

drivers of image. Also shortly capable companies are pushed by regulatory drivers to develop

sustainable practices, since regulations is the same for all the companies of the sector. The

conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that, for regulatory drivers’ factor and for

stakeholders’ drivers’ factor, companies belonging to highly capable cluster have mean values

that are significantly higher than those of shortly capable companies, but not significantly

different from those of medium capable companies. Medium capable companies have mean

values that are in turn higher than those of shortly capable companies. Therefore, it can be

concluded that regulatory drivers and drivers of image are particularly impacting for those firms

that are already committed with the sustainability issue, but these is not the unique type of

companies interested by the drivers under discussion. For what concerned stakeholders’ drivers

instead, no significant differences were found in the clusters’ mean values, thus it can be said that

stakeholders’ drivers impact on all clusters in the same way.

7.6 Answer to RQ4: The answer to the fourth and last research question is most groundbreaking contribute that this

study brings to the state of art in the field of sustainable supply chain development. As such, it is

also the most articulate passage of the work. The last research question of this thesis was

formulated as follows:

RQ4: How the sustainable strategic fit between the stated strategic role of sustainability and the

actual implemented sustainable practices impacts on the environmental, social and economic

performance of a company?

While strategic fit defined by Chopra and Meindl (2012) indicated the consistency between

customer priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain capabilities specified by the supply

chain strategy, in this thesis the concept of sustainable strategic fit indicates the match between

the declared competitive role of sustainability and the actual commitment of companies in

196

implementing sustainable supply chain practices. This first consideration is also the most

important pillar of this work, as well as the starting point to answer RQ4. After having defined this

concept, it was wondered whether companies could be better defined according to their

sustainable strategic fit. Deepening the work of previous Authors who faced the problem of

companies’ classification on the basis of a given variable (Macchion et al., 2015; Wu and Pagell,

2011), it was assumed that survey’s subjects could be further categorized according to the their

declared competitive role of sustainability. Combining this assumption with the clusters’

classification obtained by dividing companies according to their commitment in implementing

sustainable practices (answer to RQ1), it was assumed to classify companies according to their

sustainable strategic fit or misfit and their commitment in implementing green and social

initiatives.

Considering previous research works and in particular the thesis work that preceded the current

one, there are evidences that the implementation of certain sustainable practices has direct

positive impact on triple bottom line performance. For instance, the preceding thesis concluded

that production management practices such as: use of a waste management system, the use of

recycled raw materials, the use of energy from renewable sources and the realization of

recyclable/reusable packaging, improve internal supply chain costs performance. Purchasing

practices such as: collaborations with suppliers to improve their sustainable performance have a

positive impact on the firm’s green image and reputation. Finally, the adoption of environmental

and social certification, organization of training courses for a correct use and disposal of products

for customers and employees and the sponsorship of green and social initiatives of no-profit

organizations, significantly improve stakeholders’ satisfaction level and corporate green image.

Moreover, in the recent Literature there are plenty of papers offering insight on potential

patterns of supply chain relations for improving environmental performance (Florida, 1996a;

Florida and Davison, 2001; Geffen and Rothenberg, 2000; Green et al., 1996; Handfield et al.,

2002; Sarkis, 1995). Finally, in the lights of the conclusions obtained in the preceding thesis work

and in line with a number of research papers that dealt with the relationships between

implementation of sustainable practices and the evident improvement of corporate performance

(Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Zhu et al., 2007, Samal, 2008; Zhu et al., 2008), considering also the results

of some scientific studies showing that companies implemented different practices according to

the different competitive role of sustainability in their corporate strategy (Wu and Pagell, 2011;

Cabot et al., 2009), it was reasonable to postulate that: when the sustainable strategic fit between

stated role of sustainability and effective implemented practices is in its optimal condition, then

197

the company experiences the highest level of triple bottom line performance. This assumption led

to the formulation of the following research hypothesis:

Hp1: Companies that match the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition, are expected to

experience higher performance than all other companies.

To validate the previous Hypothesis, multiple analyses have been performed. First, the framework

developed by Chopra and Meindl (2012) has been deeply analyzed. Starting from their original

idea, a new framework was developed to allow the classification of companies based on the

sustainable strategic fit between their stated strategic role of sustainability and the actual

implemented sustainable practices. Then, the classification initially obtained as a result of the

cluster analysis (highly capable companies, medium capable companies and shortly capable

companies), was combined with the information collected through the survey regarding the

competitive role of sustainability (desirable attribute, market qualifier and order winner). In this

way, a matrix with nine cells was built. The matrix, named sustainable strategic fit matrix,

represented a customized version of the strategic fit framework of Chopra and Meindl (2012), as

such it allows to easily identify which are the firms matching the sustainable strategic fit condition

(the ones laying on the matrix’s diagonal). However, to validate the research hypothesis one,

several more steps were necessary. First, it was proved that it is not sufficient to be very good in

implementing sustainable practices to have positive performance improvement. In other words,

an ANOVA analysis between the sustainable strategic fit matrix’s rows was performed to find

whether there were significant differences in mean values. Afterwards, the same type of analysis

was run for matrix’s columns. It was investigated whether there were significant differences in

means between companies with different strategic roles of sustainability. The results of these

analyses showed there wasn’t’ a dominant class of companies over the others for what concerned

performance. Therefore, further analyses were conducted. In particular, at this point the focus of

the analyses move on the matrix’s single cell and an ANOVA analysis between matrix’s cells was

performed. Companies laying on the matrix’s diagonal were those meeting the sustainable

strategic fit condition, thus it was expected that some significant results emerged from their

comparison. It resulted that companies matching the best possible sustainable strategic fit

condition were the best performing ones. At this point it could be concluded that Hypothesis one

was supported: companies that match the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition, are

expected to experience higher performance than all other companies. The following scheme

summarizes the passages of the analysis (Fig. 63).

198

Figure 62 - Steps of the analysis to answer RQ4

7.6.1 Construction of the sustainable strategic fit matrix

During the development of the sustainable strategic fit matrix, many references to the work of

Chopra and Meindl (2012) were made. Chopra and Meindl (2012) defined a concept to indicate

the consistency between customer priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain capabilities

specified by the supply chain strategy and they called it strategic fit. The Authors specified that

strategic fit happens when competitive and supply chain strategies have the same goals, thus a

company may fail because of a lack of strategic fit or because its processes and resources do not

provide the capabilities to execute the desired strategy. Chopra and Meindl (2012) provided a

procedure for the achievement of strategic fit: first, a company should understand the customer

and supply chain uncertainty, then it should focus on its supply chain, finally the firm should

ensure that what the supply chain does well is consistent with target customer’s needs. The

sustainable strategic fit is a similar concept, but is much more related to the sustainable strategy

of a supply chain. It can be defined as the match between the strategic role of sustainability

stated by the company and the effective implemented sustainable practices.

199

The Authors bring the example of strategic fit between demand uncertainty and supply chain

strategy (responsive or efficient). To achieve strategic fit, the greater the implied uncertainty, the

more responsive the supply chain should be. Increasing implied uncertainty from customers and

supply sources is best served by increasing responsiveness from the supply chain. This

relationship is represented by the "zone of strategic fit" illustrated in Fig. 64 For a high level of

performance, companies should move their competitive strategy (and resulting implied

uncertainty) and supply chain strategy (and resulting responsiveness) toward the zone of strategic

fit.

Figure 63 - Strategic fit frameowork (Chopra and Meindl, 2012)

This framework was the starting point to build a new framework customized on the sustainable

strategic fit concept. The zone of strategic fit, became the zone of sustainable strategic fit, while

the axes changed name and became strategic role of sustainability (x axis) and clusters (y axis).

200

Figure 64 - Sustainable strategic fit framework

For the construction of this model, several information collected thanks to the previous analyses

were necessary. The clusters composition developed based on companies’ commitment in

implementing sustainable practices was the first relevant information needed, the declaration of

the strategic role of sustainability was the second important datum. The first one was the results

of the cluster analysis initially performed on factors of practices that resulted in the definition on

three clusters: highly capable companies, medium capable companies and shortly capable

companies. The information regarding the strategic role of sustainability was recovered directly

from the survey, in which companies specified a value ranging from one to six to express their

consideration of sustainability.

Combining these two components, two sustainable strategic fit matrices were obtained: one that

joined clusters’ information with the strategic role of environmental sustainability and one that

joined the clusters’ information with the strategic role of social sustainability (Table).

201

STRATEGIC ROLE OF Environmental SUSTAINABILITY

CLUSTERS 1 2 3 4 5 6

DESIRABLE ATTRIBUTE MARKET QUALIFIER ORDER WINNER

HIGHLY CAPABLE COMPANIES PR26

PR29

PR39

PR12

PR14

PR21

PR44

PR45

PR20

PR19

PR46

MEDIUM CAPABLE COMPANIES FOR12

PR1

PR5

PR9

PR15

PR33

PR36

PR37

PR41

PR6

FOR1

PR4

FOR6

PR11

FOR8

FOR9

PR30

PR25

PR42

FOR3

FOR5

FOR10

PR17

FOR11

PR22

PR28

PR43

PR8

PR13

PR18

PR27

PR40

SHORTLY CAPABLE COMPANIES FOR4

PR10

FOR7

PR23

PR31

PR32

PR34

PR35

PR38

PR7

PR24

PR2

PR16

FOR2

PR3

Table 74 - Environmental sustainable strategic fit matrix

STRATEGIC ROLE OF Social SUSTAINABILITY

CLUSTERS 1 2 3 4 5 6

DESIRABLE ATTRIBUTE MARKET QUALIFIER ORDER WINNER

HIGHLY CAPABLE COMPANIES PR20

PR44

PR39

PR45

PR19

PR29

PR21

PR26

PR14

PR46

PR12

MEDIUM CAPABLE COMPANIES PR6

FOR3

FOR5

PR11

FOR10

FOR11

PR22

PR30

FOR12

PR9

PR15

PR33

PR41

PR42

PR8

PR13

PR28

PR43

FOR1

PR4

PR5

FOR6

PR27

PR37

PR25

PR40

PR1

PR18

FOR8

FOR9

PR17

PR36

SHORTLY CAPABLE COMPANIES PR2

FOR2

FOR4

FOR7

PR16

PR23

PR32

PR35

PR7

PR24

PR3

PR10

PR31

PR38

PR34

Table 75 - Social sustainable strategic fit matrix

202

This framework, allowed to classify companies in groups according to their sustainable strategic

fit, or misfit: overall nine groups were defined. As in the framework developed by Chopra and

Meindl (2012), firms laying on the diagonal are those meeting the sustainable strategic fit

condition. Thus, it is respected for highly capable companies declaring that sustainability is an

order winner, medium capable companies declaring that sustainability is a market qualifier and

shortly capable companies stating that sustainability is a desirable attribute. The firms laying

above or under the diagonal are those mismatching the sustainable strategic fit, thus in these

situations we will say that there is a sustainable strategic misfit.

Table 76 - Zone of sustainable fit and misfit

The nine groups of firms classified with this criterion, were named labels. Labels of the matrix, will

be referred to with numbers from 1 to 9:

18. Highly capable companies – sustainability is a desirable attribute

19. Highly capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier

20. Highly capable companies – sustainability is an order winner

21. Medium capable companies – sustainability is a desirable attribute

22. Medium capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier

23. Medium capable companies – sustainability is an order winner

203

24. Shortly capable companies – sustainability is a desirable attribute

25. Shortly capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier

26. Shortly capable companies – sustainability is an order winner

Label three, as expected, is composed by the most active firms. Companies belonging to this label

are overperforming the others in terms of sustainable practices implementation. In the following

charts (Fig. 66), the average values of practices of companies belonging to label three are

compared with the average values of practices of the whole sample of firms. As forecasted,

companies belonging to this label, dedicated in general a higher amount of resources to the

implementation of sustainable practices with respect to the other companies. This is verified for

label three of both matrices (the one referred to strategic role of environmental sustainability and

the one referred to strategic role of social sustainability).

Figure 65 - Mean value of label 3 vs Mean value total sample

204

Companies belonging to label five are modestly performing companies. They recognize

sustainability as a market qualifier and they implement a proportionate level of practices. A

consideration similar to the one made with label three can be drawn even for this second group

of companies. This label is composed by medium capable firms that consider sustainability a

market qualifier. Therefore, one would expect a mildly level of implementation of sustainable

practices and so it is. The following two charts (Fig. 77) show how these companies perform, in

terms of environmental and social practices implementation) with respect to the average of the

total sample.

Figure 66 - Mean value of label 5 vs Mean value total sample

Firms included in label seven are the worst performing companies. They attribute a very little

importance to sustainability and do nothing to improve it. These are the situations in which the

sustainable strategic fit is met. Even in this last case, the average values of practices

implementation of companies belonging to label seven have been plotted to show that they are

generally worst compared to the total sample and this is true for label seven of both matrices (Fig.

68).

Figure 67 - Mean value of label 7 vs Mean value total sample

For companies belonging to labels one, two and four the sustainable strategic fit is not met.

However, they can be considered «virtuous companies» because, even if they don’t recognize

sustainability as an order winner, they implement a significant amount of practices, thus we can

205

reasonably think they are on the right track to include it among their competitive factors soon.

Specifically, label one is formed by companies that put a lot of efforts for the development of

sustainable initiatives, but they don’t recognize sustainability as a competitive strategic factor.

This could be interpreted in different way: these firms are still at an embryonic phase of the

development of a sustainable strategy, so they are not ready to include sustainability among the

corporate competitive factors (i.e. cost, quality, delivery time), but they already start to engage

with green and social measures in order to improve their social position. On the other hand, these

companies could be not interested in declaring their sustainability’s strategic level, anyway they

could be pretty concerned about environmental issue, thus they actively work to bring their

contribution. Similar considerations can be drawn for highly capable companies that believed

sustainability is a market qualifier (label two). These firms are already oriented towards a more

coherent position: they devote many resources for the implementation of sustainable initiatives,

however they consider sustainability as a necessary condition to compete on the market, not the

competitive advantage that allow to win bids. Even in this case, companies could be on the right

track to transform sustainability in a future order winner characteristic, however, currently, they

are underestimating its importance. Finally, firms laying in label four could still be considered

virtuous companies, as they spend medium efforts for the sustainable practices’ development,

but they have very low consideration of sustainability as a strategic factor. Here again there is a

sustainable strategic misfit between the role of sustainability in corporate strategy and the level

of implementation of green and social practices.

For companies belonging to labels six, eight and nine the sustainable strategic fit is not met

neither. Differently to the previous situation these companies are overestimating the role of

sustainability as they perform very little when implementing sustainable practices. Thus, we can

define these companies as «vicious companies». Label six, is composed by firms overestimating

the strategic position of sustainability. These companies indeed, are modestly performing in

terms of sustainable practices’ implementation, but they declare that sustainability is an order

winner to them. Again, there is a misfit, however this might be the case of companies that are

progressively incrementing their efforts towards the implementation of sustainable practices, but

they are still at a work-in-progress phase. Therefore, even if they are listed within the vicious

companies, in the mid-term they could develop a good level of sustainable practices. Label eight

include firms that are poorly interested in implementing sustainable practices, but that consider

sustainability a market qualifier. These subjects are slightly overestimating the role of

sustainability in their business strategy, as commented for label four, these companies are lacking

206

the sustainable strategic fit condition, however, if they resize their sustainability’s strategic

position declaration, or they increase the efforts dedicated to the development of sustainable

practices, they could fit in the fifth or seventh labels. Finally, the worst situation possible, it the

one of firms stating that sustainability is an order winner, but that are very poorly performing in

terms of sustainable practices’ implementation. This could be the case of companies that exploit

sustainability for marketing purposes: for instance, they could create very effective advertising

campaigns declaring sustainability as their corporate mission, but concretely they do nothing to

realize those slogans. The positive aspect, is that from the analysis performed, only one company

for both matrices matched this condition. This is an encouraging remark, as it indicates that in

general companies avoid situations of strong negative misfit.

7.6.2 Factor analysis on performance

Once the labels have been formed and deeply analyzed, the relationship between the sustainable

strategic fit, or misfit, and the triple bottom line corporate performance can be investigated.

The survey’s fifth part, included a list of triple bottom line performance (environmental, social and

economic). Firms were asked to indicate how much these performance had improved with

respect to the market average in the last year. In total, sixteen performance were listed in the

questionnaire. Since they were attributable to the triple bottom line pillars, performance were

already preemptively divided in subgroups: environmental performance, social performance and

economic performance. However, a further dimension reduction analysis was performed to

reduce the sample examined. An exploratory factor analysis on performance was run, and the

result show that all the sixteen performance could be well explained by five factors:

6. Productive performance (PP)

7. Service performance (PSE)

8. Environmental performance (PA)

9. Social performance (PS)

10. Performance of image (PI)

The following tables show how SPSS synthetized all performance into five factors:

207

Performance ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Productivity of the production process PP1 PRODUCTIVE

PERFORMANCE

(PP) ,694 Manufacturing costs PP2

Raw materials purchasing cost PP3

Table 77 - PP Factor composition

Performance ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Transport costs PSE1

SERVICE

PERFORMANCE

(PSE) ,748

Warranty costs PSE2

Cost of scraps/reworks PSE3

Inventory costs PSE4

Table 78 - - PSE Factor composition

Performance ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Energy, water and materials consumption PA1

ENVIRONMENTAL

PERFORMANCE

(PA) ,674

Waste disposing costs PA2

Cost for non-compliance to environmental law and

regulations PA3

Emissions of CO2 and other hazardous and / or

polluting materials PA4

Table 79 - - PA Factor composition

Performance ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Workers satisfaction PS1 SOCIAL

PERFORMANCE

(PS) ,699 Health and safety conditions PS2

Table 80 - PS Factor composition

208

Performance ID Factor Cronbach's

Alpha

Customer satisfaction PI1

PERFORMANCE

OF IMAGE (PI) ,636

Local communities’ satisfaction PI2

Sustainable image/reputation PI3

Table 81 - PI Factor composition

7.6.3 ANOVA analysis on the sustainable strategic fit matrix’s

rows and columns

Once reduced the dimension of the performance’s answers sample, some further analyses could

be performed. Initially, the sustainable strategic fit matrix was analyzed by rows and by columns.

Even if this specific analysis is not directly providing an answer to RQ4, it contributes to correctly

define the boarders of the analysis. In particular, the following analyses have been run with the

aim to prove that it is not sufficient to declare that sustainability is an order winner to obtain

good performance, neither it is enough to devote a huge amount of resources to the

implementation of sustainable practices to get positive results. Despite this specific ANOVA

analysis was not included in a research question, it was still meaningful as it proves that in no

other conditions, except those of optimal sustainable strategic fit, the performance’s

improvement is maximized.

Once tested that all data very normally distributed and once interpreted the result of the Levene’s

test, the Hochberg’s GT2 post-hoc analysis was selected as the most appropriate way to evaluate

multiple comparisons between groups (in this case, the three clusters). The ANOVA test was

performed for all the five factors of performance with respect to the three clusters of companies,

the following charts show the results obtained for each performance’s factor analysis. Please note

that the grouping variables for this ANOVA are the three clusters of companies that have been

indicated with numbers from 1 to 3 where:

- 1 = Highly capable companies

- 2 = Medium capable companies

- 3 = Shortly capable companies

209

Dependent Variable: PA

Hochberg

(I) CLUSTER

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 ,84991* ,33517 ,041 ,0255 1,6743

3,00 ,82606 ,38067 ,099 -,1103 1,7624

2,00 1,00 -,84991* ,33517 ,041 -1,6743 -,0255

3,00 -,02385 ,30008 1,000 -,7620 ,7143

3,00 1,00 -,82606 ,38067 ,099 -1,7624 ,1103

2,00 ,02385 ,30008 1,000 -,7143 ,7620

Table 82 - ANOVA PA: Clusters 1,2,3

Dependent Variable: PS

Hochberg

(I) VAR00121

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 -,20871 ,29719 ,861 -,9397 ,5223

3,00 -,16171 ,37396 ,962 -1,0816 ,7581

2,00 1,00 ,20871 ,29719 ,861 -,5223 ,9397

3,00 ,04700 ,39315 ,999 -,9200 1,0140

3,00 1,00 ,16171 ,37396 ,962 -,7581 1,0816

2,00 -,04700 ,39315 ,999 -1,0140 ,9200

Table 83 - ANOVA PS: Clusters 1,2,3

Dependent Variable: PI

Hochberg

(I) CLUSTER

Mean Difference

(I-J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 ,41832 ,33482 ,515 -,4053 1,2419

3,00 ,97964* ,38028 ,037 ,0443 1,9150

2,00 1,00 -,41832 ,33482 ,515 -1,2419 ,4053

3,00 ,56131 ,29977 ,185 -,1760 1,2987

3,00 1,00 -,97964* ,38028 ,037 -1,9150 -,0443

2,00 -,56131 ,29977 ,185 -1,2987 ,1760

Table 84- ANOVA PI: Clusters 1,2,3

210

Dependent Variable: PP

Hochberg

(I) CLUSTER

Mean Difference

(I-J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 ,98486* ,32894 ,012 ,1758 1,7940

3,00 ,88721 ,37359 ,061 -,0317 1,8061

2,00 1,00 -,98486* ,32894 ,012 -1,7940 -,1758

3,00 -,09765 ,29450 ,982 -,8220 ,6267

3,00 1,00 -,88721 ,37359 ,061 -1,8061 ,0317

2,00 ,09765 ,29450 ,982 -,6267 ,8220

Table 85- ANOVA PP: Clusters 1,2,3

Dependent Variable: PSE

Hochberg

(I) CLUSTER

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 1,18759* ,31484 ,001 ,4132 1,9620

3,00 ,59194 ,35758 ,277 -,2876 1,4715

2,00 1,00 -1,18759* ,31484 ,001 -1,9620 -,4132

3,00 -,59565 ,28187 ,112 -1,2890 ,0977

3,00 1,00 -,59194 ,35758 ,277 -1,4715 ,2876

2,00 ,59565 ,28187 ,112 -,0977 1,2890

Table 86 - ANOVA PSE: Clusters 1,2,3

The results of the post-hoc test clearly show between which clusters there are significant

differences, moreover looking at the mean difference, it is also possible to note which is the

cluster with the higher performance’s factor mean. Let’ start from the analysis on the

environmental performance (PA), the ANOVA analysis highlighted that there is a significant

difference for this variable between cluster one and cluster two (the p value is lower than the

significant level 0,05) and specified that cluster one has higher mean values of environmental

performance than cluster two. For what concerns social performance (PS), instead, ANOVA

showed that no significant differences in means existed between clusters. Looking at the results

of the analysis on performance of image (PI), is evident that significant differences between the

first and the last cluster (highly capable companies and shortly capable companies) exist,

specifically cluster one has higher value of this performance with respect to cluster three.

Productive performance (PP) means are particularly different between cluster one and three and

211

between cluster one and two. In particular, the values of this performance for highly capable

companies are significantly higher than the values of the other two clusters. Finally, for service

performance (PSE), SPSS marked a significant difference between cluster one and two. These

considerations are graphically explained by the following matrix (Table).

Figure 68 - results of ANOVA Clusters 1,2,3

It is notable that some performance are higher in the first cluster with respect to the third cluster,

as it cluster one is composed by companies devoting a significant amount of resources to the

development of sustainable strategy, while the third cluster is formed by shortly capable

companies. However, it is not possible to conclude that performance of the first cluster are

absolutely higher than other two clusters. For example, performance of image are significantly

different between cluster one and three, but no differences are found in the means of cluster one

and two. Finally, it is more complicated to comment the change in economic performance such as

the productive performance and the service performance, as it cannot be affirmed that the

differences in mean of these two variables are directly related with the companies’ ability to

212

implement sustainable practices. Thus, it can only be observed that there is a significant

difference in mean only between cluster one and two for what concern productive performance

and performance of service.

A similar analysis has been performed with reference to the strategic role of social and

environmental sustainability. Thus, the ANOVA analysis has been performed on the sustainable

strategic fit matrix’s columns in this case. The two aspects of sustainability were treated

separately to keep and valorize the different importance that companies attributed to them.

Therefore, an ANOVA analysis on the environmental performance factor (PA) was run specifically

for the strategic role of environmental sustainability (desirable attribute, market qualifier, order

winner), while an ad-hoc ANOVA analysis on social performance factor (PS) was performed for

strategic role of social sustainability. Performance of image factor, productive performance factor

and service performance factor instead were analyzed with respect to both aspect of

sustainability (environmental and social). Once again, the ANOVA assumptions were respected

and the Hochberg’s GT2 post-hoc test was selected. Three levels of sustainability represent the

grouping variables of the ANOVA test and have been codified with the number ranging from 1 to

3 where:

- 1 = Desirable Attribute

- 2 = Market Qualifier

- 3 = Order Winner

The following charts show the results of the conducted ANOVA analyses.

Dependent Variable: PA

Hochberg

(I) RSS env

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 -,02875 ,26619 ,999 -,6835 ,6260

3,00 -1,12100* ,34707 ,006 -1,9747 -,2673

2,00 1,00 ,02875 ,26619 ,999 -,6260 ,6835

3,00 -1,09225* ,34707 ,008 -1,9459 -,2386

3,00 1,00 1,12100* ,34707 ,006 ,2673 1,9747

2,00 1,09225* ,34707 ,008 ,2386 1,9459

Table 87- ANOVA PA: Strategic Role of Environmental Sustainability 1,2,3

213

Dependent Variable: PI

Hochberg

(I) RSS env

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 -,22208 ,26673 ,790 -,8782 ,4340

3,00 -1,17258* ,34778 ,004 -2,0280 -,3171

2,00 1,00 ,22208 ,26673 ,790 -,4340 ,8782

3,00 -,95050* ,34778 ,025 -1,8059 -,0951

3,00 1,00 1,17258* ,34778 ,004 ,3171 2,0280

2,00 ,95050* ,34778 ,025 ,0951 1,8059

Table 88 ANOVA PI: Strategic Role of Environmental Sustainability 1,2,3

Dependent Variable: PP

Hochberg

(I) RSS env

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 ,34458 ,27429 ,511 -,3301 1,0193

3,00 -,66783 ,35763 ,186 -1,5475 ,2118

2,00 1,00 -,34458 ,27429 ,511 -1,0193 ,3301

3,00 -1,01242* ,35763 ,019 -1,8921 -,1327

3,00 1,00 ,66783 ,35763 ,186 -,2118 1,5475

2,00 1,01242* ,35763 ,019 ,1327 1,8921

Table 89-ANOVA PP: Strategic Role of Environmental Sustainability 1,2,3

Dependent Variable:

Hochberg PSE

(I) RSS env

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 ,56125 ,28255 ,147 -,1337 1,2562

3,00 ,00025 ,36840 1,000 -,9059 ,9064

2,00 1,00 -,56125 ,28255 ,147 -1,2562 ,1337

3,00 -,56100 ,36840 ,346 -1,4672 ,3452

3,00 1,00 -,00025 ,36840 1,000 -,9064 ,9059

2,00 ,56100 ,36840 ,346 -,3452 1,4672

Table 90 -ANOVA PSE: Strategic Role of Environmental Sustainability 1,2,3

214

The first chart shows that for environmental performance factor, there are significant differences

between companies that consider environmental sustainability as a desirable attribute and those

considering it an order winner and between firms believing environmental sustainability is a

market qualifier and those believing it is an order winner, while no significant differences were

found between group two and three. Identical considerations can be drawn for performance of

image factor (PI). Group three has higher mean values than group one and group two has higher

mean values than group one, but no differences in mean values are found between group two

and three. For what concerns productive performance factor (PP), SPSS shows differences only

between group two and three, where group three (environmental sustainability is an order

winner) obtained higher values than group two (environmental sustainability is a market

qualifier). No significant differences in means were found for service performance factor (PSE)

between the three groups analyze.

Dependent Variable: PS

Hochberg

(I) RSS soc

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 -,20871 ,29719 ,861 -,9397 ,5223

3,00 -,16171 ,37396 ,962 -1,0816 ,7581

2,00 1,00 ,20871 ,29719 ,861 -,5223 ,9397

3,00 ,04700 ,39315 ,999 -,9200 1,0140

3,00 1,00 ,16171 ,37396 ,962 -,7581 1,0816

2,00 -,04700 ,39315 ,999 -1,0140 ,9200

Table 91 -ANOVA PS: Strategic Role of Social Sustainability 1,2,3

Dependent Variable: PI

Hochberg

(I) RSS soc

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 -,71300* ,27582 ,037 -1,3914 -,0346

3,00 -,80400 ,34707 ,071 -1,6577 ,0497

2,00 1,00 ,71300* ,27582 ,037 ,0346 1,3914

3,00 -,09100 ,36488 ,992 -,9885 ,8065

3,00 1,00 ,80400 ,34707 ,071 -,0497 1,6577

2,00 ,09100 ,36488 ,992 -,8065 ,9885

Table 92 -ANOVA PI: Strategic Role of Social Sustainability 1,2,3

215

Dependent Variable: PP

Hochberg

(I) RSS soc

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 -,47514 ,29086 ,287 -1,1906 ,2403

3,00 -,21764 ,36599 ,910 -1,1179 ,6826

2,00 1,00 ,47514 ,29086 ,287 -,2403 1,1906

3,00 ,25750 ,38477 ,877 -,6889 1,2039

3,00 1,00 ,21764 ,36599 ,910 -,6826 1,1179

2,00 -,25750 ,38477 ,877 -1,2039 ,6889

Table 93 - ANOVA PP: Strategic Role of Social Sustainability 1,2,3

Dependent Variable: PSE

Hochberg

(I) RSS soc

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 -,09879 ,29783 ,982 -,8314 ,6338

3,00 ,06271 ,37476 ,998 -,8591 ,9845

2,00 1,00 ,09879 ,29783 ,982 -,6338 ,8314

3,00 ,16150 ,39399 ,968 -,8076 1,1306

3,00 1,00 -,06271 ,37476 ,998 -,9845 ,8591

2,00 -,16150 ,39399 ,968 -1,1306 ,8076

Table 94 - ANOVA PSE: Strategic Role of Social Sustainability 1,2,3

The last four charts show the results of ANOVA analysis conducted between companies believing

social sustainability was a desirable attribute (1) those believing social sustainability was a market

qualifier (2) and those considering it an order winner (3). Only for performance of image

significant difference in mean values were found, specifically it resulted that group three has

higher mean values than group one and that group two has higher mean values than group one.

For social performance factor (PS), productive performance (PP) and service performance (PSE) no

significant differences were found between the three groups. The following matrices graphically

represent all the considerations made.

216

Figure 69 - Results of ANOVA: Strategic Role of Environmental Sustainability 1,2,3

217

Figure 70- Results of ANOVA: Strategic Role of Social Sustainability 1,2,3

Having analyzed both the matrices, some considerations can be drawn. For what concern

performance of image factor (PI), it is clear that is higher for those companies considering

sustainability an order winner (both environmental and social). Also for firms considering

sustainability a market qualifier this performance is significantly different from those that

considered it a desirable attribute. Environmental performance are significantly different between

companies believing environmental sustainability is an order winner and between those

considering it a desirable attribute. Significant differences in mean values for this performance

between firms affirming it is a market qualifier and those stating it is a desirable attribute exist.

However, no conclusions can be drawn for social performance, as it resulted that there are no

significant differences in mean values between the three groups.

Having made said this, some final remarks can be made. There are statistical evidences that

performance are different between the three clusters of companies: highly capable, medium

capable, shortly capable and between companies declaring different strategic role of

218

sustainability: desirable attribute, market qualifier and order winner. However, it is not possible

to affirm that, in general, performance of highly capable companies are the highest, as, by

contrast, it is not said that performance of shortly capable companies are the worst. The same

considerations can be drawn for companies that define sustainability as an order winner or a

desirable attribute. Therefore, it is not sufficient be very efficient in implementing sustainable

practices to get the maximum results, neither it is enough declaring that sustainability is an order

winner to obtain the best performance possible.

7.6.4 ANOVA analysis on sustainable strategic fit matrix’s cells

To find which are the conditions under which the highest performance are reached, the point of

view of the ANOVA test should change. In particular, it was decided to analyze if significant

differences in mean values existed between matrix’ cells. Each cell, previously named label,

included a different group of companies. Companies belonging to different labels have different

characteristics: for instance, the firms laying on the matrix’s diagonal were those meeting the

sustainable strategic fit condition, while those outstanding the diagonal were lacking the

sustainable strategic fit condition. When the sustainable strategic fit exists, it means that the

stated competitive role of sustainability and the commitment for sustainable practices

implementation are aligned (i.e. highly capable companies – sustainability is an order winner,

medium capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier, shortly capable companies –

sustainability is a desirable attribute). In the lights of this observation, considering also the results

obtained in the previous thesis and from the recent Literature (Florida, 1996a; Florida and

Davison, 2001; Geffen and Rothenberg, 2000; Green et al., 1996; Handfield et al., 2002; Sarkis,

1995) that both confirm that there is a relationship between sustainable supply chain practices

implementation and positive improvement in corporate performance, it is reasonable to expect

that those companies matching the optimal condition of sustainable strategic fit (highly capable

companies – sustainability is an order winner) would obtain the best performance improvement.

In other words, the following analyses are aimed at validate research hypothesis 1 that

postulated: companies that match the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition, are expected to

experience higher performance than all other companies

From the previous considerations, it emerged that cells belonging to the matrix’ diagonal are the

most interesting to analyze, as they represent the zone of sustainable strategic fit. Therefore, as

first thing ANOVA analysis on the three labels belonging to the diagonal of the matrices have been

run.

219

Once again the factors of performance were the dependent variable of the analysis, while the

independent variables were label three, label five and label seven. Based on considerations

drawn, it was agreed that there were not enough information regarding the companies’

competitive factors to state the changes observable in productive performance (PP) and service

performance (PSE) were a consequence of the firms’ behavior towards sustainability. In the

survey indeed, it was only asked to judge sustainability as a competitive factor, but the

importance of other strategic factors was not thorough. Therefore, the improvement of economic

performance such as productive performance or service performance could derive from

competitive factors that are not sustainability, such as: cost, quality, delivery time. For these

reasons, no further analyses on productive performance and service performance were run.

Dependent Variable: PA

Hochberg

(I) LABELS DIAGONALE env

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

3,00 5,00 1,59733 ,62750 ,051 -,0032 3,1979

7,00 1,54364 ,64078 ,048 -,0908 3,1781

5,00 3,00 -1,59733 ,62750 ,051 -3,1979 ,0032

7,00 ,05370 ,33090 ,998 -,8977 ,7903

7,00 3,00 -1,54364 ,64078 ,048 -3,1781 ,0908

5,00 -,05370 ,33090 ,998 -,7903 ,8977

Figure 71 - ANOVA PA: Diagonal Labels 1,2,3

Dependent Variable: PI

Hochberg

(I) LABELS DIAGONALE env

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

3,00 5,00 2,10133* ,68456 ,015 ,3552 3,8474

7,00 2,83545* ,69905 ,001 1,0524 4,6185

5,00 3,00 -2,10133* ,68456 ,015 -3,8474 -,3552

7,00 ,73412 ,36099 ,147 -,1866 1,6549

7,00 3,00 -2,83545* ,69905 ,001 -4,6185 -1,0524

5,00 -,73412 ,36099 ,147 -1,6549 ,1866

Figure 72 - ANOVA PI (E): Diagonal Labels 1,2,3

220

These first charts, show the results of the ANOVA analysis conducted on label three, five and

seven of the matrix combining strategic role of environmental sustainability. The ANOVA test

indagated the mean differences between the three groups for environmental performance (PA),

performance of image (PI). The results clearly show that label three is composed by companies

that are overperforming the others for what concern both factors. In particular, looking at the

mean difference, it is evident that performance of image of label three are much higher than

those of the other two labels. This is noteworthy, because it proves that companies that are

deeply engaged with sustainability have not only high internal results, but also positive evidence

in the external environment.

Dependent Variable: PS

Hochberg

(I) LABELS DIAGONALE soc

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

3,00 5,00 ,33000 ,71885 ,955 -1,5205 2,1805

7,00 ,90733 ,73309 ,530 -,9798 2,7945

5,00 3,00 -,33000 ,71885 ,955 -2,1805 1,5205

7,00 ,57733 ,47683 ,548 -,6501 1,8048

7,00 3,00 -,90733 ,73309 ,530 -2,7945 ,9798

5,00 -,57733 ,47683 ,548 -1,8048 ,6501

Figure 73 - ANOVA PS: Diagonal Labels 1,2,3

Dependent Variable: PI

Hochberg

(I) LABELS DIAGONALE soc

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

3,00 5,00 ,68000 ,56723 ,556 -,7802 2,1402

7,00 1,62767* ,57847 ,030 ,1385 3,1168

5,00 3,00 -,68000 ,56723 ,556 -2,1402 ,7802

7,00 ,94767 ,37626 ,056 -,0209 1,9163

7,00 3,00 -1,62767* ,57847 ,030 -3,1168 -,1385

5,00 -,94767 ,37626 ,056 -1,9163 ,0209

Figure 74 ANOVA PI (S): Diagonal Labels 1,2,3

These charts, show the results of the ANOVA analysis performed on labels three, five and seven of

the second matrix, the one combining the competitive role of social sustainability and companies’

clusters. The ANOVA test run for these three groups of companies, investigated whether there

221

were differences between them for social performance (PS) and performance of image (PI). While

the statistical analysis didn’t find any significant differences in social performance mean values

between the three labels, ANOVA analysis signaled that performance of image of label three are

higher than those of label seven. Companies belonging to label five are also overperforming firms

laying in label seven. These considerations fit with the conclusions drawn for the previously

analyzed labels.

Figure 75 - Results of ANOVA: Diagonal Labels 1,2,3

These analyses focused on the diagonal of the matrices evidenced how, almost in all cases, label

three is performing better than the other two labels (five and seven). Companies belonging to

label three are those matching the optimal sustainable strategic fit: highly capable companies and

sustainability as order winner. Firms belonging to label five (medium capable companies and

sustainability as a market qualifier) instead, showed no significant differences in mean values with

cluster seven for environmental performance, and social performance, while their performance of

image are only slightly better than those of companies laying in cluster seven. In all the analyzed

222

cases firms that match the worst condition of sustainable strategic fit (shortly capable companies

and sustainability is a desirable attribute) have the worst performance both in terms of

environmental performance and performance of image.

At this point, it has been proved that companies matching the best sustainable strategic fit

condition experience better performance (environmental performance and performance of

image) with respect to firms that match the sustainable strategic fit, but not in its highest form.

The results of this analysis were meaningful as they prove that it is not sufficient to meet the

sustainable strategic fit to have good performance results, it is necessary that the optimal

sustainable strategic fit condition is met in order to see significant advantages.

Having said this, the last step necessary to validate Hypothesis one, was to prove that companies

matching the sustainable strategic fit, in its highest form, are overperforming also companies that

are mismatching the sustainable strategic fit condition, thus the ones outstanding the matrix’s

diagonal. Therefore, a further ANOVA analysis on performance was performed to see if there

were significant differences in mean values of eight of the nine labels. The ninth label indeed was

composed by only one firm; thus, it was not suitable for an ANOVA analysis. Even in this case the

initial assumption of the ANOVA test of normality of distribution and homogeneity of variances

were met. The significant results obtained from the analysis are shown in the following tables, the

entire table resulting from SPSS are available in the ANNEX.

Dependent Variable: PA

Hochberg

(I) LABELS env

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 ,90667 ,61655 ,977 -1,1170 2,9303

3,00 -,00333 ,79596 1,000 -2,6159 2,6092

4,00 1,62167 ,57397 ,016 -,2623 3,5056

5,00 1,59400 ,55146 ,014 -,2160 3,4040

6,00 ,41095 ,60169 1,000 -1,5640 2,3859

7,00 1,54030 ,56792 ,021 -,3238 3,4044

8,00 1,04000 ,71193 ,979 -1,2967 3,3767

3,00 1,00 ,00333 ,79596 1,000 -2,6092 2,6159

2,00 ,91000 ,71193 ,996 -1,4267 3,2467

4,00 1,62500 ,67539 ,040 -,5918 3,8418

5,00 1,59733 ,65636 ,038 -,5570 3,7517

6,00 ,41429 ,69910 1,000 -1,8803 2,7089

223

7,00 1,54364 ,67026 ,048 -,6563 3,7436

8,00 1,04333 ,79596 ,994 -1,5692 3,6559

4,00 1,00 -1,62167 ,57397 ,016 -3,5056 ,2623

2,00 -,71500 ,45026 ,950 -2,1929 ,7629

3,00 -1,62500 ,67539 ,040 -3,8418 ,5918

5,00 -,02767 ,35596 1,000 -1,1960 1,1407

6,00 -1,21071 ,42969 ,017 -2,6211 ,1996

7,00 -,08136 ,38097 1,000 -1,3318 1,1691

8,00 -,58167 ,57397 1,000 -2,4656 1,3023

5,00 1,00 -1,59400 ,55146 ,014 -3,4040 ,2160

2,00 -,68733 ,42118 ,936 -2,0698 ,6951

3,00 -1,59733 ,65636 ,038 -3,7517 ,5570

4,00 ,02767 ,35596 1,000 -1,1407 1,1960

6,00 -1,18305 ,39911 ,012 -2,4931 ,1270

7,00 -,05370 ,34612 1,000 -1,1898 1,0824

8,00 -,55400 ,55146 1,000 -2,3640 1,2560

6,00 1,00 -,41095 ,60169 1,000 -2,3859 1,5640

2,00 ,49571 ,48510 1,000 -1,0965 2,0879

3,00 -,41429 ,69910 1,000 -2,7089 1,8803

4,00 1,21071 ,42969 ,017 -,1996 2,6211

5,00 1,18305 ,39911 ,012 -,1270 2,4931

7,00 1,12935 ,42157 ,023 -,2544 2,5131

8,00 ,62905 ,60169 1,000 -1,3459 2,6040

7,00 1,00 -1,54030 ,56792 ,021 -3,4044 ,3238

2,00 -,63364 ,44252 ,983 -2,0861 ,8188

3,00 -1,54364 ,67026 ,048 -3,7436 ,6563

4,00 ,08136 ,38097 1,000 -1,1691 1,3318

5,00 ,05370 ,34612 1,000 -1,0824 1,1898

6,00 -1,12935 ,42157 ,023 -2,5131 ,2544

8,00 -,50030 ,56792 1,000 -2,3644 1,3638

Table 95 - ANOVA PA: Labels 1 - 9

Dependent Variable: PI

Hochberg

(I) LABELS env

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

2,00 1,00 -,61833 ,60681 1,000 -2,6100 1,3734

3,00 -2,18167 ,70068 ,047 -4,4815 ,1182

4,00 -,02267 ,44315 1,000 -1,4772 1,4319

5,00 -,08033 ,41453 1,000 -1,4409 1,2803

6,00 -,46738 ,47743 1,000 -2,0345 1,0997

7,00 ,65379 ,43553 ,972 -,7757 2,0833

224

8,00 ,32833 ,60681 1,000 -1,6634 2,3200

3,00 1,00 1,56333 ,78339 ,724 -1,0080 4,1346

2,00 2,18167 ,70068 ,047 -,1182 4,4815

4,00 2,15900 ,66473 ,055 -,0228 4,3408

5,00 2,10133 ,64600 ,050 -,0190 4,2217

6,00 1,71429 ,68806 ,034 -,5441 3,9727

7,00 2,83545* ,65967 ,002 ,6702 5,0007

8,00 2,51000 ,78339 ,042 -,0613 5,0813

5,00 1,00 -,53800 ,54275 1,000 -2,3194 1,2434

2,00 ,08033 ,41453 1,000 -1,2803 1,4409

3,00 -2,10133 ,64600 ,050 -4,2217 ,0190

4,00 ,05767 ,35034 1,000 -1,0922 1,2076

6,00 -,38705 ,39281 1,000 -1,6764 ,9023

7,00 ,73412 ,34065 ,595 -,3840 1,8522

8,00 ,40867 ,54275 1,000 -1,3728 2,1901

6,00 1,00 -,15095 ,59218 1,000 -2,0947 1,7928

2,00 ,46738 ,47743 1,000 -1,0997 2,0345

3,00 -1,71429 ,68806 ,034 -3,9727 ,5441

4,00 ,44471 ,42290 1,000 -,9434 1,8328

5,00 ,38705 ,39281 1,000 -,9023 1,6764

7,00 1,12117 ,41491 ,022 -,2407 2,4830

8,00 ,79571 ,59218 ,992 -1,1480 2,7394

7,00 1,00 -1,27212 ,55895 ,497 -3,1068 ,5625

2,00 -,65379 ,43553 ,972 -2,0833 ,7757

3,00 -2,83545* ,65967 ,002 -5,0007 -,6702

4,00 -,67645 ,37496 ,855 -1,9072 ,5543

5,00 -,73412 ,34065 ,595 -1,8522 ,3840

6,00 -1,12117 ,41491 ,022 -2,4830 ,2407

8,00 -,32545 ,55895 1,000 -2,1601 1,5092

8,00 1,00 -,94667 ,70068 ,992 -3,2465 1,3532

2,00 -,32833 ,60681 1,000 -2,3200 1,6634

3,00 -2,51000 ,78339 ,042 -5,0813 ,0613

4,00 -,35100 ,56491 1,000 -2,2052 1,5032

5,00 -,40867 ,54275 1,000 -2,1901 1,3728

6,00 -,79571 ,59218 ,992 -2,7394 1,1480

7,00 ,32545 ,55895 1,000 -1,5092 2,1601

Table 96 - ANOVA PI (E): Labels 1 - 9

These first two charts show the differences in mean values of labels of the matrix reporting on the

x axis the strategic role of environmental sustainability (the first matrix introduced). The first table

explains the differences in the mean values of the labels for what concern environmental

sustainability. Label one (highly capable companies and environmental sustainability is a desirable

attribute) shows higher environmental performance with respect to the fourth, the fifth and the

225

seventh label. Label one has been presented as a promising set of companies, that likely will

improve their consideration towards sustainability in the near future and are supposed to move in

the second and hopefully in the third label of the matrix. Currently, they are not performing as

well as companies laying in the second and in the third labels, however they have higher values in

mean of environmental performance with respect to firms that have the same consideration of

strategic role of environmental sustainability, but invest fewer resources in the development of

sustainable practices. Label six is performing better than label five, four and seven for what

concerns environmental performance. In other words, medium capable companies that believe

sustainability is an order winner have higher performance than medium capable companies that

believe sustainability is a market qualifier or a desirable attribute and they have also higher

environmental performance than shortly capable companies that believe environmental

sustainability is a desirable attribute. This is reasonable, as firms belonging to label six and slightly

missing the sustainable strategic fit condition, as they overestimate the strategic role of

sustainability with respect to their actual level of sustainable practices implementation. However,

their higher consideration of environmental sustainability allows them to reach higher

environmental performance with respect to companies that, putting the same efforts in

implementing sustainable initiatives, believe that sustainability is not a strategic competitive

factor. Clearly these companies have also higher environmental performance than those laying in

label seven that, not only believe sustainability is a nice to have, but also devote very few efforts

to the development of green and social practices. Finally, also label three has higher

environmental performance than label four, five and seven. Label three is composed by

companies that consider environmental sustainability an order winner and they coherently

implement a consistent amount of sustainable practices. As expected, they have higher

environmental performance than companies that dedicate fewer efforts to the implementation of

social and environmental practices and believe sustainability is a non-strategic factor. The last

interesting consideration that can be drawn looking at the mean difference column of the first

matrix, is that overall label three has the higher mean values of the all other labels, thus

environmental performance of companies belonging to label three are in absolute the best.

The second matrix shows the difference in mean values between labels of performance of image

(PI). In this case, the difference in mean values of label six with respect to label five and seven are

highlighted. Medium capable companies declaring that environmental sustainability is an order

winner have reasonably higher performance of image than companies that devote the same

amount of time and efforts to the development of sustainable practices, but consider

226

environmental sustainability a less important factor, because the firsts communicate to their

external stakeholders a strategic role of sustainability. Clearly, they are also outperforming shortly

capable companies that declare sustainability is a desirable attribute. Finally, the ANOVA analysis

highlights that the performance of image of label three are higher than labels two, five, seven and

eight. This is also logically derived from the considerations made on label six, as companies

belonging to label three not only communicate that environmental sustainability is an order

winner, but they also actively operate to improve their sustainable initiatives. Even for

performance of image is possible to conclude, looking at the mean difference column, that label

three is the one obtaining the higher performance of all labels analyzed.

Dependent Variable: PS

Hochberg

(I) LABELS soc Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 1,70000 ,61239 ,184 -,3100 3,7100

3,00 -,50667 ,79059 1,000 -2,0883 3,1016

4,00 2,12567* ,57010 ,064 ,2544 3,9969

5,00 2,38333* ,54774 ,190 ,5855 4,1812

6,00 1,94524 ,59763 ,054 -,0164 3,9068

7,00 1,54848 ,56409 ,080 -,3030 3,4000

8,00 1,93667 ,70713 ,200 -,3843 4,2576

3,00 1,00 ,50667 ,79059 1,000 -3,1016 2,0883

2,00 1,19333 ,70713 ,914 -1,1276 3,5143

4,00 1,61900 ,67084 ,392 -,5829 3,8209

5,00 1,87667 ,65194 ,144 -,2632 4,0165

6,00 1,43857 ,69438 ,664 -,8406 3,7177

7,00 1,04182 ,66574 ,957 -1,1433 3,2270

8,00 1,43000 ,79059 ,852 -1,1649 4,0249

4,00 1,00 -2,12567* ,57010 ,064 -3,9969 -,2544

2,00 -,42567 ,44723 1,000 -1,8936 1,0423

3,00 -1,61900 ,67084 ,392 -3,8209 ,5829

5,00 ,25767 ,35356 1,000 -,9028 1,4182

6,00 -,18043 ,42679 1,000 -1,5813 1,2204

7,00 -,57718 ,37840 ,967 -1,8192 ,6648

8,00 -,18900 ,57010 1,000 -2,0602 1,6822

6,00 1,00 -1,94524 ,59763 ,054 -3,9068 ,0164

227

2,00 -,24524 ,48183 1,000 -1,8267 1,3362

3,00 -1,43857 ,69438 ,664 -3,7177 ,8406

4,00 ,18043 ,42679 1,000 -1,2204 1,5813

5,00 ,43810 ,39642 1,000 -,8631 1,7393

7,00 -,39675 ,41873 1,000 -1,7711 ,9776

8,00 -,00857 ,59763 1,000 -1,9702 1,9530

Table 97 - ANOVA PS: Labels 1 – 9

Dependent Variable: PI

Hochberg

(I) LABELS soc

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

2,00 1,00 ,38500 ,62107 1,000 -1,6535 2,4235

3,00 -,27917 ,67083 1,000 -2,4810 1,9227

4,00 ,79179 ,49796 ,950 -,8427 2,4262

5,00 ,40083 ,50710 1,000 -1,2636 2,0653

6,00 -,07750 ,56696 1,000 -1,9384 1,7834

7,00 1,34850 ,51962 ,037 -,3570 3,0540

8,00 -,10500 ,62107 1,000 -2,1435 1,9335

3,00 1,00 ,66417 ,67083 1,000 -1,5377 2,8660

2,00 ,27917 ,67083 1,000 -1,9227 2,4810

4,00 1,07095 ,55880 ,782 -,7632 2,9051

5,00 ,68000 ,56696 ,998 -1,1809 2,5409

6,00 ,20167 ,62107 1,000 -1,8369 2,2402

7,00 1,62767 ,57818 ,017 -,2701 3,5254

8,00 ,17417 ,67083 1,000 -2,0277 2,3760

5,00 1,00 -,01583 ,50710 1,000 -1,6803 1,6486

2,00 -,40083 ,50710 1,000 -2,0653 1,2636

3,00 -,68000 ,56696 ,998 -2,5409 1,1809

4,00 ,39095 ,34553 ,999 -,7432 1,5251

6,00 -,47833 ,43916 1,000 -1,9198 ,9631

7,00 ,94767 ,37608 ,032 -,2867 2,1821

8,00 -,50583 ,50710 1,000 -2,1703 1,1586

7,00 1,00 -,96350 ,51962 ,824 -2,6690 ,7420

2,00 -1,34850 ,51962 ,037 -3,0540 ,3570

3,00 -1,62767 ,57818 ,017 -3,5254 ,2701

4,00 -,55671 ,36366 ,965 -1,7504 ,6369

5,00 -,94767 ,37608 ,032 -2,1821 ,2867

6,00 -1,42600 ,45357 ,073 -2,9147 ,0627

8,00 -1,45350 ,51962 ,175 -3,1590 ,2520

Table 98 - ANOVA PI(S): Labels 1 - 9

228

ANOVA analysis on social performance run between labels of the second matrix, the one

combining strategic role of social sustainability and clusters of companies, shows no significant

differences in mean values of the groups. Social performance factor, was representative of two

performance: health and safety conditions and workers’ satisfaction. However, these two

conditions are likely to be very high also for firms that didn’t include social sustainability among

their corporate competitive factors, as they are a natural consequence of the implementation of

labor regulations. Many national laws indeed, impose to firms to reach and maintain a minimum

level of social conditions to operate, thus all companies, also the less performing ones in terms of

sustainable practices, may have high levels of social performance. This could be an explanation to

the lack of difference in mean values between labels for what concern social performance.

However, by looking at the mean difference column, it is noteworthy that, even if not

significantly, social performance of label three are higher than all others labels.

Different observations can be made by looking at the second table, that instead shows the

differences between labels for what concern performance of image. Here more punctual

considerations can be drawn, indeed the ANOVA analysis highlight that there are significant

differences in mean values between label two and seven, between label five and seven and

between label three and seven. Companies included in label seven are not declaring their interest

towards sustainability at all, moreover they are dedicating minimum investments to build

sustainable initiatives. Therefore, it is reasonable that they have the lowest performance of image

possible. Finally, even in this case the mean difference column highlights that label three is the

best performer in terms of performance of image.

Having made these considerations, some final remarks can be drawn. The first analysis on

matrices’ rows showed that even if there were evidences that highly capable companies had, in

some cases, higher performance than medium capable and shortly capable companies, it was not

possible to conclude that those companies were the absolute best performers. The same

observation has been made after the ANOVA analysis on matrices’ columns: there were findings

indicating that some performance were better for firms believing sustainability was an order

winner, however this consideration could not be generalized. Thus, a focus on labels laying on

matrices’ diagonal was made. This allowed to note that label three was outperforming label five

and seven in terms of environmental performance and performance of image. However, this was

not sufficient to affirm that label three was in absolute the best performer. Thus, a third ANOVA

analysis was conducted including all matrices’ labels to see if the previous condition was still

verified. The analysis showed that label three include companies with the highest environmental

229

performance, social performance and performance of image. Firms matching the optimal

condition of sustainable strategic fit (highly capable companies that consider sustainability an

order winner) are also those encountering the higher performance. In the lights on these

considerations it can be concluded that Hypothesis one is supported, thus the basis on which RQ4

is founded is verified and the question can be considered answered.

7.7 Considerations on the results The steps taken to obtain the results presented in the previous sections are several and diverse.

For a matter of comprehension all the passages deeply described in the previous pages are

synthetized by the following scheme (Fig. 77).

Figure 76 - Steps of the analysis

The analysis phase started with the formulation of the research questions, the following analyses

were conducted to provide an answer to the stated questions. First research question was

formulated as follows: how companies can be classified according to their commitment in

implementing sustainable practices? Several considerations were made before answering this first

question: first, answers’ sample was considered too wide to be effectively analyzed keeping the

original values. Therefore, it was decided to perform a dimension reduction analysis on

230

questionnaire’s data, starting from practices. A factor analysis was run on survey’s practices’

results that came out in the identification of twelve factors of practices. These factors later

became the input for a cluster analysis performed in order to classify companies according to

their commitment in implementing sustainable practices. The cluster analysis split the sample into

three clusters that, based on the information obtained from the centroid matrix, were named:

highly capable, medium capable and shortly capable. At this point the answer to RQ1 was

provided: it is possible to classify companies according to their commitment in implementing

sustainable practices, in particular firms could be divided in highly capable companies, medium

capable companies and shortly capable companies. This was a particularly suitable result for the

purpose of this analysis, as it allowed to define the subsequent concept of sustainable strategic

fit. The creation of the sustainable strategic fit matrix, indeed, wouldn’t be so effective if the

clusters were more or less, being the same number of the competitive roles of sustainability

interpretations (desirable attribute, market qualifier and order winner), the matrix resulted

particularly impressive.

The second research question (RQ2) investigated what are the sustainable practices implemented

by manufacturers and suppliers, being the strategic role of sustainability equal. Therefore, a

qualitative analysis on the data gathered through the survey regarding the competitive role of

sustainability for both producers and suppliers was performed. It emerged that the two groups

were too heterogenous to be compared, thus a further more punctual analysis between suppliers

and producers of the same dimensions was performed. However, it resulted that size is not the

discriminant based on which companies gave different importance to sustainability as a strategic

factor. Afterwards, the practices most implemented by suppliers and producers having the same

consideration of sustainability competitiveness’s role was run. It emerged that When

sustainability is a desirable attribute, pollution prevention and pollution control practices are

among the most implemented practices of suppliers, while it they are among the least interesting

for producers. A similar consideration can be made for green production: it is often widely

developed by suppliers, but is modestly implemented by producers. The opposite consideration

can be made for network design practices that are among the lasts for suppliers, while they are of

quite relevant position in the producers’ ranking. For both suppliers and producers, suppliers’

green assessment and suppliers’ green monitoring are mildly attractive, while green logistics

practices are of very low interest regardless of the position of the company along the supply

chain. When sustainability is a market qualifier pollution prevention and pollution control

practices and suppliers’ green assessment are two of the most implemented practices by

231

suppliers, they are also modestly implemented by producers. While network design practices and

green logistics practices are among the least developed initiatives for suppliers, they are of

medium interest for producers. There are significant differences between suppliers and producers

for green production practices that are generally more developed from suppliers than from

producers. Similarities are found for green collaboration with suppliers practices and green

customer management that are mildly implemented by both suppliers and producers. When

sustainability is an order winner green production is ranked among the most widespread

sustainable practices from suppliers, while producers have very little consideration of this

category of practices. Both producers and suppliers dedicate consistent resources to the

development of green logistics practices, as it is considered among the first positions of the

ranking by both. On average, suppliers’ green assessment practices are more implemented by

suppliers than by producers, while they dedicate the same amount of resources to sustainable

packaging practices, suppliers’ green monitoring practices and supplies’ green assessment that

are generally a medium-ranked by both. Finally, pollution prevention and pollution control is in

general higher ranked by suppliers than by producers.

RQ3 was formulated as follows: How external and internal drivers impact on companies’

commitment for the implementation of sustainable practices? To answer this question, it was

necessary to perform a dimension reduction analysis on drivers, as previously done for practices.

Three factors of drivers were identified and subsequently used as input for further analysis. It was

decided to investigate whether there were significant differences in mean values between

clusters of companies (highly capable, medium capable, shortly capable) for what concerned the

three factors of drivers identified. It emerged that regulatory drivers and drivers of image are

particularly impacting for those firms that are already committed with the sustainability issue

(highly and medium capable companies), but these is not the unique type of companies

interested by the drivers under discussion. For what concerned stakeholders’ drivers instead, no

significant differences were found in the clusters’ mean values, thus it can be said that

stakeholders’ drivers impact on all clusters in the same way. It is important to highlight that the

conclusion of this analysis, is not that only highly capable companies and medium capable

companies are influenced by regulatory drivers and drivers of image. Also shortly capable

companies are pushed by regulatory drivers to develop sustainable practices, since regulations is

the same for all the companies of the sector.

The fourth and last research question of the thesis was the following: how the sustainable

strategic fit between the stated strategic role of sustainability and the actual implemented

232

sustainable practices impacts on the environmental, social and economic performance of a

company? This was the most hard question to answer, but at the same time the most innovative

contribution to the Literature. To answer RQ4 it was necessary to postulate an initial hypothesis:

Hp1: Companies that match the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition, are expected to

experience higher performance than all other companies.

The sustainable strategic fit matrix was built starting from the work of Chopra and Meindl (2012)

that provided a framework for the identification of the zone of strategic fit. The matrix was built

combining the information gathered through the questionnaire regarding the competitive role of

sustainability and the clusters’ membership obtained from the first cluster analysis conducted.

The result was a matrix with nine cells identifying on its diagonal the cells containing companies

matching the sustainable strategic fit condition. However, to validate the research hypothesis

one, several more steps were necessary. First, a dimension reduction analysis on performance

was performed in order to facilitate the following analyses. Afterwards, the sustainable strategic

fit matrix was analyzed by rows and by columns. In particular, an ANOVA analysis on rows and

columns was performed. Despite this analysis was not directly providing a contribute to answer

RQ4, it was still meaningful as it proved that it is not sufficient to declare that sustainability is an

order winner to obtain good performance, neither it is enough to devote a huge amount of

resources to the implementation of sustainable practices to get positive results. From the analysis

indeed, it resulted that it was not possible to conclude that one group was absolutely performing

better than others. Therefore, a more specific analysis was performed: an ANOVA analysis on the

matrix’ cells was run. First, the matrix’s diagonal’s cells were examined to see if significant

differences in mean values were found, it resulted that companies matching the highest

sustainable strategic fit condition (highly capable companies – sustainability is an order winner)

was outperforming the other two groups of firms. Nonetheless, the ANOVA analysis was extended

to all matrix’ cells to prove that Hypothesis 1 was supported. It resulted that only the group of

companies matching the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition was outperforming all other

matrix’s cells. This result is particularly significant, as it consolidates the value of the sustainable

strategic fit concept. When companies have a high commitment in the implementation of

sustainable practices and consider sustainability an order winner, then they experience a positive

improvement of environmental and social performance and of performance of image.

233

8 Conclusions

234

8.1 Summary of results This thesis had the aim to investigate the effect that a sustainable supply chain strategic fit has on

corporate triple bottom line performance. In particular, a research framework developed in a

previous research work, has been modified to include new variables and implications.

First, a wide Literature review of the topics of sustainability and sustainable supply chain have

been performed. This analysis revealed that scarce integration exists between sustainability and

supply chain management disciplines. However, some hints that the market is gradually moving

towards a more sustainable way of doing business emerged. The Literature review included also

an overview of the factors driving companies to develop sustainable initiatives. Moreover, a wide

part of the Literature analysis interested the most diffused sustainable practices on the market,

with a special focus on those implemented by companies operating in the wood and furniture

industry. Finally, a review of the triple bottom line performance was run. All the information

collected during the Literature review phase, contributed to conclude that there are not defined

and unambiguous guidelines for the correct integration of sustainability into the corporate

strategy as a competitive factor. Moreover, there is a lack of frameworks showing how this

integration impacts on sustainable supply chain practices. Furthermore, The impact that the

implementation of sustainable practices in businesses has on TBL performance (environmental,

social and economic) is not shaped by a defined model. Moreover, there is not an unambiguous

version of the nature of this relationship. Finally, the most important consideration that has been

drawn from the Literature review is that there are few studies dealing with the topic of the

strategic fit between customer priorities of competitive strategy and supply chain capabilities.

Moreover, there are no references to the sustainable counterparty of the strategic fit concept

which in this study will be defined as “sustainable strategic fit

This thesis project partially fills the Literature shortcomings, providing answers to the following

research questions:

RQ1: How companies can be classified according to their commitment in implementing

sustainable practices?

RQ2: Being the strategic role of sustainability equal, what are the different sustainable practices

implemented by manufacturers and suppliers

RQ3: How the external and internal drivers impact on the company’s commitment to implement

sustainable practices?

235

RQ4: How the sustainable strategic fit between the stated strategic role of sustainability and the

actual implemented sustainable practices impacts on the environmental, social and economic

performance of a company?

The research methodology used for this work was the survey. A research questionnaire was

developed based on the knowledge gained from the Literature review. In total, 1580 surveys were

sent to firms belonging to the furniture and the wood markets. Only 76 returned filled, of which

just 58 were completed. However, the data collected through the research surveys were judged

enough to perform some further analyses. With the help of SPSS, three explorative factor

analyses on drivers, practices and performance were performed, moreover factors of practices

were subsequently classified thanks to the running of a cluster analysis. Finally, several ANOVA

analyses were performed on factors of drivers and factors of performance.

The first research question RQ1, was answered by forming companies’ classes based on their

ability to develop sustainable practices. This was possible thanks to the execution of a dimension

reduction analysis on practices and a subsequent cluster analysis that split the fifty-eight

companies into three clusters. These groups were then defined as highly capable companies

(cluster 1), medium capable companies (cluster 2) and shortly capable companies (cluster 3). This

division was performed based on the centroids matrix resulted from cluster analysis. The second

research question RQ2, was investigating what was the role of companies’ position along the

supply chain, with respect to sustainable practices implementation’s commitment. Thus, the

initial sample was separated: producers and suppliers were analyzed separately. Moreover, to run

a more reliable analysis, only producers and suppliers that declared the same competitive role of

sustainability were compared together. Therefore, three main studies were performed: first, the

most implemented practices of suppliers and producers that believed sustainability was a

desirable attribute were identified. Secondly, the most developed initiatives of suppliers and

producers considering sustainability a market qualifier were investigated. Finally, the most

widespread sustainable practices of producers and suppliers with sustainability as an order

winner were listed.

The results showed that when sustainability is a desirable attribute, pollution prevention and

pollution control practices are among the most implemented practices of suppliers, while it they

are among the least interesting for producers. A similar consideration can be made for green

production: it is often widely developed by suppliers, but is modestly implemented by producers.

The opposite consideration can be made for network design practices that are among the lasts for

suppliers, while they are of quite relevant position in the producers’ ranking. For both suppliers

236

and producers, suppliers’ green assessment and suppliers’ green monitoring are mildly attractive,

while green logistics practices are of very low interest regardless of the position of the company

along the supply chain.

When sustainability is a market qualifier pollution prevention and pollution control practices and

suppliers’ green assessment are two of the most implemented practices by suppliers, they are

also modestly implemented by producers. While network design practices and green logistics

practices are among the least developed initiatives for suppliers, they are of medium interest for

producers. There are significant differences between suppliers and producers for green

production practices that are generally more developed from suppliers than from producers.

Similarities are found for green collaboration with suppliers practices and green customer

management that are mildly implemented by both suppliers and producers.

When sustainability is an order winner green production is ranked among the most widespread

sustainable practices from suppliers, while producers have very little consideration of this

category of practices. Both producers and suppliers dedicate consistent resources to the

development of green logistics practices, as it is considered among the first positions of the

ranking by both. On average, suppliers’ green assessment practices are more implemented by

suppliers than by producers, while they dedicate the same amount of resources to sustainable

packaging practices, suppliers’ green monitoring practices and supplies’ green assessment that

are generally a medium-ranked by both. Finally, pollution prevention and pollution control is in

general higher ranked by suppliers than by producers.

Research question three dealt with the impact that drivers had on the level of efforts put by

companies in the implementation of sustainable practices. Dimension of drivers’ sample was

initially reduced thanks to a dimension reduction analysis and tree factors of drivers were

identified: regulatory drivers, drivers of image and stakeholders drivers. Then an ANOVA on the

means of the three clusters of companies previously defined, with respect to the factors of drivers

was performed. The results showed that, even if in general all firms participating to the study

were influenced by all drivers, highly capable and medium capable companies mean values

resulted significantly different from the mean values of shortly capable companies for what

concerned regulatory drivers and drivers of image. While no significant differences in mean were

found for what concerned stakeholders drivers. Therefore, it can be concluded that regulatory

drivers and drivers of image are particularly impacting for those firms that are already committed

with the sustainability issue, but these is not the unique type of companies interested by the

drivers under discussion. For what concerned stakeholders’ drivers instead, no significant

237

differences were found in the clusters’ mean values, thus it can be said that stakeholders’ drivers

impact on all clusters in the same way.

Finally, research question four aimed at identifying the relationship between the existence of a

sustainable strategic fit and the change in corporate triple bottom line performance. To face this

issue, two matrices were built combining the three types of strategic roles of sustainability with

the three clusters of companies identified based on firms’ commitment in implementing

sustainable practices. In this way, companies were positioned in nine labels. Labels laying on the

matrix’s diagonal represented companies matching the sustainable strategic fit condition, while

companies outstanding the diagonal were companies mismatching that condition. To investigate

what was the impact that the presence of a sustainable strategic fit had on performance, diverse

ANOVA tests at different levels of analysis were performed. First, a general perspective was

adopted, thus the differences in performance between the rows and between the columns of the

matrix were analyzed separately. Secondly, an ANOVA analysis focused on the labels laying on the

matrix’s diagonal was run and finally, an ANOVA test on all labels of the matrix was executed to

highlight eventual differences in performance’ mean values. The results of the different tests,

progressively show that some significant differences in mean values existed and, in particular,

label three (the one matching the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition) had the highest

performance of image, environmental performance and social performance. It was not possible to

draw punctual conclusions for labels five and seven, as they didn’t show a dominant position as

label three did.

The results obtained during the project work, are synthetized by the following conceptual map.

238

Figure 77 - Conceptual map: Main results

The map is clearly showing what was already statistically proved in Chapter six. Undoubtedly label

three (the one matching the optimal sustainable strategic fit condition) experiences the best

performance improvement in terms of environmental performance, social performance and

economic performance. What it is interesting to note, is that it is not sufficient to meet the

sustainable strategic fit condition to obtain the maximum gain, companies must necessarily match

the optimal condition otherwise the performance improvement is not guaranteed. For instance,

firms belonging to label five (medium capable companies – sustainability is a market qualifier) are

matching the sustainable strategic fit condition, but not it its higher form, indeed they have

average performance of image and environmental performance values. Companies laying in label

seven (the worst sustainable strategic fit condition: shortly capable companies – sustainability is a

desirable attribute) are experiencing very low performance, as expected. What is interesting, is

that companies of label six (medium capable companies – sustainability is an order winner) are

outperforming firms of label four (medium capable companies – sustainability is a desirable

attribute). Despite label six was originally counted among the “vicious” cells, it shows higher

239

performance than label four, that was listed among the “virtuous” ones. This is reasonably

explained by the fact that, even in companies of label six are currently overestimating the

competitive role of sustainability, they are likely raising firms, hopefully they will improve their

commitment in implementing sustainable practices in medium-short term. If this happens, they

are good candidates to move in label three and match the optimal sustainable strategic fit

condition.

8.2 Managerial implications It is evident that the success of a business is increasingly linked to its willingness to be sustainable.

The interest that companies developed in the last 10 years towards sustainability, is not only a

consequence of the increased sensitivity that firms developed, but it especially derives from the

competitive function that sustainability plays in creating long-term value. Competition no longer

takes place between individual firms but between entire supply chains (Christopher, 2002;

Lambert and Cooper, 2000), and that's why the redefinition of the supply chain in a sustainable

perspective becomes a key competitive leverage to gain a strategic advantage. The increasing

sustainable concerns are also involving supply chains, that are no longer conceived with a linear

perspective, but, as closed-loop supply chains. Companies have the opportunity to differentiate

themselves in the market and simultaneously ensure competitiveness and prosperity in the long

term by developing sustainable initiatives in their organizations and within their supply chains.

The present work has the ambition to provide managers with a guide to orient their decision

towards the implementation of a sustainable supply chain strategy. The contribution brought to

management lies not only in the identification of which are the current most implemented

sustainable practices in the furniture market, but also in the specification of which are the

initiatives preferred by highly capable companies. This information could give managers

indications on where to invest, according to the level of resources available for a given project.

Moreover, this work separates practices implemented by suppliers by those implemented by

producers, thus this study can be useful to all companies operating in the furniture industry,

regardless their position along the supply chain. Managers could have also a draft idea of which

are the drivers impacting on their decision on the implementation of sustainable initiatives, by

looking at the results of the ANOVA on drivers conducted in this work. Finally, the most

interesting contribution that this work brings to managers, is a proxy of how their performance

will change according to their position with respect to the sustainable strategic fit condition.

240

8.3 Limitations and generalizations Despite this work is focused on the furniture industry, it included also factors that are not specific

of a given sector. Only a portion of the drivers, practices and performance analyzed in the study

are focused on a single sector, while the large part of them are general characteristics that could

be easily generalized. Therefore, with proper precautions, the research model presented in this

work can be applied to other contexts characterized by low process and product complexity and

relatively stable demand.

Despite the sample size of the survey was enough to perform statistical analyses on the data

collected, the execution of certain specific tests encountered some limitation due to the scarce

numerosity of the firms (i.e. the ANOVA test conducted on the sustainable strategic fit matrix’

cells).

8.4 Considerations for future research Besides the contributions that this thesis project brings to scholars and practitioners, it also

presents some limitations:

1. The use of a survey as research methodology allowed to collect a number of answers

sufficient to perform basic statistical analyses, such as: factor analysis, cluster analysis and

ANOVA analysis. However, a higher size of the sample would allow further more punctual

analyses. For instance, a regression analysis could be performed to find further

relationships between performance and sustainable strategic fit condition that this work

couldn’t detect.

2. This study analyzed only twelve suppliers’ surveys, thus conclusions drawn for this

typology of companies are quite limited. It could be interesting to analyze a wider sample

of suppliers to see if consistent differences with producers’ behavior exist.

3. To obtain coherent answers to the questions, it was asked to respondents to select a

single product family and to answer all the survey’s questions referring to that family.

However, it could be interesting to enlarge the research to include also other product

families and see if significant differences exist between two or more items of the same

company.

241

9 Bibliography

242

- Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., Spalanzani, A., (2012), “Sustainable supply

management: An empirical study”, International Journal of Production Economics,

Vol. 140, pp. 168-182

- Aimee Jackson, Katherine Boswell, PhD, CIA, Dorothy Davis, DBA, CPA (2011),

“Sustainability and Triple Bottom Line Reporting – What is it all about?”, International

Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology Vol. 1 No. 3

- Ali Diabat, Kannan Govindan (2010), "An analysis of the drivers affecting the

implementation of green supply chain management", Resources, Conservation and

Recycling

- Aragon-Correa, Juan Alberto (1998), "Strategic proactivity and firm approach to

natural environment", Academy of management journal pg 556

- Azzone G., Bertele, U., (1994), “Exploiting green strategies for competitive

advantage”, Long Range Planning, 27(6), pp. 69–81

- Barry Nessa, Evelin Urbel-Piirsalua, Stefan Anderberg, Lennart Olsson (2007),

“Categorising tools for sustainability assessment”, ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 60 pp.

498 – 508

- Beamon, B.M., (2008), “Sustainability and the Future of Supply Chain

Management”, Operations and Supply Chain Management”, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 4-18

- Beatrice Kogg, Oksana Mont (2012), "Environmental and social responsibility in supply

chains: The practise of choice and inter-organisational management", Ecological

Economics

- Boons, F., & Ludeke-Freund, F. (2013), “Business models for sustainable innovation:

state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda”, Journal of Cleaner

Production, 45, pp. 9-19

- Capaldi, N. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility and the bottom line”,

International Journal of Social Economics, 32(5), pp. 408-423

- Carl Mitcham (1995), “The concept of Sustainable Development its origins and

ambivalence”, Technology In Somy, Vol. 17, No. 3. pp. 31 l-326

243

- Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008), “A framework of sustainable supply chain

management: moving toward new theory”, International journal of physical

distribution & logistics management, 38(5), pp. 360-387

- Chaabane, A.Ramudhin, M.Paquet (2010), "Design of sustainable supply chains under

the emission trading scheme", Int. J. Production Economics

- Chopra and Meindl (2012), "Supply Chain Management", Pearson; 5th edition

- Chris Sneddona, Richard B. Howarth, Richard B. Norgaard (2006), “Sustainable

development in a post-Brundtland world”, Ecological Economics 57 pp. 253 – 268

- Christina Maria Dües, Kim Hua Tan, Ming Lim (2012), "Green as the new Lean: how to

use Lean practices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain", Journal of Cleaner

Production

- Christmann, P. (2000), “Effects of “best practices” of environmental management

on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets”, Academy of Management

journal, 43(4), pp. 663-680

- Craig R. Carter Dale S. Rogers (2008), "A framework of sustainable supply chain

management: moving toward new theory", International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management

- Craig R. Carter, Marianne M. Jennings (2011), "Social responsibility and supply chain

relationships", Transportation Research Part E

- D.R. Iritani, D.A.L. Silva, Y.M.B. Saavedra, P.F.F. Grael, A.R. Ometto (2015),

"Sustainable strategies analysis through Life Cycle Assessment: a case study in a

furniture industry", Journal of Cleaner Production 96 pp. 308-318

- Daniela Ebner, Dr. Rupert J. Baumgartner (2006), “The relationship between

Sustainable Development and Corporate Social Responsibility”, Corporate

Responsibility Research Conference, Dublin

- Darnall, N., Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P., (2010), “Adopting Proactive Environmental

Strategy: The Influence of Stakeholders and Firm Size”, Journal of Management

Studies, 47:6

244

- David Styles, Harald Schoenberger, Jose-Luis Galvez-Martos (2012), "Environmental

improvement of product supply chains: A review of European retailers’ performance"

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 65,pp. 57– 78

- David Styles, Harald Schoenberger, Jose-Luis Galvez-Martos (2012), "Environmental

improvement of product supply chains: Proposed best practice techniques,

quantitative indicators and benchmarks of excellence for retailers", Journal of

Environmental Management 110, pp. 135e150

- David Styles, Harald Schoenberger, Jose-Luis Galvez-Martos (2012), "Environmental

improvement of product supply chains: proposed best practice techniques,

quantitative indicators and benchmarks of excellence for retailers", Journal of

Environmental Management

- David Styles, Harald Schoenberger, Jose-Luis Galvez-Martos (2012), "Environmental

improvement of product supply chains:A review of European retailers’ performance",

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

- Desta Mebratu (1998), “Sustainability and sustainable development historical and

conceptual review”, EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Review pp. 493–520

- Diane Mollenkopf, Hannah Stolze, Wendy L. Tate and Monique Ueltschy, "Green, lean,

and global supply chains", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management

- Elkafi Hassini, ChiragSurti, CorySearcy (2012), "A literature review and a case study of

sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics", Int. J. Production Economics

- Elkington, J.,(2004), “Enter the triple bottom line”, in Henriques, A. and Richardson,

J. (Eds), The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add up?, Earthscan, London, pp. 1-16.

- Enrico Cagno, Paolo Trucco (2007), "Integrated green and quality function

deployment", Int. J. Product Lifecycle Management

- Enrico Cagno, Paolo Trucco, Augusto di Giulio (1999), "A methodological framework

for the initial environmental review (IER) in EMS implementation", Journal of

Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

245

- Enrico Cagno, Paolo Trucco, Guido JL Micheli (2011), "Ecoefficiency for sustainable

manufacturing: an extended environmental costing method", Production Planning and

Control

- Federico Caniato, Maria Caridi, Luca Crippa, Antonella Moretto (2012),

"Environmental sustainability in fashion supply chains: An exploratory case based

research", Int. J.Production Economics 135 pp. 659–670

- Frank Boons, Florian Lüdeke-Freund (2012), "Business Models for Sustainable

Innovation: State of the Art and Steps Towards a Research Agenda", Journal of

Cleaner Production

- Frank Figge, Tobias Hahn, Stefan Schaltegger and Marcus Wagner (2002), “THE

SUSTAINABILITY BALANCED SCORECARD – LINKING SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT

TO BUSINESS STRATEGY”, Business Strategy and the Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 11,

269–284

- G. Daian, B. Ozarska (2009), "Wood waste management practices and strategies to

increase sustainability standards in the Australian wooden furniture manufacturing

sector", Journal of Cleaner Production 17 pp. 1594–1602

- Geffen, C. A., & Rothenberg, S. (2000), “Suppliers and environmental innovation: the

automotive paint process”, International Journal of Operations &

- George A. Zsidisin, Sue P. Siferd (2000), "Environmental purchasing: a framework for

theory development", European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 7, pp.

61-73

- Giovani J.C. da Silveira (2005), "Market priorities, manufacturing configuration, and

business performance: an empirical analysis of the order-winners framework", Journal

of operations management

- Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. (2010), “Sustainable supply chain management and

inter-organizational resources: a literature review”, Corporate social responsibility

and environmental management, 17(4), pp. 230-245

246

- Gungor, A., & Gupta, S. M. (1999), “Issues in environmentally conscious

manufacturing and product recovery: a survey”, Computers & Industrial Engineering,

36(4), pp. 811-853

- H. Pumomo, L. Abdullah, R.H. Irawati (2011), "A system dynamics approach to

balancing wood supply and demand for sustaining the future industry", 19th

International Congress on Modelling and Simulation

- Hanan Alhaddi (2015), “Triple Bottom Line and Sustainability: A Literature Review”,

Business and Management Studies Vol. 1, No. 2

- Harms, D., Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2013), “Strategies in sustainable supply

chain management: an empirical investigation of large German companies”,

Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 20(4), pp. 205-218

- Harrison, A., Christopher, M. and van Hoek, R. (1999), “Creating the agile supply

chain”, School of Management Working Paper, Cranfield University, Cranfield

- Haw-Jan Wu, Steven C. Dunn (1995), "Environmentally responsible logistics systems",

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,

pp. 20-38

- Hyunjoo Oh, So-Yeon Yoon, Jana Hawley (2014), "What virtual reality can offer to the

furniture industry", Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management

- J. Ratnasingam, F. Ioras (2003), "The sustainability of the Asian wooden furniture

industry", Springer Verlag

- J.C. van Weenen (2012), "A business strategy selection of green supply chain

management via an analytic network process", Computers and Mathematics with

Applications

- Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, P. A. (1995), “Ecologically sustainable organizations:

An institutional approach”, Academy of Management Review, 20(4), pp. 1015-1052

- Jenny Pope, David Annandale, Angus Morrison-Saunders (2004), “Conceptualising

sustainability assessment”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24 pp. 595 –

616

247

- Jeremy Hall (2000), "Environmental supply chain dynamics",Journal of Cleaner

Production

- Jonathan M. Harris (2003), “Sustainability and Sustainable Development”,

International Society for Ecological Economics

- Jordi Cabot, Steve Easterbrook, Jennifer Horkoff, Jose-Norberto Mazon, Lysanne

Lessard and Sotirios Liaskos (2009), “Integrating Sustainability in Decision-Making

Processes: A Modelling Strategy”, Software Engineering-Companion Volume. ICSE-

Companion 2009. 31st

International Conference on, pp. 207-210

- K. Y. Tippayawong, T. Tiwaratreewit, A. Sopadang (2015), "Positive Influence of Green

Supply Chain Operations on Thai Electronic Firms’ Financial Performance", Procedia

Engineering 118 pp. 683 – 690

- Karna, A., Heiskanen, E., 1998, “The challenge of product chain thinking for product

development and design: the example of electrical and electronics products”, Journal

of Sustainable Product Design 4 (1), pp. 26–36

- King, A.A., Lenox, M.J., (2001), “Lean and green? An empirical examination of the

relationship between lean production and environmental performance”, Prod.

Operations Manage, Vol. 10 No.3, pp.244-256

- Kirsten Schliephake, Graeme Stevens, Simon Clay (2009), "Making resources work

more efficiently – the importance of supply chain partnerships", Journal of Cleaner

Production

- Kocabasoglu, C., Prahinski, C. and Klassen, R.D. (2007), “Linking forward and reverse

supply chain investments: the role of business uncertainty”, Journal of Operations

Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1141-1160

- Large, R.O., Gimenez, C., (2011), “Drivers of green supply management performance:

Evidence from Germany”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 17, pp.

176–184

- Lennart Y. Ljungberg (2005), "Materials selection and design for development of

sustainable products", ScienceDirect

248

- M. Ouhimmou, S. D’Amours, R. Beauregard, D. Ait-Kadi, S. Singh Chauhan (2008),

"Furniture supply chain tactical planning optimization using a time decomposition

approach" European Journal of Operational Research 189 (2008) 952–970

- Maignan, I., Hillebrand, B., & McAlister, D. (2002), “Managing socially responsible

buying: how to integrate non-economic criteria into the purchasing process”,

European Management Journal, 20(6), pp. 641-648

- Margot J. Hutchins, John W. Sutherland (2008), "An exploration of measures of social

sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions", Journal of Cleaner

Production 16 pp. 1688–1698

- Maria Caridi, Margherita Pero, Andrea Sianesi (2011), "Linking product modularity and

innovativeness to supply chain management in the Italian furniture industry", Int.

J.Production Economics

- Mark A. White (2013), “Sustainability: I know it when I see it”, Ecological Economics

86 pp. 213–217

- Markku Lehtonen (2004), “The environmental–social interface of sustainable

development: capabilities, social capital, institutions”, Ecological Economics 49 pp.

199 – 214

- Martin Christopher, Denis Towill (2001), “An Integrated Model for the Design of Agile

Supply Chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics

Management, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp235-246, 2001

- Mee Yean Tay, Azmawani Abd Rahman, Yuhanis Abdul Aziz, and Shafie Sidek (2015),

"A Review on Drivers and Barriers towards Sustainable Supply Chain Practices",

International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 10

- Mehdi Shahbazpour, Rainer H. Seidel (2006), "Using sustainability for competitive

advantage", 13th CIRP International Conference On Life Cycle Engineering

- Mitra, S., & Datta, P. P. (2014), “Adoption of green supply chain management

practices and their impact on performance: an exploratory study of Indian

manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Production Research, 52(7), pp. 2085-

2107

249

- Mohammad Asif Salam (2009), "Corporate Social Responsibility in Purchasing and

Supply Chain", Journal of Business Ethics pp. 85:355–370

- Muh. Hisjama, Adi Djoko Guritno, Nunuk Supriyatno, Shalihuddin Djalal Tandjung

(2015), "A Sustainable Partnership Model among Supply Chain Players in Wooden

Furniture Industry Using Goal Programming", ScienceDirect

- Orsato, R. J. (2006),” When does it pay to be green”, California Management Review,

48(2), pp. 128 Monczka, Robert, Robert Trent, and Robert Handfield (1998),

“Purchasing and Supply Chain Management”, Cincinnati, OH: South-Western

College Publishing, Chapter 8

- Ottar Michelsen, Annik Magerholm Fet, Alexander Dahlsrud (2005), "Eco-efficiency in

extended supply chains: A case study of furniture production", Journal of

Environmental Management

- Ouhimmou, M., D’Amours, S., Beauregard, R., Ait-Kadi, D., & Chauhan, S. S. (2008),

“Furniture supply chain tactical planning optimization using a time decomposition

approach”, European Journal of Operational Research, 189(3), pp. 952-970

- Paulraj, A. (2009), “Environmental motivations: a classification scheme and its

impact on environmental strategies and practices”, Business Strategy and the

Environment, 18(7), pp. 453-468

- Payman Ahi, Cory Searcy (2013), "A comparative literature analysis of definitions for

green and sustainable supply chain management", Journal of Cleaner Production

- Peter Glavic, Rebeka Lukman (2007), “Review of sustainability terms and their

definitions”, Journal of Cleaner Production pp. 1875-1885

- Petra Christmann (2000), "Effects of "Best Practices" of Environmental Management

on Cost Advantage: The Role of Complementary Assets", The Academy of

Management Journal vol.43, No 4, pp 663-680

- Philip Pinch, Suzanne Reimer (2015), "Nationalising local sustainability: Lessons from

the British wartime Utility furniture scheme", Geoforum

250

- Polonsky, M. J., & Rosenberger, P. J. (2001), “Reevaluating green marketing: a

strategic approach”, Business Horizons, 44(5), pp. 21-30

- Production Management, 20(2), pp. 166-186 Elkington, J. (1998)., “Partnerships from

cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business”, Environmental

Quality Management, 8(1), pp. 37-51

- Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis (2004), "Relationships between operational practices and

performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in

Chinese manufacturing enterprises", Journal of Operations Management 22 pp. 265–

289

- Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis, Kee-hung Lai (2006), "Green supply chain management

implications for ‘‘closing the loop’’ , ScienceDirect

- Qinghua Zhu, Joseph Sarkis, Kee-hung Lai (2007), "Green supply chain management:

pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry", Journal

of Cleaner Production 15 pp. 1041-1052

- Rao, P., Holt, D., (2005),"Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and

economic performance?", International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, Vol. 25 Iss 9 pp. 898 – 916

- Reuter, C., Foerstl, K. A. I., Hartmann, E. V. I., & Blome, C. (2010), “Sustainable global

supplier management: the role of dynamic capabilities in achieving competitive

advantage”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46(2), pp. 45-63

- Robert Costanza, Bernard C. Patten (1995), “Defining and predicting sustainability”,

Ecological Economics pp. 193-196

- Robert Handfield, Robert Sroufe, Steven Walton (2005), “Integrating Environmental

Management and Supply Chain Strategies”, Business Strategy and the Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 14, pp. 1–19

- S. Maryam Masoumik, Salwa Hanim Abdul-Rashid, Ezutah Udoncy Olugu, Raja Ariffin

Raja Ghazilla (2015), "A Strategic Approach to Develop Green Supply Chains", Science

Direct pp 670 – 676

251

- Sadler B. (1999), “A framework for environmental, sustainability assessment and

assurance”, In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental impact assessment, vol.

1. Oxford: Blackwell; pp. 12–31

- San, H.P., Singh, K. S. A. S., Ismail, A. Z., Singh K. K. A., Kum, P. S. (2015), “Initiatives

and Efforts Towards Greening Malaysian Furniture Industry”, Asian Journal of

Scientific Research, 8(2), pp. 122-133

- Sara González-García, Carles M. Gasol, Raúl García Lozano, M Teresa Moreira, Xavier

Gabarrell, Joan Rieradevall i Pons, Gumersindo Feijoo (2011), "Assessing the global

warming potential of wooden products from the furniture sector to improve their

ecodesign", Science of the Total Environment 410-411 pp. 16–25

- Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011), “Sustainable entrepreneurship and

sustainability innovation: categories and interactions”, Business strategy and the

environment, 20(4), pp. 222-237

- Sen, S. (2009), “Linking green supply chain management and shareholder value

creation”, The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 7 No. 3 and 4, pp. 95-

109

- Shrivastava, S.K., (2007), “Green supply-chain management: A state of the art

literature review”, International Journal of Management Reviews

- Simatupang, T.M., Sridharan, (2002), “The Collaborative Supply Chain”, The

International Journal of Logistic Management, Vol. 13 No.1

- Simone Sartori, Fernalda Latronico da Silva, Lucila Maria de Souza Campos (2014),

“Sustainability and sustainable development: a taxonomy in the field of literature”,

Ambiente & Sociedade

- Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2012), “An overview of

sustainability assessment methodologies”, Ecological Indicators, 15(1), pp. 281-299

- Stefan Seuring (2013), "A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain

management", Decision Support Systems 54 (2013) 1513–1520

252

- Stefan Seuring, Martin Müller (2008), "From a literature review to a conceptual

framework for sustainable supply chain management", Journal of Cleaner Production

- Stock, J. R. (1998), “Development and implementation of reverse logistics

programs”, In Annual Conference Proceedings, Council of Logistics Management

- Stuart L. Hart (1995), "A natural resource based view of the firm", The Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 986-1014.

- Su Yol Lee, Seung-Kyu Rhee (2007), "The change in corporate environmental

strategies: a longitudinal empirical study", Management Decision Vol. 45 No. 2 pp.

196-216

- Suhaiza Zailani, K.Jeyaraman, G.Vengadasan, R.Premkumar (2012), "Sustainable

supply chain management (SSCM) in Malaysia: A survey", Int. J. Production Economics

140 pp. 330–340

- Sunhee Youn and Ma Ga (Mark) Yang (2012), "Extending the efficient and responsive

supply chains framework to the green context", Benchmarking: An International

Journal, vol. 19 No. 4/5

- Sunil Luthra a, Dixit Garg , Abid Haleem (2016), "The impacts of critical success factors

for implementing green supply chain management towards sustainability: an

empirical investigation of Indian automobile industry", Journal of Cleaner Production

121 pp. 142-158

- Susana G. Azevedo, Helena Carvalho, V. Cruz Machado (2011), "The influence of green

practices on supply chain performance: A case study approach", Transportation

Research Part E

- Susana G. Azevedo, Helena Carvalho, V. Cruz Machado (2011), "The influence of green

practices on supply chain performance: A case study approach", Transportation

Research Part E

- Svensson, G., (2007), “Aspects of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM):

conceptual framework and empirical example”, Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 4, pp. 262-266

253

- Tareq Al Khidir and Suhaiza Zailani (2009), "Going Green in Supply Chain Towards

Environmental Sustainability", Global Journal of Environmental Research

- the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), "Our Common

Future or Brundtland Report", Oxford University Press

- Theo Hacking, Peter Guthrie (2008), “A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple

Bottom-Line, Integrated and Sustainability Assessment”, Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 28 pp. 73–89

- Theo Hacking, Peter Guthrie (2008), “A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple

Bottom-Line Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment”, Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 28 pp.73–89

- Thiell, M., Zuluaga, J., Montanez, J., & van Hoof, B. (2011), “Green Logistics: Global

Practices and their Implementation in Emerging Markets”, Green Finance and

Sustainability

- Vachon, S., & Klassen, R. D. (2008), “Environmental management and manufacturing

performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain”, International journal of

production economics, 111(2), pp. 299-315

- Vachon, S., & Mao, Z. (2008), “Linking supply chain strength to sustainable

development: a country-level analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), pp.

1552-1560

- Van Hoek, R. I. (1999), “From reversed logistics to green supply chains”,Supply

Chain Management: An International Journal, 4(3), pp. 129-135

- Walton, S. V., Handfield, R. B., & Melnyk, S. A. (1998), “The green supply chain:

integrating suppliers into environmental management processes”, Journal of Supply

Chain Management, 34(2), 2

- Walton, S. V., Handfield, R. B., & Melnyk, S. A. (1998), ” The green supply chain:

integrating suppliers into environmental management processes”, Journal of Supply

Chain Management

254

- Winkler, H. (2011), “Closed-loop production systems: a sustainable supply chain

approach”, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 4, pp. 243-246

- Wu, T., Jim Wu, Y. C., Chen, Y. J., Goh, M., (2013), “Aligning supply chain strategy

with corporate environmental strategy: A contingency approach”, International

Journal of Production Economics, 147, pp. 220-229

- Yang, M.G., Hong, P., Modi, S.B., (2011), “Impact of lean manufacturing and

environmental management on business performance: an empirical study of

manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 129 No.2,

pp.251-261

- Yong Zhang, Russell G. Thompson, Xiangtai Bao, Yunjian Jiang (2014), "Analyzing the

Promoting Factors for Adopting Green Logistics Practices: A Case Study of Road

Freight Industry in Nanjing, China", Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 125 pp.

432 – 444

- Zhang, Y., Thompson, R.J., Bao, X., Jiang, Y., (2014), “Analyzing the Promoting

Factors for Adopting Green Logistics Practices: A Case Study of Road Freight Industry

in Nanjing, China” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 125, pp. 432 – 444

255

10 APPENDIX APPENDIX 1: Nonostante la metodologia utilizzata ai fini di questa tesi sia stata principalmente lo

sviluppo di un questionario di ricerca con l’aggiunta di analisi di dati attraverso l’utilizzo di

software statistici quali SPSS, alla fine del periodo di raccolta dati si è presentata l’occasione di

incontrare una delle persone che avevano partecipato alla compilazione del questionario e che si

è dimostrata particolarmente interessata all’argomento sostenibilità nel settore

dell’arredamento. Pertanto, si è deciso di fissare un incontro con il manager in questione e

discutere del caso specifico della sua azienda a cui ci si riferirà come Caso X. Nonostante questo

incontro esulasse dallo scopo primo del lavoro (analizzare statisticamente i dati raccolti tramite

questionario), esso è stato comunque una preziosa occasione di ottenere feedback diretti da chi

lavora sul campo e per avere conferme della solidità dei dati raccolti tramite survey. L’intervista è

durata circa due ore e si è svolta presso la sede dell’azienda X, si sono toccati tutti i temi che

erano già stati accennati nel questionario di ricerca, inoltre si è scesi nello specifico dell’azienda in

questione per quelle pratiche che risultavano particolarmente d’interesse a parere del manager

intervistato. L’incontro è stato strutturato secondo una serie di domande che miravano ad

approfondire le risposte che erano state fornite nel questionario e ad ottenere informazioni

qualitative aggiuntive riguardo le pratiche maggiormente implementate dall’azienda X e le

performance di triple bottom line dell’impresa. La persona intervistata si è dimostrata

estremamente precisa ed attenta all’argomento ed ha fornito un quadro chiaro della situazione

odierna nel settore dell’arredamento.

Nell’Appendice 1 si riportano la traccia dell’intervista seguita durante l’incontro con il manager

dell’azienda X, il caso studio che ne è derivato e la relativa trascrizione dell’intervista.

256

Traccia Intervista Azienda X

Pratiche di sostenibilità nella filiera dell’arredamento

La presente traccia vuole essere un’anticipazione degli argomenti che verranno trattati durante

l’incontro di Lunedì. L’intervista sarà strutturata in tre parti: le domande contenute nella prima

parte mireranno a classificare l’azienda X s.p.a in base alle caratteristiche dalla sua filiera

produttiva e dei suoi processi produttivi, pertanto le verranno poste domande sulla rete di

fornitura, sul processo produttivo e sul network distributivo dell’azienda. La seconda parte

dell’intervista sarà volta ad affrontare il tema della sostenibilità come fattore competitivo per

l’azienda, mentre la terza ed ultima parte dell’intervista mirerà ad approfondire le scelte da Lei

indicate all’interno del “Questionario sulla sostenibilità nel settore dell’arredamento” in merito ai

Driver, alle Pratiche di sostenibilità e alle Performance dell’azienda.

Prima parte: Descrizione della Supply Chain e dei processi produttivi della X s.p.a

1. Breve descrizione della rete di fornitura (tipologia di fornitori, localizzazione dei

fornitori, modalità di approvvigionamento, LT di fornitura)

2. Breve descrizione del processo produttivo (la produzione avviene su ordine del cliente

o a scorta? LT del processo produttivo, scelte di “make or buy”, quali sono i principali

mercati serviti dall’azienda?)

3. Breve descrizione del network distributivo dell’azienda (canali di distribuzione,

relazione con i clienti, domanda dei clienti)

Seconda parte: La sostenibilità come fattore competitivo

1. Nel questionario la sostenibilità ambientale viene definita come “condizione

necessaria per operare nel nostro settore” e la sostenibilità sociale come

“caratteristica non strategica ma comunque desiderabile”, in relazione ad altri fattori

competitivi (avere un prezzo basso, garantire consegne veloci, offrire un servizio di

qualità, offrire ampiezza di gamma, offrire frequentemente nuovi prodotti) come

classificherebbe la sostenibilità ambientale e sociale? (più importante, meno

importante, ugualmente importante)

257

Terza parte: Driver per l’adozione di pratiche sostenibili, Pratiche di sostenibilità e

Performance

1. Con riferimento alle risposte fornite nel questionario, può spiegare meglio in che

modo i Driver hanno impattato sulle decisioni dell’azienda di adottare pratiche di

sostenibilità?

2. Le pratiche di Green Design sono risultate quelle in assoluto più implementate, può

spiegare perché vi siete concentrati specialmente su queste attività? Può fare degli

esempi relativi all’azienda?

3. Con riferimento alla risposte fornite nel questionario, può spiegare meglio in che

modo avete implementato le pratiche di Produzione Sostenibile? Può fare qualche

esempio relativo all’azienda?

4. Con riferimento alla risposte fornite nel questionario, può spiegare meglio in che

modo avete implementato le pratiche di Selezione e Monitoraggio dei Fornitori? Può

fare qualche esempio relativo all’azienda?

5. Con riferimento alla risposte fornite nel questionario, può spiegare meglio in che

modo avete implementato le pratiche di Collaborazione con i Fornitori? Può fare

qualche esempio relativo all’azienda?

6. Con riferimento alla risposte fornite nel questionario, può spiegare meglio in che

modo avete implementato le pratiche di Collaborazione con i Clienti? Può fare

qualche esempio relativo all’azienda?

7. Può spiegare perché avete scelto di rifornirvi presso fornitori locali piuttosto che

presso fornitori dispersi geograficamente? È stata una scelta guidata più da ragioni

economiche (ridotti costi di trasporto) o ambientali (ridotto impatto ambientale)?

8. Con riferimento alla risposte fornite nel questionario, può spiegare meglio in che

modo avete implementato le pratiche di Logistica Sostenibile? Può fare qualche

esempio relativo all’azienda?

9. Quali sono i KPIs maggiormente utilizzati dall’azienda per monitorare le performance

che ha indicato come migliorate durante l’ultimo anno nel questionario?

10. Ci sono altri esempi di sostenibilità in azienda che non sono stati considerati dal

questionario e di cui gradirebbe parlarmi? Ci sono altre questioni legate alla

sostenibilità nella filiera dell’arredamento che ritiene importanti e che vorrebbe

sottolineare?

11.

258

Case Study X

Introduction

X spa belongs to the Molteni & C group and its core business is the design and the development of

office furniture. The firm was founded in 1969, when the Molteni & C group was asked by IBM to

design and realize the office furniture for its Segrate’s site. After this first very important job, X

spa progressively gained popularity and due to production purposes, it moved in a bigger facility

situated in Turate (CO), which is currently the headquarters of the firm. In the ’80, the firm further

expanded its products range including also components made of aluminum, steel and glass. In the

following years the Company rapidly gained huge success among the customers, who started

asking for very peculiar products, consequently the firm decided to shift from a mass production

to a customized production. Today the Company counts 198 employees and it has a turnover of

around € 67.000.000. It mostly operates at an international level, indeed only the 25% of the total

turnover is coming from the Italian market. Among the most famous projects realized by the

Company we can remember: Fondation Cartier in 1994 in Paris, since the completion of this

project X spa started the production in series of the Less furniture pieces, expressly designed by

Jean Nouvel for the Fondation and then integrated in the Company products’ range. In 2005 X spa

realized the interiors of the Bloomerang headquarters in the heart of Manhattan, this job was

fundamental for the Company to promote its work in the United States. In 2007 the firm was in

charge to provide the office furniture for the New York Times building designed by Renzo Piano in

New York, the building consisted of the main tower volume, 52 floors high, and a lower volume

that contained the newsroom, the operational heart of the building. More recently, in 2015, the

Company realized the interior furnishings for the Intesa San Paolo Head Office in Turin. The latter

represents the biggest and most important Italian project of the Company: it concerned the

realization and the delivery of more than 400 desks for the 2400 employees of one of the biggest

Italian banks.

The Company is also very concerned about the Environmental and Social impacts of its activities.

On the firm’s website one can easily download the Code of Ethics, Environmental Policy and the

Sustainable Development Plan where the sustainable goals of the Company are clearly stated.

Since 2004 X spa is complying with the UNI EN ISO 14001 requirements by implementing and

maintaining an effective Environmental Management System. In 2005 the firm undertook some

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified projects, afterwards X spa

decided to certify itself with the FSC and the GREENGUARD certifications. More recently, in 2010,

259

the Company started to perform the LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) of its products and the following

year it computed the Carbon Footprint of its activities.

The interest of the Company towards Sustainability emerged also from the answers that the firm’s

Responsible for Internal Management and Control Systems gave to the “Survey on the

sustainability in the furniture industry” in the month of July 2016. Given the great care of the

Company to the Sustainability theme, I’ve asked the person who completed the questionnaire for

a meeting in order to deepen the topic of the Sustainability in the office furniture industry. The

interview aimed at understanding the reasons behind the answers given to the survey’s questions

and the direction taken by sustainability in the office furniture sector.

Firm’s characteristics

The Person I interviewed started his career in X spa as a Product Designer, afterwards he became

the Responsible for the Internal Management and Control Systems. Moreover since 2000 he is in

charge of the management of the Quality System and since 2007 he is also taking care of the

Environmental aspects of the Company. He is also member of the Commission of FederLegno

Arredo Assufficio which is the branch of FederLegno dealing with the office furniture and where in

the last years Environment has become a crucial theme.

X spa is located in Turate (CO) and all its suppliers and partners are situated within 300 Km from

the Company’s headquarters. The Responsible interviewed explained that this is a cultural choice:

indeed Brianza furniture manufacturing cluster is quite old-fashioned and mainly all the contracts

are stipulated verbally by the Companies’ holders. X spa works with more than 5000 suppliers, but

only 50 of them could be considered “strategic partners”. Most of them are small manufacturers

who are entirely dedicated to X spa because the Company provided them with the facilities, the

materials and the assets necessary to work. In some cases the suppliers previously worked in X

spa and then decided to start their own business with the support of the Company. All X’s

suppliers must prove trustworthiness and loyalty towards the Company especially in order to

minimize the threat of plagiarism, moreover the suppliers must guarantee flexibility and

responsiveness. The Company shares its suppliers with Citterio and Dada, which are all part of the

Molteni & C group, and, according to the workload of each of group’s members, X spa could ask

to allocate part of its production to one or more of its partners in order to have a constant

availability of production capacity. The suppliers provide the Firm with aluminum, steel, glass and,

in some cases, wood. The lead times and the costs of the suppliers are variable, especially

according to the type of material they provide: for example the processing of aluminum is a more

260

expensive and time consuming activity than the glass processing, consequently the aluminum

providers are a greater number with respect to the glass ones in order to have a continuous

availability of material. X spa outsources around the 70% of its total production, in particular the

Company internally realizes only the woody products, while it relies on external contractors for

the realization of the glass, steel and aluminum components.

The Company produces on a “make to order” basis because the products are very customized.

The production is partially outsourced: the glass, aluminum and steel components are produced

externally and then delivered to the Company to be assembled, internally there are only the wood

processing, wood finishing, assembling, packaging and delivery phases. The demand of X spa is

characterized by 4/5 big annual orders which commit the Company for some years and absorb the

major part of the production capacity. The remaining part of the year is characterized by several

minor orders which are much less costly and time consuming.

X’s customers are mainly Architects and Designers who are in charge of designing and furnishing

the buildings. The Company doesn’t spend many resources on marketing or to advertise its

activity, because it relies on the word of mouth between customers: indeed thanks to the several

past collaborations with notorious Architects and Designers, X spa is highly regarded in its sector

and it is considered a market influencer by its competitors. For the same reason the Company

doesn’t show its products in showrooms or self-owned shops, indeed X spa benefits from a

number of offices, located in different countries, where clients sign contracts and meanwhile they

can have an idea of the Company’s work. The main offices are located in London, New York,

Dubai, France and Australia. In Italy the Company delivers its products thanks to a number of

resellers located all over the Country, through these shops also the individual customers have the

possibility to buy a X’s product, indeed these small furniture shops sells mainly single pieces, while

the offices serve for the big orders.

Sustainability as a competitive factor

In the “Survey on the sustainability in the furniture industry” the Responsible for the Internal

Management Systems indicated the Environmental Sustainability as a necessary condition to

operate in Our sector and the Social Sustainability as not strategic but still desirable characteristic

("nice to have"). The reason behind this differentiation is that the Company works exclusively with

Italian suppliers and contractors, as such they are forced to respect the Italian regulations on the

social working conditions which are already widespread among the Italian industries. Accordingly

X spa is confident that all its collaborators comply with the social law standards and allocate a

261

limited amount of resources to this question. Conversely Italian regulations on the Environmental

Awareness are still at an embryonic phase, at the same time respect for Environment is one of the

main requirements of the office furniture industry’ customers and it is a necessary characteristic

in order to successfully compete on the market, so it requires greater attention than Social issue.

The Responsible interviewed compared the Environmental and Social Sustainability factors with

some of the most important corporate competitive factors: he considered the Environmental

sustainability the most important competitive characteristic together with the Quality of the

service, while he accounted the Delivery time and the capability to offer the product at a low

price as secondary with respect to the first two. He concluded saying that Social Sustainability

could be considered one of the last competitive factors of the Company, just after the capability

of offering a wide products’ range.

Drivers, Sustainable Practices and Performance

The Company has a long story of Environmental Policies and Codes of Ethics, but only recently X

spa decided to introduce an Environmental Management System into the firm, in particular the

Company chose to subscribe the ISO 14001. Consequently the firm performed a number of

activities and initiatives to comply with the ISO 14001 certification. Having said this we can easily

understand why Central and regional governmental Environmental regulations have been

indicated in the survey as one of the main and most important drivers that led X spa towards a

Sustainable approach to business. Another important contribution to the transformation of the

Company came from customers, who, in the last years, asked for increasingly sustainable

products. In order to satisfy these new requirements, X needed to upgrade its Environmental

Policy and progressively integrate the market requests.

The company is particularly concerned about the Green Design practices, as reflected in the

answers given to the “Survey on the sustainability in the furniture industry”. X spa is continuously

improving its practices and it is always open to innovation: for example the development of the

Green Design practices and its establishment inside the Company is the result of the continuous

integration of the customers’ requests of more Sustainable products. X’s products are easy to

disassemble in order to facilitate the disposability at the end of their life and to minimize the

interventions during their lifetime. The products are very long-lasting: they usually last over 30

years and in some cases, at the end of their lifetime, they are recovered for a domestic use.

The Company also improved its emissions performance since it recently substituted all the paints

containing solvents with water soluble paints. Moreover the firm reduced the use of glues in the

262

production process and modify the process in order to minimize the paints’ scraps. X spa relies on

its own suppliers and partners for the recovery of the wood, aluminum and glass wastes, while it

internally performs a correct waste collection for what concerns paper and paperboard. The firm

uses recycled materials in its production process, such as chipboards, and relies on third entities

for the recycling of the aluminum and the glass.

X’s suppliers are constantly monitored, especially for what concern their environmental

performance. The most of the Company’s suppliers are small businesses, so X doesn’t expect that

all its partners are ISO 14001 certified, but it still demand the compliance with given

environmental criteria. The Company manages the orders for the materials together with the

suppliers so that the environmental impact of the processing activities is minimized. For example

X spa decides together with its suppliers the dimensions of the aluminum bars to buy in order to

minimize the scraps at the end of the production process. The same level of collaboration can be

observed with the Company’s customers: indeed the relationships between the firm’s holder and

the Designers and Architects who collaborate with X are very personal. The Responsible

interviewed underlined the fact that sometimes clients make unreasonable requests and often

the reason is that they have not a clear idea of the concept of Sustainability. Therefore often the

task of the Company is to educate the costumers on this theme and lead them towards more

sustainable choices.

For what concerns the packaging and the delivery activities, the Company tries to minimize the

need for packaging and in any case it uses mostly recyclable materials so that it has the possibility

to recover and recycle the packaging materials. The products that are part of a big order are

usually delivered through woody pallets which are subsequently recovered by X spa.

The last part of the questionnaire was dedicated to the corporate performance pattern during the

last year. The Responsible confirmed that in general the performance improved during the last

year, especially for what concerned the employees’ satisfaction which has improved a lot since

the firm substituted the old paint with the water soluble paints. Furthermore the air conditioning

plant has been recently substitute and consequently the working environment has improved a lot.

Finally X spa contributes to build an underpass that connects the neighbouring town with the

production site, this initiative was also very much appreciated by the Major of the City who wrote

a letter to X to express its gratitude. The level of employees’ satisfaction is measured through the

fulfillment of periodic questionnaires and the Safety department is in charge of checking that

adequate working conditions are always guaranteed. The Company has frequent contacts with

263

the local communities who are quite satisfied by the performance of the firm. The relationships

with the local communities have always been direct, primarily because X spa was one of the first

companies who settled in the industrial area of Turate and consequently it established stable

relations with the members of all the neighbouring communities. Finally the transport costs that

have been improved during the last year, mostly because the Company substituted the old

vehicles with newer and more efficient ones and also thanks to the cooperation with the suppliers

for the optimization of the delivery spans.

X spa is a very dynamic company, it continuously improves its performance and constantly

upgrades its Environmental Policy. During the last years it implemented several initiatives aimed

at enhancing its Environmental performance: for example the Company recently substituted the

older big boiler with three new boilers with different powers in order to optimize their use (which

is more intense in winter and less in summer). The firm is also considering to invest in the LED

technology in order to substitute the current 9000 fluorescent lamps, even if this means a

significant economic investment the Company is aware that this intervention would also lead a

consistent Energy improvement.

264

Trascrizione dell’intervista: Pratiche di

sostenibilità nella filiera dell’arredamento

Legenda:

A: intervistatore – Flavia Ricetti

B: intervistato – Arch. X

Inizio trascrizione

A: Allora io le ho portato una copia del questionario che lei ha compilato che servirà poi per

rispondere ad alcune domande, e la traccia dell’intervista che le avevo già anticipato per mail.

Oggi faremo più che altro una chiacchierata prima in generale riguardo l’azienda per inquadrarla

un po’ e poi scenderemo più nei dettagli della catena di fornitura e della produzione.

B: Certo le premesse sono fondamentali per capire perché ho risposto in un certo modo alle

domande del questionario.

A: Esatto, appunto quindi se per cominciare mi vuole dire qual è il suo ruolo all’interno

dell’azienda e da quanto tempo ricopre questo ruolo e se mi dice in due parole com’è organizzata

l’azienda cioè l’organigramma aziendale.

B: Allora io sono il responsabile dei sistemi di gestione che significa non responsabile qualità, non

responsabile dell’ambiente ma colui il quale gestisce il sistema, chi prende le decisioni è il

responsabile dell’ambiente che è un signore che si occupa anche della sicurezza insomma è un

dirigente, e il direttore generale che ha in mano la qualità. Loro prendono in mano le decisioni su

come organizzare l’azienda io gliele metto sulle procedure, faccio la descrizione diciamo cartacea,

fisica, documentale del sistema. Prima di fare questo sono stato un designer semplice cioè

disegnavo i prodotti che i clienti chiedevano, li facevo produrre, li installavo sul cantiere, questo

dal 97 al 2006 circa. Dal 2000 mi occupo del sistema di gestione qualità che è quello della gestione

aziendale, e dal 2007 circa dell’ambiente. Per cui nel 2010 ci siamo certificati ISO 14000, quindi

dal 2007 al 2010 ho messo insieme il sistema di gestione ambientale e nel frattempo poi ci sono

tutte le certificazioni ambientali come FSC poi c’è una certificazione di prodotto a bassa emissione

di solvente che si chiama GREEN GUARD. Poi nel 2005 abbiamo fatto i primi progetti certificati

LEED che è una certificazione di edificio, per cui tra i requisiti c’era FSC, la GREEN GUARD e il Life

Cycle Assessment, per cui dal 2010 circa abbiamo iniziato a fare LCA dei prodotti e nel 2011

abbiamo fatto un Carbon Footprint che è una parte dell’LCA, in realtà abbiamo fatto un LCA intero

insieme al ministero, adesso stiamo conducendo altri LCA per arrivare a dire che l’LCA.. serve a

poco. Serve a poco nel senso che una volta fatto su un certo tipo di prodotto lo puoi applicare su

tutta la famiglia. Cioè analizzi la filiera scopri cos’è nella tua filiera importante, per cui diventano

molto diciamo insignificanti degli aspetti a cui tu hai dato importanza per scoprire che altri a cui

non avevi dato importanza sono più rilevanti dal punto di vista dell’impatto, per cui l’azienda si è

fatta una certa idea di come i suoi prodotti impattano e soprattutto la cosa fondamentale è che il

prodotto deve durare molto nel tempo per cui significa acquistare meno prodotti e quindi

265

inquinare di meno. Allora diciamo che questa è un po’ la mia presentazione, cioè io sono un po’

trasversale perché ho fatto il progettista e poi nel mezzo mi sono trovato il sistema qualità in

mano. Nel frattempo appartengo alla commissione tecnica di FederLegno Arredo Assoufficio che

sarebbe la branca di FederLegno che si occupa dell’arredo per gli uffici e nella commissione

tecnica faccio, come gli altri miei colleghi da altre azienda, mi occupo appunto delle gare

d’appalto piuttosto che di vari progetti relativi alla parte tecnica dell’ufficio dove ovviamente

l’ambiente è diventato preponderante. Prima c’era un mio collega che se ne occupava, ma non

avendo più tanto tempo mi ha passato la palla anche perché si parlava di ambiente quindi

sapendo che io conoscevo l’argomento.. insomma è arrivato il mio momento con la ISO 14000,

con le vernici, i legni ecc.. e quindi diciamo che ho cominciato ad affrontare gli argomenti anche

da quel punto di vista. Siamo anche soci in UNI per cui io partecipo ai tavoli dell’UNI però diciamo

che è un attività parallela anche perché non ci sono norme grosse a cui partecipiamo, noi siamo

nella commissione Mobili e nella commissione Mobili per ufficio insomma mobili in generale. Le

norme relative a quel settore passano per la commissione legni (?). Allora l’azienda è nata nel ’73.

Nel 69 veramente però comunque con una serie di passaggi fino a che è diventata quella che è

adesso. Ha cominciato con una commessa, che era.. il gruppo Molteni & C fa mobili per la casa,

noi facciamo parte del gruppo della Molteni, la Molteni ha acquistato una piccola azienda che

faceva mobili per ufficio qua vicino, a Rovello Porro, che apparteneva ad un privato per fare una

commessa di mobili per ufficio e si trattava della sede dell’IBM a Segrate disegnata da Bob Noorda

che ha disegnato questo mobile molto semplice, con un profilo in alluminio, pannelli in nobilitato

quindi truciolare rivestito di carta melaninica. Cominciando con quel prodotto, abbiamo fatto la

serie di IBM a Segrate e la IBM centrale ha chiesto “ma chi sono questi?”, Bob Noorda è un

progettista internazionale di fama, per cui era abbastanza conosciuto. Bob Noorda ha disegnato

per esempio la comunicazione della metropolitana Milanese, ed era nello studio dove c’era anche

Vignelli che è un altro graphic designer, ma anche di prodotto e architetto, degli anni ’70 che ha

fatto il logo della Knoll, la mappa della Metropolitana di New York tanto per dire. È uno stile molto

rigoroso, rigido forse non è giusto. E il suo studio di chiamava Unimark! E Bob Noorda è stato

diciamo colui che ha cominciato la produzione di mobili per ufficio per noi, per tanti anni il nostro

stabilimento produceva pannelli squadrati e bordati già rivestiti di carta melaninica con bordo in

plastica applicato, profili di alluminio molto semplici, quindi si faceva tutto in questo stabilimento.

Negli anni 80 poi è stato creato questo stabilimento con la filiera di quel prodotto. Ed era un

prodotto molto standardizzato, con un catalogo molto ben definito, dove le quantità andavano

perché diciamo che era un prodotto che a quei tempi funzionava, insomma economico con delle

buone caratteristiche di progettazione e un materiale abbastanza buono e di qualità. Tra l’altro il

truciolare di quei tempi era un buon materiale anche perché erano gli scarti del legno agglomerati

insieme, ma erano comunque scarti del legno di buona qualità: il pioppo, l’abete, ecc.. negli anni

80 l’azienda ha cominciato a ricevere richieste dai clienti sempre più varie, tra cui sistemi di

pannelli, mobili contenitori, per cui le tecnologie dell’alluminio, del ferro e del vetro sono

cominciate ad entrare in azienda. In particolar negli anni 80 abbiamo cominciato a fare partizioni

divisorie. Quando tutti facevano mobili contenitori che arrivavano al soffitto, erano degli armadi

con un piccolo sopraluce cioè un attacco di vetro fra il mobile e il soffitto per chiudere diciamo il

tamponamento, e la X è andata in fiera con un sistema totalmente vetrato, cioè profilo di

alluminio, lastra di vetro fino al soffitto, per cui lo spazio si apriva totalmente, anche per fare

entrare diciamo la luce all’interno dell’edificio e dare prestazione sia di privacy per il suono sia di

266

luce senza dover usare l’illuminazione artificiale. Per cui che succede, quello è un prodotto su

misura, non è un prodotto speciale, non è un prodotto di serie, ma un prodotto che fai con il

metro da sarto. Cominci con le pareti, poi i pannelli, poi cominciano ad arrivare anche gli armadi

su misura e l’azienda ha cominciato a perdere la sua caratteristica di azienda che produce a

catalogo ed è diventata sempre di più orientata verso i progetti. Per cui dagli anni 80 in poi, anche

prima comunque, c’erano dei grandissimi progetti che catalizzavano l’attenzione dell’azienda e

poi una serie di piccoli ordini con tanti prodotti con tanti prodotti come succede ancora adesso. In

genere, adesso forse le proporzioni sono un po’ cambiate, ma ci sono 5 grandi commesse l’anno,

4/5 commesse che ti prendono tutta l’energia e poi tutta una serie di lavoretti più piccoli.

A: Scusi se la interrompo. Quindi possiamo dire che la domanda dell’azienda vede grandi picchi

annuali e poi periodi con solo piccoli ordini?

B: Diciamo che l’anno è corto! In realtà i progetti durano più di un anno, per cui ci sono dei

progetti in 4 anni, dove cominci ad investire 4 anni prima e finisci di fare il lavoro 4 anni dopo. Per

cui queste 4 commesse l’anno sono diciamo il 70%-60% del fatturato. Per esempio in Italia, qua

(nel questionario) ho scritto 67mila che è l’ultimo fatturato, l’Italia è i 25%, il 75% sono gli altri

Paesi. Un anno gli Stati Uniti fanno il 15%, un altro anno il Giappone che fa il 15%, un altro anno è

l’Australia, un altro anno è l’Inghilterra. In realtà sono due commesse, per cui ti prende il 10% con

due commesse. Abbiamo fatto per esempio l’anno scorso era l’Italia, ma c’era Intesa San Paolo

nel grattacielo che ha fatto Renzo Piano, dove c’erano già due anni di lavoro, erano 400 tavoli con

6 persone, cioè 2400 posti di lavoro. Quindi abbastanza impegnativo anche come logistica anche

se in Italia. Tra qualche anno ci sarà un’altra grande commessa che non cito fino a quando non la

facciamo giustamente, anche perché non si sa mai cosa può succedere: tra i nostri clienti

possiamo annoverare Lehman Brothers.. che prima di iniziare a fallire devono fare danni! Poi tutti

i mobili sono stati presi e venduti a qualcun altro. Quando facciamo progetti come quelli posso

citare tranquillamente sia Intesa San Paolo, sia Bank of America per esempio che era New York,

sono clienti che hanno grossi edifici per i quali viene fatta la certificazione LEED, per cui c’è questa

certificazione americana di mobili che si è sparsa un po’ in tutto il mondo non so se la conosce la

LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, comunque negli Stati Uniti esiste questa

LEED, per cui c’è un librone-linee guida con il rating system, per cui l’edificio per essere giudicato

deve rispondere di questi requisiti, e per ogni requisito si da un punteggio. Cioè questi criteri,

come si dice, crediti. Per cui per esempio sito sostenibile oppure sfruttamento dell’acqua, qualità

dell’aria interna, provenienza dei materiali, quantità di materiale riciclato, c’è tutta questa tabella

per cui noi contribuiamo a tutti questi punti. Tra gli aspetti che vengono richiesti c’è: Legno

certificato FSC, quindi FSC all’inizio era proprio FSC non era legno certificato, era specificatamente

quello perché non pensavano prendesse tanto piede quella norma e superficialmente hanno

messo un solo schema di certificazione. Poi prodotti basso emissivi, per cui c’era una

certificazione che si chiamava GREENGUARD e hanno messo quella, stesso errore perché

specificata quella non hanno specificato altre 10. Poi c’è quantità di materiale riciclato,

provenienza dei materiali per cercare di fare km0 cioè nel raggio di 500 miglia che sono 800 Km.

Per cui questi paletti che avevano messo, il primo progetto che abbiamo fatto era del 2005 alla

British Columbia University Canada, che ci hanno fatto vedere sta roba, io ho visto le richieste e

ho pensato “ma chissà che cavolo gli dobbiamo dire a questi”. Ho chiamato il fornitore e faccio

“senti, quanto ferro riciclato c’è nella nostra lamiera?” e mi risponde: “no no tutta roba buona!”

267

vabè.. da lì è nato il problema: come facciamo a dichiarare il contenuto dei prodotti in maniera

attendibile? Cioè se chiamo il fornitore e mi risponde in questa maniera rischio di dare

informazioni un po’ vaghe no? Per cui la cosa che abbiamo iniziato a fare già dal 2005 è calcolare

quanto materiale c’era nei prodotti, perché in qualche caso lo sappiamo in altri casi è un pochino

più vaga la cosa, per cui i miei colleghi che fanno sistemi di partizione, comprano il vetro,

comprano l’alluminio e sanno quanto scarto c’è quando tagliano i profili di alluminio in azienda,

non in cantiere perché in cantiere non tagliamo niente, noi mandiamo i prodotti già anche

assemblati, arriva sul cantiere, levi l’imballo e arriva il mobile così già assemblato, spediti anche

negli Stati Uniti perché conviene economicamente. Praticamente dal 2005 abbiamo cominciato a

raccogliere i dati e abbiamo delle quantità registrate per ogni tipo di mobile, nonostante noi

cambiamo continuamente disegno dell’arredo del componente, abbiamo difficoltà ad avere

prodotti a catalogo, facciamo sempre cose su misura perché questi qua si svegliano, questi

sarebbero i progettisti, cominciano ad inventarsi qualcosa di innovativo ed essendo la fornitura

abbastanza corposa, ci ritroviamo a sviluppare un prodotto che è venduto ad un cliente, quindi

l’anno prima della produzione dell’edificio, noi sviluppiamo gli arredi, loro li approvano e poi li

andiamo ad installare sul cantiere. È successo così per parecchi prodotti, per esempio c’è un

tavolo che si chiama “Less” che è di Jean Nouvel che è un architetto francese, doveva fare la

fondazione Cartier nel 93 che è un gioielliere, ha creato l’edificio e dentro sono stati forniti i tavoli

a disegno suo che poi sono diventati prodotti di serie che vende anche la Molteni oltretutto per la

casa, anche perché sono per ufficio ma non si capisce, anche perché per essere per ufficio sono un

po’ sul generis. Totalmente in ferro erano, quindi lamiera in acciaio verniciata e adesso sono

diventati totalmente in alluminio, dove in qualche caso entra anche il legno, però ci troviamo ad

avere a che fare con materiali che non c’entrano nulla con la filiera nostra, per cui abbiamo

indagato questi aspetti. Detto tutto questo, penso che dobbiamo tornare a qualche domanda

giusto per capire.. il motivo per cui per esempio, vabè il fatturato, i dipendenti vabè 198, in realtà

noi abbiamo una filiera molto grossa perché noi condividiamo i fornitori con la Molteni e la Dada

che fanno mobili per la casa e mobili per la cucina. Per cui quando abbiamo una grande

commessa, c’è il tavolo, il pannello, la cassettiera, il mobile contenitore, allora il tavolo lo

facciamo noi, la cassettiera la facciamo fare ad un terzista che fa la lamiera tagliata che lavora per

noi, ed è un grosso carpentiere metallico per cui lui ha delle macchine nostre, del materiale

nostro, compra delle macchine su nostra richiesta, è un partner praticamente. Il mobile

contenitore lo può fare un fornitore nostro, per cui la Molteni che fa mobili contenitore, anche, se

noi abbiamo un picco di lavoro ci può produrre delle cose. Come la Citterio che fa sempre parte

del nostro gruppo, per cui noi andiamo da un nostro fornitore che poi magari è parte del gruppo e

gli diamo da fare questi pezzi.

A: Ok, rimanendo sempre sui fornitori che lei mi ha detto che condividete con altre aziende del

gruppo, avete diverse tipologie di fornitori? Mi spiego meglio: dividete i fornitori in “abituali” cioè

che fanno il prodotto standard, basic e poi avete altri fornitori, chiamiamoli “speciali”, che

vengono attivati quando c’è bisogno di un componente particolare che però non sempre viene

richiesto? Esiste questo tipo di separazione?

B: Allora tutti i contratti sono fatti a stretta di mano più o meno. Facciamo un esempio: noi

facciamo alluminio estruso, usiamo tonnellate di alluminio estruso. Quindi il produttore e il

fornitore dell’alluminio è una ditta che fa estrusione di alluminio, ne abbiamo 2. In qualche caso

268

fanno lo stesso disegno di estruso e ce ne danno due contemporaneamente quando le quantità

diventano troppe. Ci sono degli estrusi che ne facciamo tanti per cui conviene avere due fornitori

capaci di farlo così riusciamo a rimanere nella tempistica necessaria. Dopo aver fatto l’estruso c’è

il terzista che è colui che lavora l’alluminio, quindi io divido i terzisti dai fornitori, poi sono sempre

fornitori però il terzista invece riceve l’alluminio e lo finisce, quindi lo brillanta oppure lo vernicia e

poi viene fresato e preparato per diventare un componente. Chi fa la fresatura è nella categoria

dei fornitori quelli che lavorano l’alluminio estruso e sono diversi, ce ne sono 5 o 6, forse quelli

principali sono 2 o 3, ma sono 5 o 6. Perché se devo fare un prodotto vado da un fornitore, un

altro prodotto vado da un altro e quindi per prodotto la filiera si ripete.

A: Si dividono i fornitori a seconda del prodotto?

B: Si perché lui è specializzato a fare quel prodotto. Però molto spesso può capitare che, siccome il

pannello va insieme al tavolo, quello che lavora gli estrusi del tavolo è uno, quello che fa quello

del pannello è un altro, in modo da avere la capacità produttiva sempre disponibile. Quando noi

abbiamo più fornitori che lavorano su una commessa, partono in quattro per darti un prodotto

che deve arrivare in 3 mesi per cui se ce ne fosse uno solo ci sarebbe il collo di bottiglia, che c’è

comunque anche se sono 4, quindi insomma rimane il problema. Quindi per esempio i vetrai sono

di meno perché il vetro è più facile da lavorare, l’alluminio è molto complicato e quindi ne

abbiamo 5 o 6. Poi per il legno ce ne sono molti più disponibili qua intorno, la posizione in cui ci

troviamo è vicina alla Aermacchi, alla Busta (?), per cui c’è una filiera di lavorazioni meccaniche

che sta lì verso Varese, una filiera di Brianzoli che fanno mobili, poi i vetrai si trovano un po’

dappertutto perché il vetro viene dalla Francia quindi non è complicato. Per cui diciamo che

questo di lavorazioni vengono da aree specifiche dove abbiamo trovato dei partner che sono

aziende che lavorano principalmente per noi, in qualche caso erano piccoli, li abbiamo fatti

diventare grandi dandogli un capannone, per cui gli abbiamo affittato, diciamo, il capannone e

loro lavorano a casa nostra, ci pagano l’affitto, hanno le macchine nostre, hanno il magazzino

nostro, fanno i loro lavori che magari sono.. per esempio c’è un fornitore che fa le spazzole per i

generatori di elettricità delle pale eoliche che sono della roba di ferro, lamelle che vengono

saldate insieme, lui le fresa, le lavora, fa roba gigantesca, le travi dei treni ecc.. e poi si mette a

fare i prodotti per noi con delle macchinette piccole perché ce le ha là. O altri che fanno solo

lavori per noi con macchinette piccole perché li riempiamo talmente tanto di lavoro che diciamo

che crescono intorno all’azienda.

A: Quindi fornitori dedicati anche interamente a voi?

B: Esatto, tutti in Italia, tutti nel raggio di 300 Km salvo qualche eccezione

A: Quindi tutti qua vicino, questo era anche un punto toccato dal questionario, non so se ricorda.

La scelta di rifornirsi da fornitori vicini è guidata da ragioni di riduzione dell’impatto ambientale o

è una scelta meramente economica in quanto più conveniente?

B: No no no è una questione esclusivamente culturale. Cioè l’ingegnere titolare dell’azienda,

stringe la mano al fornitore e si deve fidare, perché noi abbiamo problemi più che altro non di

costi o di impatto ambientale, abbiamo problemi di fiducia perché il disegno dei prodotti viene

copiato in continuazione. Per cui si preferisce magari avere un fornitore di cui fidarsi che

269

soprattutto ci da l’elasticità che ci serve. Siccome l’azienda ha un potere finanziario abbastanza

forte, praticamente se arriva una commessa di un certo peso viene investito del denaro da parte

del gruppo, per cui per riuscire a fare quelle cose devi avere dei fornitori principalmente affidabili.

Quindi loro comprano moltissimo materiale, noi compriamo l’alluminio all’inizio dell’anno quando

si abbassa il prezzo, compriamo l’alluminio ordinandolo dal fornitore, quando ci serve lui ce lo

estrude nel disegno che ci serve e facciamo quel prodotto. Quindi è tutto basato sulla fiducia, io

ho detto culturale per dire che il brianzolo probabilmente si comporta tradizionalmente in questo

modo e va in secondo piano tutto il resto. L’ambiente, la scelta ambientale non è propria

dell’azienda o meglio lo è perché è il prodotto che facciamo che lo richiede, nel senso che nel

mobile per ufficio, rispetto al mobile per la casa, l’aspetto ambientale è molto considerato dal

cliente ed è il cliente quello che comanda. Quindi il cliente ci dice io voglio una roba e noi

facciamo come dice lui. Il problema è che il cliente non ha sempre la cultura adatta per capire qual

è la scelta migliore, e il cliente di solito è il progettista, cioè l’architetto che disegna l’arredo,

disegna l’edificio e ci chiede quello che ha pensato lui. Noi siamo in parte influenzatori di mercato

perché siamo un’azienda di quelle in vista diciamo, per cui tutti i nostri concorrenti ci corrono

dietro. Oggi mi è capitato di vedere i prodotti di un concorrente economico con un altro livello di

fatturato, che fa i prodotti come i nostri, quindi se noi decidiamo di usare una finitura piuttosto

che un’altra, ci copiano tutti, per cui alla fine sei un influenzatore di mercato. E così i progettisti,

per cui quando capita Michele De Lucchi che è un altro architetto molto conosciuto che lavora

insieme a Renzo Piano ovviamente tutti gli altri architetti gli vanno dietro. E abbiamo la fortuna di

avere il nostro titolare che ha un rapporto diretto con i progettisti. Cioè noi non facciamo molto

marketing perché gli architetti atterrano con l’elicottero qua davanti! Per cui il nostro titolare che

ormai è una persona conosciuta nell’ambiente perché ha fatto queste commesse di rilievo, perciò

“sparlando” escono questi argomenti. Però ovviamente chi decide non è soltanto il capo, ci sono

centinaia di persone dietro lo studio di Renzo Piano e il mio capo pure, per cui ovviamente questi

argomenti io li racconto per esempio al titolare con cui abbiamo un rapporto diretto perché siamo

una piccola azienda non siamo tanto grossi. E quindi saltano fuori FSC, riciclaggio, LEED ecc.. nei

discorsi di tutti i giorni e quando dobbiamo fare le scelte le facciamo anche valutando l’aspetto

ambientale che potrebbe avere anche dal punto di vista del marketing ovviamente. Però è il

mobile per ufficio che lo fa, non è una scelta.. il mercato stesso diventa sensibile all’ambiente e

guida i produttori perché noi facciamo quello che ci chiedono. In qualche caso ci chiedono cose

incongruenti nel senso che, per esempio il legno che è fondamentale nell’arredo anche come

finitura, dal punto di vista economico, per esempio un pannello di truciolare adesso non ho in

mente la conformazione, però il tranciato che sarebbe il foglio di legno che va applicato sul

truciolare, sotto è di un’essenza e sopra di un’altra normalmente, cioè la contro placcatura cioè la

parte che c’è sotto è un foglio di 6 decimi di millimetro di tanganica o di frassino e sopra in questo

caso di acero moro. Il rovere per esempio che sarebbe la quercia, arriva a 6€ circa al metro

quadro, la contro placcatura 0,50€, quindi dal punto di vista economico la parte bella costa

tantissimo, il truciolare costa ancora meno e la contro placcatura costa meno ancora per cui

quello che conta di più economicamente è la placcatura. Ma se ti chiedono un legno africano

difficile da reperire e tutt’altro che rispettoso dell’ambiente, perché ci sono persone che vengono

uccise per vendere quel cavolo di legno e il cliente che ti costringe ad usare quel legno ti fa fare

una scelta assolutamente anti-ecologica e anche anti-sociale. Per cui noi diciamo che iniziamo il

cliente cercando di non fargli commettere quel tipo di errore, perché siamo in un momento in cui

270

ce lo possiamo ancora permettere però non sempre funziona, cioè certe volte ti chiedono il

tanganica e tu gli devi dare il tanganica.

A: Sempre per quanto riguarda i fornitori, lei nel questionario ha indicato che il lead time di

fornitura varia molto, può spiegare meglio in che modo varia?

B: Allora noi parlando dei 3 / 4 fornitori che abbiamo, c’è quello che te lo fa in fretta e bene, e

costa poco. Quello che lo fa in fretta costa tantissimo, quello che te lo fa lentamente lavora

benissimo e costa pure tantissimo.

A: Quindi il lead time varia più o meno a seconda del fornitore

B: Sì noi abbiamo le nostre valutazioni dei fornitori, abbiamo il fornitore da scegliere per quel

prodotto, il fornitore da scegliere per quel tempo di consegna, per quel costo, per quel valore

della fornitura perché adesso stiamo usando l’alluminio brillantato che viene brillantato prima di

essere lavorato, se il fornitore non è capace di fare quel tipo di lavorazione non possiamo andare

da lui. Quindi chi fresa l’alluminio e deve trattare una barra a specchio e comincia a graffiarla devo

buttarla via, quindi non riesco a lavorare con lui in quel modo. Poi ci sono dei fornitori che invece

dobbiamo usare l’alluminio verniciato per cui può fare quello che vuole: è velocissimo, costa poco,

è bellissimo consegna subito, quindi lo scegliamo in funzione di quello. Dipende da cosa si vende:

se il prodotto è un prodotto con margine molto basso devi stare necessariamente attento ai costi,

se invece il margine è molto alto, il prodotto diciamo è di lusso come il tavolo direzionale, non

badi a spese, qui non conta il costo del fornitore, ma conta il risultato finale anche perché se ti

contestano un tavolo che costa tanto insomma non vale la pena. Abbiamo dei prodotti molto

costosi in qualche caso perché il cliente ti chiede insomma qualcosa di specifico.

A: Può spiegarmi brevemente come funziona il processo produttivo della X?

B: Allora all’interno dello stabilimento c’è soltanto: lavorazione del legno, finitura del legno in una

parte dello stabilimento, l’altra parte ha l’assemblaggio dei prodotti, l’imballo e la spedizione.

Quindi il prodotto, la parte in legno può essere per esempio un mobile costruito con spalla di

legno, schienale di ferro con la tapparella davanti, per cui ci sono diversi fornitori che arrivano va

tutto in assemblaggio e viene messo insieme. Quindi qualcosa viene da fuori qualcosa da qui. Per

cui abbiamo necessariamente dei fornitori esterni che fanno le altre componenti.

A: In che percentuale le componenti vi arrivano dai fornitori?

B: Molte componenti, diciamo che la produzione è al 70% fuori. Sì perché poi quando hai la

partizione vetro e alluminio è tutto fuori. Non c’è niente fatto internamente di alluminio e vetro.

Poi che il fornitore abbia il capannone nostro e lavori esclusivamente per noi è un altro discorso.

Quindi che succede che la commessa è fatta di tanti componenti quindi tutti quanti arrivano

contemporaneamente in spedizione, quindi sia i semilavorati che i prodotti finiti arrivano in

spedizione o vanno direttamente dal cliente o nel magazzino intermedio dove raccogliamo le cose

per mandarle. Generalmente lavoriamo per commessa, quindi la produzione parte quando c’è

l’ordine, se non c’è l’ordine non si fa.

A: Quindi non ci sono prodotti che voi tenete di norma a magazzino?

271

B: No, nessuno a magazzino. Cioè se ci fossero cose sono là in magazzino da un sacco di tempo

perché qualcuno le ha ordinate. No siccome facciamo delle commesse dove su 1000 pezzi , 10 in

più li fai perché se no rimani senza, quindi si cominciano ad accumulare quelle cose, rimangono in

magazzino per un po’ perché il cliente poi ne vuole riordinare 10 e ce le hai, anzi in qualche caso ci

viene proprio richiesto di mantenere noi un magazzino minimo in altri casi nel loro.

A: Anche qui, lei ha detto che il lead time di processo varia molto. Questa variabilità è ancora una

volta data dai terzisti che hanno tempi diversi? Invece per quanto riguarda la produzione che

avviene internamente allo stabilimento definirebbe il lead time molto variabile?

B: Sì, allora io ho fatto degli schemi sul consumo delle vernici per esempio no? Che nel reparto di

verniciatura ci sono dei picchi di due settimane per poi avere dei momenti di bassissima attività

dove vengono fatte le componenti dei lavori che verranno più avanti. Quindi dipende molto dalle

commesse che abbiamo, per esempio due anni fa con San Paolo ha lavorato il reparto

costantemente con un lavoro costante con turni perché c’era del lavori da fare, poi capita invece

che il lavoro scende anche perché noi all’interno dello stabilimento facciamo le parti in legno che

sono le più difficili, quelle che all’esterno sono economicamente sconvenienti, e come qualità

sono molto più elevata quindi il tavolo direzionale viene fatto all’interno.

A: Possiamo dire che il know-how viene custodito internamente quindi?

B: Sì, il know-how è all’interno dell’azienda poi ci sono delle lavorazioni speciali che facciamo

solamente all’interno perché fuori costerebbero troppo e non sono neanche attrezzati per farli.

Banalmente la fresa che entra nel legno e fresa il legno, va bene per il legno, se io comincio ad

utilizzare materiali diversi cioè plastiche, ecc.. devo cambiare utensile, quindi fai delle analisi su

quale utensile devi utilizzare, quante lame deve avere, a che velocità deve andare, ma una volta

che sei riuscito a trovare l’ottimizzazione te lo tieni lì e lo usi all’interno. Quindi molti lavori

vengono fatti dentro su un dettaglio che può essere il top di finitura mentre il resto viene da fuori

insomma, oppure il controllo visivo della qualità del prodotto per esempio il legno in allacciatura

quando viene composta ci deve essere qualcuno che dice va bene non va bene. Chi decide le

finiture dei tavoli è una persona addestrata che è stata scelta per fare questo.

A: é un controllo qualità quindi

B: Sì diciamo che è un controllo qualità in produzione, ma in quel caso è proprio la scelta del

materiale, per cui vanno a scegliere il legno, vedono quanto ce n’è se va bene per tutta la

commessa. Quando facemmo una commessa a New York del New York Times sempre di Renzo

Piano, ci fece comprare tutto il ciliegio che c’era sul mercato perché non andava più di moda e

quindi non ce n’era tanto in giro e noi avevamo montagne di ciliegio e ha fatto tutta la commessa

con questo materiale che poi è stato scartato in gran parte perché lui lo voleva rigato e invece

aveva l’occhio! E quindi dal punto di vista FSC sarebbe stato catastrofico perché io avrei dovuto

utilizzare in maniera ottimale il legno. In realtà la parte scartata è stata utilizzata come contro

placcatura sotto, come interno dei cassetti, dei mobili, per i ripiani ecc.. però questo comporta

comunque che per la parte bella devi fare un sacco di lavoro di selezione, e costa tantissimo

anche lì economicamente, ed è quello che facciamo normalmente qua dentro, fuori le cose che

possono andare più facilmente insomma dove non ti preoccupi tanto della qualità perché sai che

272

è facile da fare, quando sono difficili come queste si fa internamente. I tempi sono dettati

esclusivamente dal cliente.

A: Spostiamoci ora sulla parte finale della filiera: quali sono i vostri principali canali di

distribuzione? Avete negozi di proprietà?

B: Allora noi non abbiamo negozi, abbiamo degli uffici.. a Milano ce n’è uno che è il nostro ufficio

di Milano, non abbiamo lo showroom però c’è l’ufficio che è la filiale, poi ce n’è uno a Londra, uno

a New York, uno in Francia, Dubai e uno in Australia.

A: Ma parliamo sempre di uffici? Questi uffici fungono da showroom?

B: No sono più uffici che showroom, lo showroom dovrebbe essere enorme no? Quelli sono

proprio uffici dove va il cliente che è un architetto che progetta, va là e parla con un nostro

tecnico e fa l’offerta. Non abbiamo bisogno di altro. La Molteni ha uno showroom vero con i

prodotti, e così la Dada, la X fa la parte di mobili per ufficio, siamo sempre stati separati adesso mi

pare di aver capito che si uniscono insieme nel senso che mettono i nostri uffici all’interno di una

roba della Molteni-Dada. Però in realtà il nostro ufficio non fa altro che accogliere l’architetto, chi

c’è nell’ufficio sono architetti, e parlano del progetto. Quindi non c’è bisogno di uno showroom,

noi abbiamo praticamente una commessa adesso che è Bloomberg è un cliente che fa canali

finanziario e ha 5000 posti di lavoro, noi abbiamo fatto nel 2007 mi pare 5000 posti, e là a New

York c’era il mio collega, una persona, che parlava con il progettista perché poi i progettisti fanno

vari progetti, un anno sono su Bloomberg un altro anno sono sul New York Times, Bank of

America, lo stesso progettista con contractor, progettista e interior designer che fanno tutti un

lavoro poi un altro e un altro. Quando ci sono questi lavori per esempio un concorrente di

Bloomberg che deve fare l’arredo a chi lo fa fare? Alla X perché ha fatto Bloomberg. Quindi è

capace finanziariamente di farlo, quando ti chiedono sei in grado di sostenere un cliente con

5000 posti di lavoro, tu gli dici guarda io ho fatto questo, questo e questo in questi tempi e con le

stesse quantità, quindi riesco a fare anche il tuo ed è questo che convince il cliente. Perché in

realtà i canali che usiamo per la pubblicità sono una rivista, poi abbiamo un sito internet

abbastanza incomprensibile, poi la rete di vendita, per vendere il tavolo singolo è sufficiente il

negozio di Milano. Per i grandi progetti basta un ufficio. Praticamente negli uffici all’estero ci sono

tutte le commesse grosse, in Italia dove facciamo il 25% del fatturato salta fuori il mobile, la

cassettiera, il pezzo singolo. Allora là andiamo più sul micro, cioè sono le ditte, i piccoli rivenditori

che ci chiedono se possono rivendere il prodotto nostro e più o meno copriamo varie aree d’Italia

dandogli la possibilità di vendere il prodotto.

A: Questi ultimi quindi sono negozi di mobili?

B: Sì negozi di mobili, però dal punto di vista del marketing però che succede, che loro ci utilizzano

come specchietto delle allodole perciò devi stare attento a quali scegli, se ti da del lavoro o meno

se ti fa pubblicità o meno. Per cui noi già vendiamo le sedie, per cui tutta Italia viene da noi per

comprare queste sedie della Vitra che sono costose, loro hanno anche loro la loro rete di vendita,

ma le sedie gliele vendiamo noi perché noi non produciamo sedie, quindi abbiamo scelto le loro e

c’è questo accordo. Praticamente il negozietto vende un tavolo, un armadio, una cassettiera, fa

commesse anche da 10, quindi le aree dell’Italia sono coperte dai rivenditori e ci sono alcuni che

273

sono storici, altri che cambiano in continuazione perché non vanno bene e quindi ci comportiamo

in questo modo. Rispetto ad altre aziende italiane che hanno un fatturato più corposo, in Italia noi

magari ce l’abbiamo alto perché il prodotto è considerato di alta gamma, ha un valore maggiore

ma con quantità minori alla fine, adesso mi viene in mente Sinetica che è un copione del Veneto,

ma spudorato! Io guardo i disegni e esteticamente sembrano uguali, ma poi quando vai a vedere il

dettaglio ti accorgi che mica è così pazzo da farlo complicato come noi, cioè lo fa anche più

economico. Per cui copiano tutta la parte estetica che gli serve per vendere il prodotto, ha una

rete di distribuzione diversa, il nostro rivenditore dice “guarda questo è quello della X però io

tengo anche questo che costa di meno” e quindi riesce a piazzare più facilmente quelli.

A: Ora possiamo concentrarci sul tema principale dell’intervista che è la sostenibilità: sempre

riferendoci al questionario, lei ha indicato la Sostenibilità ambientale come condizione necessaria

per operare nel settore, e la Sostenibilità sociale come caratteristica non strategica ma comunque

desiderabile. Può spiegarmi perché ha voluto fare questa distinzione sottolineando la priorità

della sostenibilità ambientale?

B: La sostenibilità ambientale è più urgente della sociale perché lavorando in Italia con fornitori

italiani siamo coperti dalla legge italiana, se utilizzassimo fornitori stranieri: Pakistan, Cina, ecc.. ci

sarebbe il problema appunto di come vengono trattati i lavoratori delle filiere che sono parallele

alla nostra. Per cui scartiamo assolutamente la parte di responsabilità sociale perché siamo sicuri

che bene o male c’è un certo rispetto delle regole, almeno quelle europee, italiane. Ovviamente lo

verifichiamo anche perché abbiamo dei fornitori vicini quindi ce ne accorgiamo insomma quando

c’è un fornitore non affidabile che utilizza manodopera non qualificata o comunque sfruttata. Per

cui diciamo che lo diamo per scontato come tema. Mentre l’ambiente è diverso, ha un impatto

diverso e il cliente è abbastanza ignorante in materia per cui diciamo che ci chiede sempre tutto,

molto spesso chiede a sproposito senza sapere bene cosa sta chiedendo. Per esempio FSC lo

dicono, lo leggono, ma non sanno cosa chiedono. Un esempio è la LEED dove c’è la richiesta:

utilizzo di materiale certificato che non coincide con lo schema di FSC. La LEED si è evoluta nel

tempo, prima c’era una prima revisione adesso è uscita l’ultima revisione, ma utilizzano ancora la

revisione precedente per i progetti che sono iniziati con la revisione precedente. Per cui materiale

certificato non significa prodotto certificato, FSC mi richiede di rispettare una procedura: la catena

di custodia, materiale certificato con un certo schema. Il cliente non lo conosce quindi si

accontenta della mia dichiarazione. Quindi ci chiede FSC ma non sa come funziona FSC, quindi

magari riceve la fattura senza la dicitura FSC e non se ne accorge nemmeno. Ma se io cercassi di

spiegargli che è stato utilizzato materiale, ma non si può certificare perché un componente, non è

legno certificato, quindi non gli certificherò il prodotto perché un componente non è certificato

che sarà il 5% del prodotto che non è ammesso dallo schema di certificazione FSC e quindi non

posso emettere il prodotto come certificato. Lui si accontenta di sapere che il materiale è

certificato perché io ho la catena di custodia, ma non va a verificare approfonditamente. Quindi a

me è capitato parlando di LEED di litigare col cliente che non sapeva di cosa stava parlando,

perché di tutti i tecnici che erano seduti al tavolo uno solo capiva di LEED e nessuno capiva di FSC.

L’ultimo era proprio l’architetto che non capiva niente di quello che aveva scritto nel capitolato

perché aveva fatto copia-incolla. Quindi davanti a questa diciamo ignoranza che è diffusa è

difficile anche far capire al cliente di cosa si tratta, piano piano ci arriva. Tu glielo spieghi ma

davanti a certi comportamenti ti limiti a fare quelli. In particolare, cito sempre FSC perché lo

274

conosco bene, mi è capitato di fare delle commesse a clienti che non sapevano neanche di averlo

chiesto né di averlo ricevuto. Per cui loro hanno in mano la ricevuta con la dicitura perfetta ed è

stato fatto esclusivamente per provare la filiera dell’azienda, cioè se ci trovassimo a fare una

filiera FSC per bene, vediamo se funziona. Quindi redigere tutti i documenti, gestire i fornitori, i

terzisti, chi includiamo, chi escludiamo ecc.. e quindi diciamo che è stata una cosa più per noi che

per il cliente. Una delle commesse che abbiamo fatto è stato Ferragamo che ha fatto una serie

certificata LEED a Firenze dove abbiamo fornito noi X i prodotti della Citterio che è una nostra

consociata e non la Citterio direttamente al cliente è passata da noi. Quindi è come se noi

avessimo fatto un mobile a disegno per la Citterio fornito alla Ferragamo e pareti nostre invece.

Normalmente lavoriamo con prodotti loro perché sono più economici e il cliente quando vuole

qualcosa di più economico di parallelo al nostro mercato con finiture diverse o con forme diverse

va dalla Citterio. Per poter fare la commessa FSC nei tempi, nei costi ecc.. abbiamo venduto

fattura X, FSC perché noi abbiamo la catena di custodia e loro no. Ma loro sono nostri terzisti

all’interno della nostra filiera, perché noi li utilizziamo per fare commesse, per cui gli diamo

materiale nostro, loro lo lavorano e ce lo restituiscono. Ed è stato proprio un caso come quello in

cui il prodotto era disegno loro e per essere certificato è passato attraverso di noi, ed è stato

verificato dall’ente di certificazione, anzi l’ho fatto vedere “guarda questa qua è la commessa che

abbiamo fatto quest’anno” in genere facciamo una commessa l’anno. Siamo certificati dal 2008 e

ne facciamo 1 / 2 l’anno di FSC vere e proprie, perché non vendendo lo stendi panni della

FoppaPedretti che ne fai migliaia e le vendi in tutto il mercato italiano con il logo sopra, noi

dobbiamo fare commessa per commessa una filiera specifica, quindi diciamo che il cliente vuole

FSC, ma non sa di cosa sta parlando, vuole GREENGUARD ma non sa di cosa sta parlando, quindi

noi abbiamo cominciato ad affrontare l’argomento con clienti che sapevano di cosa stavano

parlando per poi riversarlo su altri. Cerchiamo di sensibilizzare i clienti ma anche i fornitori, i nostri

fornitori che non sanno neanche di che si tratta, che si ritrovano nella catena di custodia e quindi

firmano con noi un contratto, gli facciamo vedere la filiera, si ritrovano loro stessi poi a certificarsi

perché hanno scoperto di cosa si tratta.

A: Ora invece le chiederei sempre in merito alla sostenibilità ambientale e sociale, che sono fattori

competitivi abbastanza importanti per l’azienda, se dovesse metterli a paragone con altri fattori

competitivi come: avere un prezzo basso, una qualità alta, un’ampia gamma di prodotti, una

velocità di consegna alta, come li considererebbe? Più importante, ugualmente importante, meno

importanti?

B: Allora, tempi di consegna è molto specifico dell’arredo per la casa però fino a un certo punto,

cioè sì diciamo così il cliente la prima cosa che va a vedere, quando uno fa una commessa per

mobili per ufficio, c’è la capacitò di adattare il prodotto alle sue specifiche, però quando fa quello

va a guardare l’aspetto ambientale, quindi io metterei: prima ambientale, poi ci va il prezzo, poi

dopo ci va i tempi di consegna. Quindi: ambiente, prezzo e tempi di consegna. La sociale la

possiamo pure mettere in fondo, perché se lo aspettano.

A: Ok è un requisito di base quindi?

B: Sì di base, però quello che fa la differenza è la sostenibilità ambientale, soprattutto

ultimamente riferendomi all’Italia, ma anche all’estero, perché questo schema LEED negli Stati

275

Uniti si chiama BREAM, in Australia si chiama GREEENSTAR, a Dubai si chiama LEED come in

America, nel 2008 è nata la LEED Italiana diciamo cioè l’ente che fa la LEED si chiama US GREEN

BUILDING COUNCIL oppure CANADA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL, in Italia si chiama ITALIA GREEN

BUILDING COUNCIL ed è uscita nel 2008 ed era il distretto tecnologico del Trentino che ha deciso

di adottare uno schema di certificazione americano per le sue case prefabbricate e ha cominciato

a diffondere la LEED in Italia e così pian piano si è diffusa. Siccome non gli hanno dato la possibilità

di fare una cosa regionale, hanno detto “no se volete fare una green building council dovete

essere italiane non potete essere regionali” perché si muove a livello di Stato, quindi sono stati

loro i primi a farlo, e noi abbiamo partecipato alla traduzione del librone americano nella versione

italiana, quindi diciamo che per la parte che riguarda i mobili, AssoUfficio ha partecipato alla

stesura di questo librone e noi sotto come X, come membri di una commissione tecnica. Quindi

l’ambiente, io l’ho messo fra i primi, in realtà sta fra i requisiti del prodotto, quindi la prima cosa

che ci viene chiesta soprattutto per noi è la possibilità di adattare il prodotto, la flessibilità del

design del prodotto, non tanto della filiera, ma anche della filiera di conseguenza.

A: E invece la qualità del prodotto dove la collocherebbe?

B: La qualità del prodotto sta là, cioè nel momento in cui il tranciato è di Rovere rigato è là, tutta

la qualità è nel materiale e nel rispetto dell’ambiente. Quindi diciamo è insita negli aspetti

ambientali, che rispettino o no l’ambiente eh, perché possiamo anche arrivare al nodo del

discorso: l’alluminio è un energivoro pauroso, ma veramente pauroso, se l’alluminio è molto

riciclato si risparmia tantissima energia. Un po’ come il vetro che per fare un kg di vetro da 0 ci

vuole 100, da riciclato ci vuole 20. Perché molto della filiera sta nella produzione della materia

prima. Lo stesso vale per l’alluminio, l’alluminio per essere ottenuto c’è l’elettrolisi nei bagni di

criolite liquida. Quindi praticamente si prende un metallo, si porta a fusione, all’interno di questo

metallo fuso c’è la migrazione della bauxite.. dell’alluminio dalla bauxite. Per fare quello bisogna

sciogliere un metallo quindi c’è la fusione con l’energia elettrica. Ed è diciamo la parte più

spaventosa del carbon footprint del prodotto, la parte del carbon è la parte in assoluto più

preponderante della nostra filiera. Cioè se andiamo a vedere la produzione dell’alluminio è quasi

l’80% dell’impatto nostro, cioè di tutti i materiali che noi usiamo l’alluminio è l’80%, nella fase

upstream che arriva da noi, quindi la preparazione della billetta che deve essere estrusa. Per cui è

inutile stare lì a guardare tanti aspetti quando sai che quello e l’alluminio ce lo chiede il cliente.

Noi compriamo dell’alluminio molto buono perché dobbiamo fare la finitura brillantata come i

nostri concorrenti. Per cui che succede? Che tagliamo quell’alluminio e lo riportiamo a fondere, ed

è alluminio molto buono, per cui diventa riciclato anche l’alluminio molto buono perché abbiamo

dello scarto di alta qualità. Per cui riusciamo a ri-alimentare la nostra filiera, perché noi abbiamo

un contatto diretto col nostro fornitore e in quel modo cerchiamo di abbattere il materiale. Già

ridurre la quantità del materiale dentro il prodotto è fondamentale e abbiamo cominciato a fare

tutta una serie di ottimizzazioni, primo perché ci risparmiamo anche noi dal punto di vista della

quantità del materiale e poi perché c’è una riduzione del peso del prodotto che significa riduzione

della quantità di materiale, riduzione dell’impatto. Però se non sai dove agire e guardi gli

indicatori sbagliati non sai dove andare ad intervenire, io so che il carbon footprint, quando

riesco, utilizzo del materiale molto riciclato perché so che risparmio molto come impatto

ambientale. E parallelamente risparmio anche sul prodotto, quindi diciamo che l’ambiente

diventa sempre il punto di riferimento perché, almeno negli ultimi 10 / 15 anni, è cominciato a

276

diventare sempre più importante per i danni che abbiamo fatto, quindi il motivo vero è che tutti

quanti a parole si preoccupano di quello, però il cliente non si rende conto che quando mi chiede

qualcosa in alluminio brillantato che in realtà mi sta chiedendo di inquinare più di quanto potrei.

Quindi l’unica cosa che puoi fare è dirglielo, poi lui può risponderti che non gli interessa. E quindi

glielo fai lo stesso, riducendo la quantità siamo riusciti già ad abbattere più del 75%

dell’inquinamento semplificando il profilo. E parliamo di questi profili che vanno nelle pareti

divisorie dove ci sono tantissime pareti divisorie per 25 tonnellate di alluminio, fa una bella

differenza. Anche se poi è un prodotto che rimane lì per 25 anni.

A: Ok, ora facendo riferimento al questionario che le ho portato, io le ho evidenziato i drivers e le

pratiche a cui lei ha assegnato un valore rilevante, alto. Per i drivers sono: conformità a

disposizioni e norme, immagino che questo sia il motivo più lampante nel senso che altrimenti

sareste incorsi in multe e sanzioni, sbaglio?

B: Allora ho assegnato un valore alto “moltissimo” perché era difficile gestire tutte le prescrizioni

legali, ci sono prescrizioni sull’emissione in atmosfera, prescrizioni sull’inquinamento dell’acqua

piuttosto che del suolo ecc.. siccome dovevamo rispettarle e non sapevamo con uno stabilimento

degli anni ’80 quanto fossimo conformi, abbiamo messo in piedi il sistema della ISO 14000 per

tenerle sotto controllo, specialmente quando sono cominciate a scadere le nostre certificazioni

ambientali, per cui analisi ogni anno, abbiamo l’ente terzo che viene da noi a fare l’audit,

potevamo scegliere fra EMAS e ISO 14000, abbiamo scelto la 14000 solo perché lavoriamo a livello

internazionale, siccome l’EMAS è europea e in America non sanno neanche che cos’è, 14000 era

molto più chiaro e possiamo evitare di fare delle dichiarazioni pubbliche, però diciamo avendo

uno scarso impatto non è necessario stare lì a pubblicizzare quanto sei ecologico perché, fossi un

produttore di energia che usa il carbone probabilmente avrei più motivazioni, ISO 14000 è più che

sufficiente e quindi “moltissimo” perché il primo motivo per cui abbiamo cominciato a rispettare,a

seguire uno schema, ad implementare un sistema di gestione ambientale era per la conformità

dello stabilimento, il secondo motivo era perché il cliente ci chiedeva “ce l’hai la ISO 14000?”.

Mentre prima ce lo chiedeva ma erano più importanti la ISO 9000 piuttosto che altre

certificazioni, adesso la ISO 14000 è diventata più importante. Quindi diciamo che sono più o

meno alla pari ma il motivo principale era lo stabilimento. Perché anni 80 è vecchio ed ha tutta

una serie di problemi che devono essere superati tipo la prevenzione incendi, piuttosto che la

quantità di materiali vernicianti che usi ec..

A: Invece spostandoci sulle pratiche, ho notato che le pratiche di Green Design sono quelle che lei

ha ritenuto le più rilevanti assegnando dei valori molto alti, mi spiega perché ha ritenuto queste le

pratiche più importanti e com’è cambiata la situazione da quando avete cominciato ad adottarle?

B: Allora, in AssoUfficio per esempio adesso stiamo affrontato l’LCA. Noi l’abbiamo fatta già da

qualche anno, ma ci sono delle aziende italiane che l’hanno fatta ancora prima l’LCA e io mi

ricordo un LCA del 2003 / 2004 quando erano metodi e metodologie che non si conoscevano

ancora. Il fatto è che adesso sta diventando sempre più conosciuto, quindi diciamo che l’aspetto

dell’ambiente diventa più famoso, quindi noi ovviamente ci avevamo già puntato prima, ma ormai

devi pubblicizzarlo quello che fai. Anche se sono convinto che molti dei nostri clienti non sanno

neanche di cosa si tratta. Per cui per diffondere la cultura devi cominciare a farlo sentire. Tutti

277

questi qua (pratiche di green design) sono un solo significato no? Disassembly, Maintainability,

Disposability, Lightweight design, quando andiamo a vedere le nostre vecchie documentazioni

queste cose c’erano già tutte. Erano scritte in maniera meno corretta dal punto di vista formale,

per esempio mi ricordo le prime politiche dell’ambiente che abbiamo scritto non avevano niente a

che fare con la ISO 14000 perché non sapevamo neanche che cosa fosse, quando un nostro

cliente ci ha chiesto: “ma voi ce l’avete una politica per l’ambiente?” e noi gliel’abbiamo fatta

vedere, quello si è messo a ridere, perché non era conforme alla 14000. Era una politica che

diceva “noi ricicliamo, noi bruciamo il legno per fare energia”, non mi ricordo cosa avevamo

scritto. Il cliente si chiamava Microsoft. E aveva una roba tipo 14000 scritto sopra, accidenti questi

sono anche abbastanza ferrati in materia, e fai anche una figuraccia quando hai davanti uno che è

certificato ISO 14000, il responsabile della certificazione che ti fa l’audit e tu non sai neanche di

cosa sta parlando. Quindi man mano che ci siamo trovati in quelle situazioni abbiamo risolto il

problema con un cliente grosso per poi spargerlo anche ai clienti più piccoli. In genere quello che

succede è che loro ci chiedono una cosa che non abbiamo mai sentito prima e lo scopriamo dopo.

Quindi tutte queste cose sono saltate fuori perché le abbiamo affrontate man mano, diciamo che

il cliente è il primo che te lo propone come problema. Quindi il progettista di grido, affronta per

primo il tema, la LEED, e poi diventa know-how aziendale prima di altri perché hai la fortuna di

avere a che fare con un cliente super esigente e quindi diciamo che è lui che comanda. Poi c’è un

minimo di preparazione nostra per capire quali saranno le tendenze, ma è il cliente che ci arriva

prima di noi. Diciamo che possiamo ridurre tutto a quello. A parte “riuso e riciclo per il recupero di

materiale” che ho messo 4 e non 5 ma non è che ho messo 0. Quindi giusto per.. Disassembly:

tutti i prodotti nostri sono fatti per essere montati e smontati, e devono essere montati e

smontati facilmente senza distruggere niente. Magari qualche volta ci scappa che non ci riusciamo

ma è un caso perché ci fanno fare su misura qualcosa. Durability: abbiamo dei prodotti che sono

in piedi da più di 25 / 30 anni per cui diciamo che durano. Anche perché il design è molto puro

per cui c’è roba vecchissima che è ancora in giro che, quando la dismettono, se la portano a casa i

dipendenti perché gli piace. Io ho anche il mio tavolo della mia cucina è un tavolo per ufficio ce

l’ho da 18 anni ed è resistentissimo. Lo stesso vale per la manutenzione. La possibilità di smaltirli,

facciamo tutti i prodotti smontabili appunto per facilitare lo smaltimento, l’alluminio lo puoi

riciclare tutto, il ferro lo puoi riciclare tutto, anche il truciolare. Lighweight dipende perché in

qualche caso sono molto leggeri, abbiamo il tavolo “Less Less” che è leggerissimo, quello di ferro

invece è pesantissimo però se si intende con poco materiale se si va a vedere il ferro che rimane

quando si va a distruggere un coso di quelli sono veramente poco i materiali che ci vanno dentro,

però non sempre, in qualche caso il cliente vuole le cose massicce. Impatto ambientale vabè ci si

prova e poi LCA ce l’abbiamo anzi ce ne abbiamo certificati anche più di uno.

A: Poi.. produzione: io le ho sempre evidenziato le pratiche che lei ha ritenuto le più rilevanti:

adozione di ISO 14001 me ne ha già abbondantemente parlato, mi dice due parole in più

sull’utilizzo del sistema di gestione dei rifiuti? In che modo si è evoluta la situazione da quando

avete adottato questo sistema?

B: Allora siamo passati da vernici a solventi a vernici ad acqua quindi abbiamo abbattuto

drasticamente sia l’uso di prodotti vernicianti quindi emissioni diffuse, che emissioni camini. Per

cui mentre prima avevamo picchi spaventosi perché usavamo tutto solvente e certi giorni

mettevano nel forno, noi abbiamo i forni ad essicazione dove vanno i prodotti, se nel forno ci

278

metti 100 tavoli esce l’evaporazione di 100 tavoli dal camino. Adesso che abbiamo l’acqua, di

solvente non ce n’è più. Le latte di vernice che stanno fuori nella casa matta per motivi di

sicurezza che non potevano stare all’interno dello stabilimento, adesso sono all’interno dello

stabilimento. Perché non sono infiammabili, non sono nocivi, non hanno emissioni. Ogni tanto

capita che dobbiamo usare il solvente, usiamo il solvente per una commessa per dire, per cui c’è

in giro del prodotto verniciante a solvente, i miei operai non sono più abituati ad usare il solvente

perché puzza, e se ne accorgono subito! Prima avevamo uno stabilimento con le cabine di

verniciatura molto aperte. Adesso abbiamo tutte cabine chiuse con un’aspirazione molto più

efficiente, per cui va tutto nei camini. I camini sono controllati periodicamente ci sono dei filtri

che quando si intasano devono essere cambiati perché si blocca l’aspirazione, e non funziona più

lo spray dentro la cabina. Per cui tutta la parte di vernice che è quella che ha le emissioni ha tutta

una serie di controlli, le colle che sono un’altra cosa che emettono solvente: abbiamo una sola

linea di placcatura dove ci sta la colla e tutta quanta vinilica. Quindi colla senza solvente

praticamente. Che all’inizio c’erano due prodotti collanti, c’era questa pressa che, puntualmente

siccome cambiavi prodotto, dovevi lavarla e dovevi cambiare colla quindi passava un sacco di

tempo. Alla fine siamo riusciti a trovare la colla che va bene su tutti i prodotti usiamo quella e ci

siamo levati di torno anche le emissioni delle colle. La gestione dei rifiuti invece, abbiamo ridotto

l’uso delle colle e delle vernici a solvente ed abbiamo cambiato il processo per cui abbiamo meno

scarti di vernice. Cioè il prodotto viene catalizzato in macchina invece che.. di solito si prende la

tolla di vernice, si mette dentro il catalizzatore, la versi nella macchina e poi la macchina lavora, ti

avanza la vernice? Scarto! Perché ormai è catalizzata e non si può più usare. Quando invece viene

fatta in pistola cioè: prendi il catalizzatore, prendi il solvente, la mescoli prima di arrivare dentro la

pistola viene spruzzata, quando chiudi il rubinetto, tappi le vernici sei a posto. Quindi abbiamo già

abbattuto radicalmente cambiando i tipi di strumenti quando abbiamo cambiato anche le cabine.

Per cui abbiamo ridotto: gli scarti di vernice che erano la cosa più impattante, poi abbiamo gli

scarti in legno che vengono riciclati sia dal Gruppo Saviola che da altri fornitori che li riutilizzano

come polverino ecc.. poi abbiamo carta, cartone, imballi generici che sono.. il cartone viene

compattato e riciclato, imballi generici sono rifiuti normale. Poi abbiamo l’alluminio che viene

tutto tutto completamente riciclato. Il vetro che non è filiera nostra per cui lo diamo al nostro

fornitore che lo smaltisce lui, lui ha gli scarti nostri perché è lui che lo taglia per noi e ci fa arrivare

le lastre intere. Se se ne spacca uno, reso e poi lui lo fa diventare rifiuto, lo taglia, lo usa per altre

cose. Non ci sono impatti così.. altri rifiuti non ne abbiamo.

A: Ok perfetto, materiali ecosostenibili? Per esempio?

B: Allora, truciolare. Alluminio non so se è ecosostenibile, non è ecosostenibile. È riciclabile però è

energivoro quindi non me la sento di dire che è ecosostenibile. Il ferro. Le vernici sono a base

d’acqua quindi non hanno più il solvente che c’era prima, che è una delle cose più impattanti.

A: Pratiche di prevenzione dell’inquinamento? Qualche esempio anche qua?

B: Beh più o meno li ho già detti tutti: utilizzo di vernici senza solventi, piuttosto che la colla,

truciolare riciclato al 100% ecc.. per prevenire l’inquinamento.. le vernici sono sostanzialmente la

cosa importante.

279

A: O anche per esempio cercare di ridurre al minimo l’impiego di materia prima per la

realizzazione del prodotto.

B: Beh la riduzione degli sfridi. Quello lo si fa principalmente per motivi economici. Diciamo che è

viziato anche da quello. Noi lavorando per commessa compriamo il materiale per commessa, poi

ci avanza sempre però comunque possiamo indirizzare verso quel tipo di calcolo. Molto spesso più

riesci ad essere preciso più risparmi sul materiale. Lo dico perché ho visto i numeri eh, rispetto ad

altre aziende riusciamo ad essere abbastanza controllati ecco.

A: Per quanto riguarda i fornitori invece. Lei ha indicato che fate sia valutazioni che

autovalutazioni dei fornitori, quali sono i parametri che valutate in queste valutazioni?

B: Allora per lavorazioni come la nitizzazione e la brillantatura o la verniciatura, l’ambiente è la

prima cosa. Se è certificato vai già più sul tranquillo. Se non è certificato vai a vedere come

gestisce le cose. Perché ci sono rifiuti, emissioni che potrebbero essere pericolosi quindi vediamo

quello. Poi degli altri fornitori dipende da cosa fanno, cioè se fanno lavorazioni, se gestiscono

bene lo sfrido. Quindi diciamo che comunque per tutti i fornitori ci sta la valutazione con dei

parametri che sono stati decisi all’inizio. Abbiamo 5000 fornitori di cui i primi 50 sono quelli che

fanno la maggior parte del fatturato, quindi quelli occasionali sono tutti gli altri.

A: Io ho letto nel vostro codice etico: “La X intrattiene rapporti solo con aziende in linea con

prescrizioni ambientali e nel rispetto della legislazione vigente”. La mia domanda è: perché non ha

voluto dare un valore più alto a queste tre pratiche (Scelta di fornitori che rispettano le normative

in materia di sostenibilità e possiedono certificazioni ambientali e sociali, scelta di fornitori che si

dimostrano positivi e proattivi nei confronti dello sviluppo sostenibile, scelta di fornitori che

presentano una solida reputazione ambientale) che rappresentano la responsabilità ambientale

del fornitore.

B: è una questione di dimensione. Cioè se il nostro fornitore fosse più grande di noi, potremmo

aspettarci che hanno la certificazione, sistema di gestione ambientale ecc.. quando sono piccoli,

siccome sono piccoli non hanno certificazioni e quindi non te l’aspetti neanche quindi vai là e

verifichi. Quando parlavo dei 50 fornitori principali, parlo di che ne so: 10 che fanno soltanto la

lavorazione dove nessuno di loro è particolarmente grande. La carpenteria metallica per esempio

è un fornitore abbastanza grande, ha la ISO 9000, la ISO 14000, perché deve gestire già il suo

stabilimento quindi ne ha la necessità, dipende sempre dalla dimensione.

A: Ok. Collaborazione con i fornitori: comunicazione e collaborazione con i fornitori, anche in

questo caso lei ha detto che i fornitori sono piccoli e quindi spesso siete voi che spingete per una

responsabilità ambientale e sociale del fornitore. Avete qualche programma particolare, qualche

iniziativa per informare il fornitore o per collaborare con loro?

B: Siccome i loro processi sono condizionati da noi, adesso parlo sempre dell’alluminio, possiamo

anche parlare del legno, però in genere l’alluminio siamo noi che gli diciamo cosa devono fare.

Insieme a loro compriamo l’alluminio come quantità, ma pianifichiamo noi il taglio, cioè diciamo

la barra invece che prenderla da 6mt la prendiamo da 5,5mt per dire. Perché così riduciamo lo

sfrido e lo sfrido lo mandiamo noi a recuperare da loro e va a finire dal fornitore. Loro lavorano

280

perché noi abbiamo lavoro. Ci sono fornitori che non fanno nient’altro che stare dietro a noi. Se

loro fanno quel prodotto e noi abbiamo bisogno di un altro prodotto da assemblare per esempio,

facciamo in modo che lui abbia il carico di lavoro per tutto l’anno con tutti i prodotti che noi

dobbiamo fare, li facciamo fare a lui così lo manteniamo carico. Altri fornitori che non hanno

bisogno di noi per rimanere in piedi, loro hanno i loro lavori e noi li lasciamo perdere. Però quelli

principali sono quelli con cui siamo partner. Cioè non potendoci permettere uno stabilimento

infinito, abbiamo questi capannoni in giro che sono stati comprati dalla holding dove ci sono

dentro i fornitori nostri, che in realtà sono in qualche caso dei dipendenti nostri che sono andati a

lavorare fuori hanno creato una loro azienda. Per esempio ce ne sono tanti di nostri ex dipendenti

che hanno una loro azienda che fanno il lavoro che facevano qua dentro: chi vernicia, chi

assembla, fuori e va magari in giro ad assemblare prodotti. Quindi c’è un rapporto sempre molto

diretto, anzi ci stanno molto attenti al patrimonio di conoscenza che hanno perché poi la Brianza è

tutta un po’ così, con vari fornitori che servono sia noi sia altre aziende, per esempio il legno, il

fornitore di truciolare serve tutti. I truciolare sono quelli e tu vai dal fornitore, per cui bene o male

c’è un rapporto molto stretto fra i fornitore, i terzisti e noi. E si spartiscono un po’ la fetta. Noi

abbiamo i nostri, la Molteni ha i suoi, messi insieme c’è una collaborazione strettissima, perché

poi loro si incontrano in paese, si vedono, si conoscono anche fra grossi. Quando vai in

FederLegno Assoarredo si incontrano, le commissioni si parlano tra di loro, quando ci sono le

commesse ne discutono anche fra di loro quindi è un settore dove è quasi naturale che accada.

Non c’è bisogno di andare all’estero o di avere una filiera più complessa. Ed è anche un limite

questo a volte.

A: Invece passando ai clienti, anche qui: collaborate e comunicate con i clienti. Il cliente vi richiede

il prodotto sostenibile, ma c’è anche un input da parte vostra nei loro confronti?

B: Sì, diciamo che normalmente il progettista quando sta facendo la fase di sviluppo del prodotto

ci richiedere della campionature quindi noi facciamo degli uffici di campione che vengono montati

negli uffici con gli altri concorrenti e poi diamo noi delle indicazioni per quella fase lì. Per cui loro ti

dicono “io voglio un tavolo con una gamba così”, e tu gli dici “ok io te lo porto però te lo faccio

così” e proponi le tue soluzioni, cioè l’uso tranciato di un tipo, la finitura della gamba in un altro, e

quindi do le mie proposte alla sua domanda che può essere molto dettagliata oppure può essere

vaga. Nel momento in cui io propongo il prodotto più prestante diciamo dal punto di vista

dell’ambiente, ho la possibilità di dare l’input al cliente ed è la fase ancora indefinita di gara. Una

volta poi presa la commessa, devi realizzare il prodotto finito quindi hai la parte più operativa e si

basa sul lavoro che hai fatto prima. Diciamo che la parte in cui influenziamo di più il cliente è

quando interpretiamo la sua richiesta. Adesso mi viene in mente San Paolo perché è stato

pesante, l’ho visto, là c’erano delle prestazioni di materiale ignifugo e quindi c’erano di mezzo non

solo FSC e basso emissivo, ma c’era anche la prestazione al fuoco che era molto importante per

loro per la complessità dell’arredo per cui con quella hanno inficiato tutta una serie di scelte no?

Per esempio l’ignifugo è a solvente per cui la vernice a base d’acqua non la puoi utilizzare e

abbiamo usato per un anno la vernice a solvente con problemi di emissioni, di limiti ecc.. ma

dovuti ad un’esigenza del cliente. Siccome la reazione al fuoco è una cosa che neanche i clienti

conoscono bene, perché interpretano un requisito dell’edificio di un materiale edile come se fosse

anche requisito del mobile quando in realtà non è così, in quel caso lo era ma in genere non è

così. Per cui ti chiedono materiali ignifughi quando non gli servono con aggravio di costi,

281

peggioramento delle prestazioni ambientali, il truciolare è pieno di schifezze che non conosco

bene perché ci sono dei Sali dentro il truciolare per renderlo scarsamente infiammabile,

difficilmente infiammabile, quindi in realtà chiedono delle prestazioni che non gli servono.

A: Ora andrei sulla Logistica Sostenibile, se mi vuole dire qualcosa riguardo le pratiche che le ho

evidenziato nel questionario.

B: Sì allora packaging sostenibile ho messo 5. Siccome lavoriamo per commessa molto spesso ci

chiedono di portare.. noi facciamo anche l’installazione in qualche caso per cui se dobbiamo

spedire dei prodotti su dal cliente li spediamo sul bancale, col cellophan intorno quindi arrivano

sul cantiere senza imballo. Arrivano direttamente sul bancale, magari c’è il bancale del primo

piano, il bancale del secondo piano, alla fine c’è una pedana di legno riutilizzabile con i prodotti

sopra senza nessun cartone. Dipende un po’ dalla logistica che c’è. Se vendi un tavolo singolo gli

dai il cartone, il polistirolo, il polietilene e tutto quello che ci va intorno, se invece vendi per

commessa gli dai il minor imballo possibile anche per non avere scarti sul cantiere. In genere

quando sono cose che possiamo riciclare cioè il bancale di legno o anche il cartone del tavolo,

vengono portati sul cantiere sballati e vengono riportati indietro gli imballi e vengono riutilizzati,

specialmente quelli dei tavoli.

A: Quindi c’è il recupero totale dell’imballo?

B: Dipende un po’ dalla commessa, ma molto spesso è il cliente che ci dice “mi dovete mandare:

diviso per piano, diviso per prodotto, con il palmbox con tutti i pezzi dentro” quindi l’imballo lo

facciamo in funzione della richiesta del cliente e quindi già in quella fase risparmi sull’imballo,

risparmi sui rifiuti specialmente in cantiere e sono cose abbastanza comode. Chi lavora invece per

prodotto nel catalogo col magazzino, c’è il prodotto imballato lo prendi e lo devi portare, quindi

c’è una gestione diversa. E quando arrivi dal cliente lì c’è tutto da smaltire. Diventa un po’ più

complicato seguire questo tipo di logica.

A: Sempre sul packaging, lei ha indicato “pallet e packaging riciclabili e ottimizzazione della

dimensione” sono pratiche che vengono sempre fatte o su specifica richiesta del cliente?

B: Sì allora il bancale qualche volta siamo costretti a fare degli imballi specifici. Per esempio

abbiamo delle ceste metalliche, abbiamo dei cavalletti di ferro dove noi mettiamo sopra i vetri

che vengono portati sul cantiere, riportati indietro, riempiti di nuovo e vanno di nuovo sul

cantiere. Quindi riutilizzi sempre lo stesso cavalletto che va su e giù. Di ferro che non è un imballo

quello però è un supporto alla movimentazione. Per i materiale utilizziamo il polietilene ad alta

densità per la protezione della superficie, poi c’è il cartone che è riciclabile e il legno. Gli imballi di

legno in qualche caso ce li facciamo noi perché sono su misura e quindi usiamo il truciolare

scartato e cose che abbiamo a disposizione. In genere l’imballo è poco rilevante per noi.

A: L’ultima parte riguarda le performance. Io le ho segnalato quelle che lei ha indicato essere

migliorare nell’ultimo anno. Vorrei sapere se possibile quali sono i KPIs che utilizzate per misurare

queste performance, come sono variati questi KPIs nell’ultimo anno, e come ultima domanda

vorrei sapere se secondo il suo parere l’adozione di tutto le pratiche di cui abbiamo parlato

precedentemente ha contribuito al miglioramento di queste performance?

282

B: Allora soddisfazione dei dipendenti, già la storia dei solventi che ho citato prima è più che

significativa! Per loro che lavorano a contatto tutto il giorno è stato abbastanza importante. Poi

magari nella vernice ci sarà qualche altra cosa che non ha odore ma farà malissimo non lo so. Però

sicuramente passare dal solvente con l’odore che ha a quelle all’acqua è stata una cosa che li ha

sorpresi perché neanche loro se l’aspettavano, perché prima loro lavoravano esclusivamente a

solvente. Anche perché le vernici non erano ancora pronte, noi ad utilizzarle e loro a produrle,

soprattutto per il legno che è molto critico con l’acqua.

A: E come lo misurate il grado di soddisfazione dei dipendenti?

B: Allora abbiamo degli indicatori nel nostro sistema qualità che sono più o meno aleatori nel

senso che non è facile avere dei dati attendibili sempre. La soddisfazione dei dipendenti l’ha fatta

la sicurezza soprattutto, negli uffici con la postura ergonomica, quindi le sedie, il tavolo, la luce, il

condizionamento ambientale. Per esempio l’anno scorso è stato totalmente pulito tutto

l’impianto di condizionamento, hanno sanificato il condizionamento, hanno reso più efficienti tutti

gli scambiatori, hanno aggiornato i termostati per cui siamo stati in grado di gestire il

condizionamento in maniera più efficiente. Per cui non avevamo più 38 gradi d’estate e già questo

ha cambiato radicalmente l’utilizzo del condizionatore, poi abbiamo messo un impianto

fotovoltaico che sta sul tetto che alimenta il climatizzatore che ciuccia da morire ad agosto, così

abbiamo abbattuto parecchio quei costi che diciamo sono quelli che incidono di più d’estate. Poi

l’azienda siccome hanno fatto l’Expo hanno aumentato le corsie in autostrada, ci hanno

espropriato una parte della nostra sede aziendale per allargare la strada e noi abbiamo dato

un’altra parte del sedime per fargli fare una pista ciclabile. Quindi qua sotto c’è un ponte proprio

qua sotto l’autostrada dove tutto il paese che sta dall’altra parte dell’autostrada deve passare per

venire qua da noi. Per cui invece che passare sotto, noi abbiamo dato la possibilità di far passare

un tunnel, per cui loro si sono accollati il costo di costruire il tunnel, e noi gli abbiamo regalato il

terreno. Per cui c’è la lettera del comune che ci ringraziava, praticamente i dipendenti adesso

vengono in bicicletta perché è diventato sicuro attraversare, ci sono ancora incongruenze però, ci

sono persone che abitano dall’altra parte e venivano in macchina mentre adesso vengono a piedi.

Quindi in quell’occasione con la sicurezza perché hanno fatto un vero e proprio questionario

“cosa vorresti, cosa non vorresti, sei contento della tua sedia”, con il reparto invece c’erano le

polveri e i solventi. Ed è stata fatta la rilevazione con macchine di controllo delle polveri. Ci sono

sia questionari per i dipendenti e poi con le macchine hanno verificato l’effettiva riduzione delle

polveri di aspirazione. Per cui alcune macchine che erano lontane dall’aspirazione sono state

avvicinate all’aspirazione per migliorare l’efficienza, sono state aggiunte altre in reparto. Questa

cosa non viene fatta tutti gli anni, è stata fatta in un periodo specifico, quando abbiamo cambiato

le cabine di verniciatura, prima e dopo averle cambiate, prima e dopo l’aspirazione delle polveri e

prima e dopo la sanificazione tutte queste cose. Parliamo di 4 anni circa di valutazione come

periodo e quindi hanno verificato l’efficacia delle azioni correttive che abbiamo fatto. Deriva dalla

14000 infatti sono tutti piani di miglioramento della 14000, quelle della pista, delle aspirazioni,

dei condizionatori. Sono tutte schedate, c’è la validazione economica, ambientale, qualità ecc.. e

quindi dentro c’era la valutazione di efficacia e riesame della direzione.

A: Comunità locali, si intendono quelle circostanti all’azienda. Lei ha indicato che il loro grado di

soddisfazione è aumentato

283

B: Allora praticamente con le comunità locali abbiamo sempre avuto un rapporto diretto perché

siamo stati fra le prime aziende che sono venute qua nella zona industriale, Turate non ce l’aveva

così sviluppata come adesso. La pista ciclabile che ho già citato serve tutti e non è dovuto soltanto

al terreno che abbiamo donato noi perché il lavoro grosso l’ha fatto l’autostrada però se non

c’eravamo noi a donare il terreno la vedevo dura. Poi non emettiamo rumore perché poi c’è

l’autostrada vicino che fa più rumore di noi, non facciamo odori perché ci sono stabilimenti qua

vicini che fanno di molto peggio. Quindi diciamo che non è tanto dal punto di vista ambientale che

abbiamo migliorato le nostre prestazioni, ma dal punto di vista sociale perché regaliamo tavoli

all’oratorio, al paese, ai carabinieri regaliamo i tavoli. E poi c’è questa storia del sottopasso che

soddisfa tantissime persone, me incluso.

A: Costi di trasporto che sono diminuiti?

B: Sì abbiamo aggiornato i mezzi sostanzialmente, per questo sono calati. Abbiamo eliminato i

mezzi più vecchi, abbiamo ottimizzato con i fornitori coordinando “vai tu a prendere e me li porti

tu” che era la cosa che funzionava meglio e quindi abbiamo abbattuto molto in questo modo.

A: Ok il questionario è finito. Volevo come ultima cosa sapere la sua opinione sulla correlazione

che esiste fra l’adozione di queste pratiche sostenibili e l’effettivo aumento delle performance

aziendali

B: Sì assolutamente. Diciamo che lo stabilimento nostro vecchio ha tutta questa serie di

problematiche da migliorare quindi mettere il pannello fotovoltaico sul tetto se non ci fosse stato

una ISO 14000 che ti chiede i piani di miglioramento non ti faresti neanche certi problemi, invece

essendoci il documento che fai, il riesame della direzione, uno stimolo a fare miglioramento

continuo banalmente “che facciamo quest’anno?” eh ci sarebbe da fare. Abbiamo cambiato le

caldaie, siamo passati da una grossa caldaia a tre caldaie: una piccola, una media e una grossa,

quando vai in estate che non hai bisogno della caldaia fai andare quella piccola che serve per

l’essiccatoio del reparto di verniciatura. Quando sei in inverno che devi far andare le presse,

l’essiccatoio e fa freddo e si disperde di più ne fai andare tre. Per cui abbatti drasticamente il

consumo estivo. Mentre prima andava quella grande e basta adesso va quella piccola che

consuma meno di un terzo di quella grande. Altra cosa da fare abbiamo 9000 lampade qua dietro

in reparto, da sostituire con i LED! Quanto costa sostituire con i LED? Ogni 6 mesi cambia la

tecnologia. Stiamo facendo il reparto poi c’è il reparto col tranciato per vedere il colore della

lastra quindi hai bisogno di una luce a 3000 K invece che 5000 K. In verniciatura invece è meglio

quella a 5000 K che è bianchissima. Ci sono varie esigenze, stanno valutando e costa uno

sproposito, perché poi cambiare 9000 lampade, però poi non stai lì a dire che si fulmina un LED e

devi cambiare tutta la stecca, adesso sono tutti neon che risparmiano comunque, però non tanto

il risparmio di energia quanto la campagna di sostituzione delle lampade. Cioè ci sono delle

persone che vanno avanti per 3 mesi a cambiare lampade tutti i giorni e quindi effettivamente è

un bel risparmio sia economico che di energia che di rispetto per l’ambiente. Se non ci fosse la

14000 probabilmente questi interrogativi non se li sarebbero fatti. Invece un po’ perché ci

interessa, un po’ perché lo pubblicizziamo diciamo che il miglioramento continuo dal punto di

vista ambientale funziona bene perché usiamo bene la ISO 14000, la ISO 9000 che è già un po’ più

organizzativa, hai più difficoltà a muoverla, rimane sempre un po’ in disparte. L’ambiente invece

284

puoi migliorare le performance e tantissime cose per cui siamo sempre là a cercare il modo di

risparmiare con la distribuzione dell’aria compressa, la distribuzione del calore, per cui diciamo

che siamo abbastanza sicuri che l’ambiente serve al cliente, serve a noi e lo facciamo sul serio.

A: Ok, perfetto abbiamo finito! La ringrazio moltissimo per il tempo che ha voluto dedicare

all’intervista e alla ricerca.

285

Appendix 2: Factor scores coefficients matrix

- Factors scores coefficient matric obtained as output from the factor analysis on practices

Company

ID

GD GM GP PPC SGM SGA GSC SRP GCM DDN SP GL

FOR12 -

0,23

0,31 0,54 0,49 -0,33 0,56 0,71 0,32 1,07 0,12 -0,09 2,02

PR46 1,63 1,63 -0,08 0,86 1,49 1,14 1,61 1 0,6 1,65 0,56 1,57

PR1 -

0,19

-1,01 0,25 -0,34 -0,84 -0,06 -0,47 -0,3 0,01 0,76 0,58 -0,75

PR2 0,01 -1,01 -0,41 0,17 -0,59 0,23 -1,08 -1,21 -1,05 -1,37 -1,26 -0,75

FOR1 -

1,87

-1,01 1,5 0,28 0,83 0,81 0,72 0,32 -0,46 -0,63 -2,17 -0,75

FOR2 -0,8 -0,67 -1,66 -1,53 -1,37 -1,85 -1,03 -1,21 -1,05 -1,7 -0,66 -0,75

PR3 0,23 -1,01 -0,31 -0,19 -0,73 -0,96 -0,46 -0,89 0,14 -1,05 -1,26 -0,75

PR4 -

0,08

-0,67 -0,42 -0,26 0,41 0,84 1,02 0,69 0,01 1,24 -0,04 1,31

PR5 -

1,87

-0,38 -1,33 -0,52 0,25 0,84 1,5 1,37 1,07 0,91 0,27 -0,75

PR6 0,69 -1,01 -1 -1,21 -1,2 0,27 -0,85 -0,6 -1,05 2,35 1,18 -0,3

FOR3 1,12 -1,01 0,54 0,03 -0,69 -1,24 -0,35 -0,89 -0,46 -1,7 -0,04 -0,75

PR7 -

0,13

-1,01 -1,33 -1,27 -0,78 -0,96 -1,44 -1,21 -1,05 0,44 -0,93 -0,3

PR8 1,07 1,28 -0,38 -0,16 0,24 0,84 0,72 0,64 0,2 -0,3 0,87 -0,75

FOR4 -

1,87

0,31 -1,34 -1,46 -1,05 -0,06 -1,08 -1,21 -1,05 -0,85 -1,59 -0,75

PR9 -

0,22

0,31 -0,42 -0,08 -0,08 -0,34 -0,28 -0,89 -0,63 0,45 0,87 0,6

FOR5 -

0,59

0,65 0,25 0,17 -0,08 -0,96 0,4 0,78 -0,46 -0,91 -0,97 0,86

FOR6 0,12 -0,35 -0,04 0,61 -0,64 -0,06 -0,47 -1,21 -0,42 0,12 0,87 -0,75

PR10 0,61 0,65 -1,04 -0,26 -0,5 0,24 -0,89 -1,21 -1,05 0,39 -1,54 -0,75

PR11 - -0,01 -0,66 1,29 -0,58 0,84 -0,52 -0,57 0,14 0,87 0,58 -0,75

286

0,81

PR12 2,2 0,26 -0,42 1 1,88 0,84 1 1,31 3,19 0,54 1,47 -0,3

PR13 1,03 1,63 1,84 -1,2 0,2 -0,64 0,1 0,34 -0,26 -0,4 1,47 -0,75

FOR7 -

1,87

-1,01 -0,48 -1,78 -1,1 -1,57 -1,26 -1,21 -1,05 -1,37 -1,02 -0,75

PR14 0,93 1,63 0,93 0,86 2,48 0,84 0,42 0,7 1,2 0,82 0,56 2,02

FOR8 -

0,45

-1,01 0,88 0,5 0,14 0,84 0,33 0,02 1,66 0,12 -0,04 0,41

FOR9 0,6 0,68 0,69 1,8 0,39 0,84 0,1 0,04 0,41 -1,05 1,15 -0,04

PR15 -

0,98

-1,01 1,18 0,31 -1,05 -1,24 -1,07 -1,21 -1,05 -0,31 0,24 0,6

PR16 -

1,87

-1,01 -0,42 -1,09 -1,19 -1,85 -1,44 -1,21 -1,05 -1,7 -1,88 -0,75

FOR10 0,12 -1,01 1,22 0,61 0,37 0,84 0,3 -0,28 -0,06 -0,3 0,85 -0,75

PR17 0,62 1,63 -1,32 1,44 0,26 0,26 0,9 0,62 0,2 0,82 0,56 0,15

PR19 1,89 1,63 1,21 1,37 1,61 0,84 1,59 1,3 1,47 0,82 1,18 2,29

PR18 0,56 1,63 1,51 0,93 0,04 0,56 0,5 0,32 0,73 -0,3 0,53 -0,04

PR20 2,04 0,26 0,24 0,93 0,53 -0,06 0,69 0,92 1,86 -0,4 1,47 -0,75

FOR11 -

0,85

1,28 0,83 0,61 0,88 0,84 -0,01 0,08 0,47 -0,58 -0,35 -0,75

PR21 0,93 -0,01 0,59 0,86 1,7 0,84 1,1 1 0,39 0,54 -0,04 1,12

PR22 0,21 -0,35 1,17 -0,34 0,96 0,84 -0,03 0,7 0,4 0,91 0,3 -0,75

PR23 -

0,34

-1,01 -2 -1,71 -1,37 -1,85 -1,26 -1,21 -1,05 -1,05 -0,97 -0,75

PR24 -

1,15

-1,01 -0,46 -1,96 -1,37 -1,85 -1,44 -1,21 -1,05 -1,7 -2,17 -0,75

PR26 -

0,01

0,97 0,88 0,86 1,82 0,84 2,78 2,67 1,96 1,65 -0,06 0,6

PR27 0,02 -1,01 0,25 0,17 0,22 -0,06 1,4 1 0,6 0,87 0,26 0,15

PR28 0,16 0,62 -0,09 0,5 0,92 -0,06 -0,27 0,02 0,6 0,07 -0,95 -0,3

PR29 0,69 0,26 -0,37 -0,95 1,18 1,74 1,35 0,7 0,81 2,03 0,85 1,76

287

PR30 -

0,07

-1,01 -0,7 0,17 0,76 -0,06 0,32 0,02 1,89 0,86 0,87 0,15

PR31 -1,1 -1,01 -0,99 -1,2 -1,11 -1,24 -0,66 0 -0,64 -0,95 -1,86 -0,75

PR32 -

0,42

0,02 -0,99 -1,28 -1,2 -1,55 -1,05 -1,21 -1,05 -1,37 -0,92 -0,75

PR33 0,06 -0,35 -0,71 -0,77 -0,16 -0,04 -0,65 -0,3 0,4 -0,3 -0,02 -0,3

PR34 -

0,36

-1,01 0,59 -0,59 -1,37 -1,85 -1 0,02 -1,05 -0,3 -0,97 -0,75

PR35 -

0,04

-1,01 -1,66 -1,2 -1,19 -1,57 -1,44 -1,21 -1,05 -1,37 -0,35 -0,3

PR36 -

0,41

-0,67 -0,65 0,06 -0,4 0,84 -0,63 -0,92 -0,42 -0,58 0,56 -0,3

PR37 -

0,52

-1,01 0,5 -0,22 -0,88 -0,09 0,73 1,54 -1,05 -0,63 0,53 -0,75

PR38 -

1,27

-0,67 -1,08 -1,71 -0,55 -1,57 -1,05 0,78 -0,82 0,17 -0,95 -0,75

PR39 -

0,69

1,63 1,84 1,8 1,12 0,84 1,1 1,37 0,2 -0,26 0,56 1,31

PR25 -

0,03

0,02 -1,33 1,07 -1,12 0,84 0,94 0,89 -0,49 0,02 0,55 1,31

PR40 -

0,13

1,63 0,54 -0,45 -0,44 0,84 -0,88 -0,91 -1,05 0,22 0,87 -0,3

PR41 -

0,74

0,62 -0,41 -0,08 0,69 -0,06 0,62 1 0,01 -0,2 -0,64 -0,75

PR42 0,53 -1,01 1,84 0,79 -0,61 -0,06 -1,08 -1,21 -0,68 0,45 1,47 -0,75

PR43 1,57 1,63 1,84 1,8 0,81 0,54 -0,9 -1,21 -1,05 0,87 0,56 0,6

PR44 0,36 0,97 0,25 0,17 0,96 0,53 0,92 1,69 1,07 0,54 -0,35 1,57

PR45 1,98 1,28 0,6 1,3 1,45 1,74 1,14 0,61 0,92 2,03 1,47 3,19

- Factor scores coefficients matrix obtained as output from the factor analysis conducted

on drivers:

-

288

Company ID RD DI SD

FOR12 0,9808 0,02286 0,64806

PR46 1,03754 1,04589 -0,07731

PR1 -0,98952 -1,00016 -0,99138

PR2 0,05238 0,02286 0,34568

FOR1 0,51659 1,55109 1,50308

FOR2 -0,46857 -1,00016 -0,77331

PR3 0,9808 1,55109 1,90765

PR4 0,05238 -0,49496 -0,05889

PR5 1,50175 0,52806 2,1432

PR6 0,9808 0,02286 -0,09729

FOR3 -0,00436 1,04589 0,85993

PR7 -0,52531 0,02286 -0,75583

PR8 -1,45373 -0,50759 -0,79804

FOR4 -0,52531 -1,51799 -0,63521

PR9 -0,0611 0,01024 -1,20944

FOR5 -0,46857 0,02286 0,23665

FOR6 -0,98952 0,01024 0,02108

PR10 -0,41183 -0,49496 -0,2008

PR11 -1,45373 0,01024 0,43618

PR12 -1,91794 -0,00239 -0,88234

PR13 0,9808 1,05851 -0,42189

FOR7 -1,91794 -1,51799 -0,77331

PR14 0,45985 1,55109 0,01858

FOR8 0,57333 0,54069 0,49312

FOR9 -1,91794 2,06891 -0,99138

PR15 -0,46857 -0,50759 -1,20944

PR16 -1,91794 -2,02319 -0,88234

FOR10 0,9808 0,01024 -1,10041

289

PR17 0,45985 0,02286 -0,79804

PR19 0,57333 -0,50759 0,922

PR18 1,03754 0,51544 1,11784

PR20 -0,0611 -1,51799 -0,65744

FOR11 0,51659 1,04589 0,62438

PR21 1,03754 1,04589 2,80174

PR22 0,05238 1,04589 0,4722

PR23 -0,98952 -1,51799 -0,99138

PR24 -1,91794 0,02286 -0,77331

PR26 1,03754 1,55109 -0,43254

PR27 0,9808 0,52806 1,57371

PR28 -0,00436 0,02286 1,00423

PR29 1,03754 0,01024 0,34568

PR30 -1,45373 -1,01279 -1,20944

PR31 -0,46857 -1,51799 -0,85327

PR32 -1,39699 -1,50536 -1,10041

PR33 0,51659 0,52806 0,81772

PR34 0,05238 -2,02319 -1,20944

PR35 -0,87604 -1,00016 -0,87551

PR36 0,57333 0,01024 1,83607

PR37 -0,00436 0,01024 -0,4971

PR38 -0,46857 -1,50536 -1,10041

PR39 2,02271 -1,00016 0,12762

PR25 1,5585 0,02286 -0,88234

PR40 0,45985 1,04589 -0,79804

PR41 -0,41183 1,03326 0,41935

PR42 0,9808 0,52806 -0,17

PR43 0,9808 1,03326 1,34881

PR44 -0,00436 0,02286 1,27134

290

PR45 0,57333 1,03326 0,91136

- Factor scores coefficients matrix obtained as output from the factor analysis conducted

on performance

Company ID PP PSE PA PS PI

FOR12 -0,77 -0,71 -0,71 -0,01 -0,30

PR46 1,91 -0,11 0,58 1,68 1,77

PR1 -0,05 0,48 -0,17 0,17 -0,19

PR2 -0,05 -0,11 1,21 0,93 0,46

FOR1 -0,96 -2,47 -1,34 0,93 -0,95

FOR2 -0,59 -0,11 -0,4 -2,46 -0,95

PR3 0,48 0,5 1,44 0,93 1,88

PR4 -0,25 -0,78 0,01 -0,77 -0,30

PR5 0,67 -0,11 -0,4 0,17 -0,19

PR6 -0,05 -1,99 -2,49 0,75 -0,19

FOR3 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 -0,77 -0,95

PR7 -0,05 0,39 -0,4 -0,01 -1,50

PR8 0,48 -1,28 1,55 0,93 1,01

FOR4 1,91 1,64 0,81 0,93 0,46

PR9 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 1,68 1,01

FOR5 -2,02 -2,47 -2,24 -0,77 -0,95

FOR6 -0,96 -0,78 -0,06 -0,77 0,25

PR10 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 -0,01 0,46

PR11 -1,49 1,49 1,22 1,68 0,46

PR12 0,48 0,89 1,48 0,93 1,01

PR13 -0,05 0,5 0,92 0,17 1,55

291

FOR7 -1,49 -0,11 -0,63 -0,77 -0,95

PR14 -1,49 -0,11 -0,4 -0,77 -0,30

FOR8 -0,05 0,48 -0,8 -0,77 0,35

FOR9 0,48 -0,11 0,8 -0,77 1,66

PR15 -1,49 -0,11 -0,4 -0,77 -0,30

PR16 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 -0,01 -0,74

FOR10 1,2 -0,61 -1,68 -0,77 -0,30

PR17 -2,02 -2,47 -1,6 -0,01 1,01

PR19 1,91 2,75 1,78 0,93 2,43

PR18 0,48 -0,78 -0,17 0,93 0,46

PR20 -0,05 0,48 0,88 0,93 -0,41

FOR11 -0,05 -0,11 0,28 -0,01 -0,08

PR21 0,67 -1,36 -0,4 -0,77 -0,30

PR22 -0,05 -0,61 -0,8 -0,01 0,46

PR23 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 -2,46 -1,61

PR24 -0,59 0,39 0,23 -0,01 -0,30

PR26 1,91 1,56 0,88 -0,01 0,25

PR27 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 -0,77 0,46

PR28 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 0,93 -0,95

PR29 0,67 2,25 1,44 -0,77 -0,19

PR30 -0,05 0,5 0,58 0,93 1,12

PR31 -0,96 0,5 -1,03 -0,77 0,46

PR32 -2,02 -0,11 -1,03 0,93 -0,84

PR33 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 -0,77 -0,95

PR34 -0,04 0,97 -0,4 -0,77 -2,04

PR35 -0,05 -0,28 -0,06 -0,01 -2,04

292

PR36 0,48 -0,11 1,1 -0,01 0,46

PR37 -0,23 -0,11 -0,18 1,68 1,01

PR38 1,91 -0,11 -0,69 -0,77 -0,19

PR39 1,19 1,67 1,21 0,93 1,55

PR25 -1,49 -0,19 0,17 -0,77 -0,30

PR40 -0,05 0,56 1,21 -0,01 -0,95

PR41 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 -0,77 -0,95

PR42 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 -2,46 -1,50

PR43 1,91 0,39 2,65 1,68 1,12

PR44 -0,05 -0,11 -0,4 -0,77 -0,95

PR45 1,37 0,97 0,46 1,10 0,46

293

Appendix 3: ANOVA on sustainable strategic fit matrix’s cells

- ANOVA analysis on Environmental sustainable strategic fit matrix’s cells:

Dependent Variable: PA

Hochberg

(I) LABELS env

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 ,90667 ,61655 ,977 -1,1170 2,9303

3,00 -,00333 ,79596 1,000 -2,6159 2,6092

4,00 1,62167 ,57397 ,016 -,2623 3,5056

5,00 1,59400 ,55146 ,014 -,2160 3,4040

6,00 ,41095 ,60169 1,000 -1,5640 2,3859

7,00 1,54030 ,56792 ,021 -,3238 3,4044

8,00 1,04000 ,71193 ,979 -1,2967 3,3767

2,00 1,00 -,90667 ,61655 ,977 -2,9303 1,1170

3,00 -,91000 ,71193 ,996 -3,2467 1,4267

4,00 ,71500 ,45026 ,950 -,7629 2,1929

5,00 ,68733 ,42118 ,936 -,6951 2,0698

6,00 -,49571 ,48510 1,000 -2,0879 1,0965

7,00 ,63364 ,44252 ,983 -,8188 2,0861

8,00 ,13333 ,61655 1,000 -1,8903 2,1570

3,00 1,00 ,00333 ,79596 1,000 -2,6092 2,6159

2,00 ,91000 ,71193 ,996 -1,4267 3,2467

4,00 1,62500 ,67539 ,040 -,5918 3,8418

5,00 1,59733 ,65636 ,038 -,5570 3,7517

6,00 ,41429 ,69910 1,000 -1,8803 2,7089

7,00 1,54364 ,67026 ,048 -,6563 3,7436

8,00 1,04333 ,79596 ,994 -1,5692 3,6559

4,00 1,00 -1,62167 ,57397 ,016 -3,5056 ,2623

2,00 -,71500 ,45026 ,950 -2,1929 ,7629

3,00 -1,62500 ,67539 ,040 -3,8418 ,5918

5,00 -,02767 ,35596 1,000 -1,1960 1,1407

6,00 -1,21071 ,42969 ,017 -2,6211 ,1996

7,00 -,08136 ,38097 1,000 -1,3318 1,1691

8,00 -,58167 ,57397 1,000 -2,4656 1,3023

5,00 1,00 -1,59400 ,55146 ,014 -3,4040 ,2160

2,00 -,68733 ,42118 ,936 -2,0698 ,6951

3,00 -1,59733 ,65636 ,038 -3,7517 ,5570

4,00 ,02767 ,35596 1,000 -1,1407 1,1960

294

6,00 -1,18305 ,39911 ,012 -2,4931 ,1270

7,00 -,05370 ,34612 1,000 -1,1898 1,0824

8,00 -,55400 ,55146 1,000 -2,3640 1,2560

6,00 1,00 -,41095 ,60169 1,000 -2,3859 1,5640

2,00 ,49571 ,48510 1,000 -1,0965 2,0879

3,00 -,41429 ,69910 1,000 -2,7089 1,8803

4,00 1,21071 ,42969 ,017 -,1996 2,6211

5,00 1,18305 ,39911 ,012 -,1270 2,4931

7,00 1,12935 ,42157 ,023 -,2544 2,5131

8,00 ,62905 ,60169 1,000 -1,3459 2,6040

7,00 1,00 -1,54030 ,56792 ,021 -3,4044 ,3238

2,00 -,63364 ,44252 ,983 -2,0861 ,8188

3,00 -1,54364 ,67026 ,048 -3,7436 ,6563

4,00 ,08136 ,38097 1,000 -1,1691 1,3318

5,00 ,05370 ,34612 1,000 -1,0824 1,1898

6,00 -1,12935 ,42157 ,023 -2,5131 ,2544

8,00 -,50030 ,56792 1,000 -2,3644 1,3638

8,00 1,00 -1,04000 ,71193 ,979 -3,3767 1,2967

2,00 -,13333 ,61655 1,000 -2,1570 1,8903

3,00 -1,04333 ,79596 ,994 -3,6559 1,5692

4,00 ,58167 ,57397 1,000 -1,3023 2,4656

5,00 ,55400 ,55146 1,000 -1,2560 2,3640

6,00 -,62905 ,60169 1,000 -2,6040 1,3459

7,00 ,50030 ,56792 1,000 -1,3638 2,3644

Dependent Variable: PI

Hochberg

(I) LABELS env

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 ,61833 ,60681 1,000 -1,3734 2,6100

3,00 -1,56333 ,78339 ,724 -4,1346 1,0080

4,00 ,59567 ,56491 1,000 -1,2585 2,4498

5,00 ,53800 ,54275 1,000 -1,2434 2,3194

6,00 ,15095 ,59218 1,000 -1,7928 2,0947

7,00 1,27212 ,55895 ,497 -,5625 3,1068

8,00 ,94667 ,70068 ,992 -1,3532 3,2465

2,00 1,00 -,61833 ,60681 1,000 -2,6100 1,3734

3,00 -2,18167 ,70068 ,047 -4,4815 ,1182

4,00 -,02267 ,44315 1,000 -1,4772 1,4319

5,00 -,08033 ,41453 1,000 -1,4409 1,2803

295

6,00 -,46738 ,47743 1,000 -2,0345 1,0997

7,00 ,65379 ,43553 ,972 -,7757 2,0833

8,00 ,32833 ,60681 1,000 -1,6634 2,3200

3,00 1,00 1,56333 ,78339 ,724 -1,0080 4,1346

2,00 2,18167 ,70068 ,047 -,1182 4,4815

4,00 2,15900 ,66473 ,055 -,0228 4,3408

5,00 2,10133 ,64600 ,050 -,0190 4,2217

6,00 1,71429 ,68806 ,034 -,5441 3,9727

7,00 2,83545* ,65967 ,002 ,6702 5,0007

8,00 2,51000 ,78339 ,042 -,0613 5,0813

4,00 1,00 -,59567 ,56491 1,000 -2,4498 1,2585

2,00 ,02267 ,44315 1,000 -1,4319 1,4772

3,00 -2,15900 ,66473 ,055 -4,3408 ,0228

5,00 -,05767 ,35034 1,000 -1,2076 1,0922

6,00 -,44471 ,42290 1,000 -1,8328 ,9434

7,00 ,67645 ,37496 ,855 -,5543 1,9072

8,00 ,35100 ,56491 1,000 -1,5032 2,2052

5,00 1,00 -,53800 ,54275 1,000 -2,3194 1,2434

2,00 ,08033 ,41453 1,000 -1,2803 1,4409

3,00 -2,10133 ,64600 ,050 -4,2217 ,0190

4,00 ,05767 ,35034 1,000 -1,0922 1,2076

6,00 -,38705 ,39281 1,000 -1,6764 ,9023

7,00 ,73412 ,34065 ,595 -,3840 1,8522

8,00 ,40867 ,54275 1,000 -1,3728 2,1901

6,00 1,00 -,15095 ,59218 1,000 -2,0947 1,7928

2,00 ,46738 ,47743 1,000 -1,0997 2,0345

3,00 -1,71429 ,68806 ,034 -3,9727 ,5441

4,00 ,44471 ,42290 1,000 -,9434 1,8328

5,00 ,38705 ,39281 1,000 -,9023 1,6764

7,00 1,12117 ,41491 ,022 -,2407 2,4830

8,00 ,79571 ,59218 ,992 -1,1480 2,7394

7,00 1,00 -1,27212 ,55895 ,497 -3,1068 ,5625

2,00 -,65379 ,43553 ,972 -2,0833 ,7757

3,00 -2,83545* ,65967 ,002 -5,0007 -,6702

4,00 -,67645 ,37496 ,855 -1,9072 ,5543

5,00 -,73412 ,34065 ,595 -1,8522 ,3840

6,00 -1,12117 ,41491 ,022 -2,4830 ,2407

8,00 -,32545 ,55895 1,000 -2,1601 1,5092

8,00 1,00 -,94667 ,70068 ,992 -3,2465 1,3532

2,00 -,32833 ,60681 1,000 -2,3200 1,6634

3,00 -2,51000 ,78339 ,042 -5,0813 ,0613

4,00 -,35100 ,56491 1,000 -2,2052 1,5032

5,00 -,40867 ,54275 1,000 -2,1901 1,3728

6,00 -,79571 ,59218 ,992 -2,7394 1,1480

296

7,00 ,32545 ,55895 1,000 -1,5092 2,1601

- ANOVA analysis on Social sustainable strategic fit matrix’s cells:

Dependent Variable: PS

Hochberg

(I) LABELS soc

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 1,70000 ,61239 ,184 -,3100 3,7100

3,00 -,50667 ,79059 1,000 -2,0883 3,1016

4,00 2,12567* ,57010 ,064 ,2544 3,9969

5,00 2,38333* ,54774 ,190 ,5855 4,1812

6,00 1,94524 ,59763 ,054 -,0164 3,9068

7,00 1,54848 ,56409 ,080 -,3030 3,4000

8,00 1,93667 ,70713 ,200 -,3843 4,2576

2,00 1,00 -1,70000 ,61239 ,184 -3,7100 ,3100

3,00 -1,19333 ,70713 ,914 -3,5143 1,1276

4,00 ,42567 ,44723 1,000 -1,0423 1,8936

5,00 ,68333 ,41834 ,935 -,6898 2,0564

6,00 ,24524 ,48183 1,000 -1,3362 1,8267

7,00 -,15152 ,43954 1,000 -1,5942 1,2912

8,00 ,23667 ,61239 1,000 -1,7734 2,2467

3,00 1,00 ,50667 ,79059 1,000 -3,1016 2,0883

2,00 1,19333 ,70713 ,914 -1,1276 3,5143

4,00 1,61900 ,67084 ,392 -,5829 3,8209

5,00 1,87667 ,65194 ,144 -,2632 4,0165

6,00 1,43857 ,69438 ,664 -,8406 3,7177

7,00 1,04182 ,66574 ,957 -1,1433 3,2270

8,00 1,43000 ,79059 ,852 -1,1649 4,0249

4,00 1,00 -2,12567* ,57010 ,064 -3,9969 -,2544

2,00 -,42567 ,44723 1,000 -1,8936 1,0423

3,00 -1,61900 ,67084 ,392 -3,8209 ,5829

5,00 ,25767 ,35356 1,000 -,9028 1,4182

6,00 -,18043 ,42679 1,000 -1,5813 1,2204

7,00 -,57718 ,37840 ,967 -1,8192 ,6648

8,00 -,18900 ,57010 1,000 -2,0602 1,6822

5,00 1,00 -2,38333* ,54774 ,190 -4,1812 -,5855

2,00 -,68333 ,41834 ,935 -2,0564 ,6898

3,00 -1,87667 ,65194 ,144 -4,0165 ,2632

4,00 -,25767 ,35356 1,000 -1,4182 ,9028

6,00 -,43810 ,39642 1,000 -1,7393 ,8631

297

7,00 -,83485 ,34379 ,382 -1,9632 ,2935

8,00 -,44667 ,54774 1,000 -2,2445 1,3512

6,00 1,00 -1,94524 ,59763 ,054 -3,9068 ,0164

2,00 -,24524 ,48183 1,000 -1,8267 1,3362

3,00 -1,43857 ,69438 ,664 -3,7177 ,8406

4,00 ,18043 ,42679 1,000 -1,2204 1,5813

5,00 ,43810 ,39642 1,000 -,8631 1,7393

7,00 -,39675 ,41873 1,000 -1,7711 ,9776

8,00 -,00857 ,59763 1,000 -1,9702 1,9530

7,00 1,00 -1,54848 ,56409 ,080 -3,4000 ,3030

2,00 ,15152 ,43954 1,000 -1,2912 1,5942

3,00 -1,04182 ,66574 ,957 -3,2270 1,1433

4,00 ,57718 ,37840 ,967 -,6648 1,8192

5,00 ,83485 ,34379 ,382 -,2935 1,9632

6,00 ,39675 ,41873 1,000 -,9776 1,7711

8,00 ,38818 ,56409 1,000 -1,4633 2,2397

8,00 1,00 -1,93667 ,70713 ,200 -4,2576 ,3843

2,00 -,23667 ,61239 1,000 -2,2467 1,7734

3,00 -1,43000 ,79059 ,852 -4,0249 1,1649

4,00 ,18900 ,57010 1,000 -1,6822 2,0602

5,00 ,44667 ,54774 1,000 -1,3512 2,2445

6,00 ,00857 ,59763 1,000 -1,9530 1,9702

7,00 -,38818 ,56409 1,000 -2,2397 1,4633

Dependent Variable: PI

Hochberg

(I) LABELS soc

Mean Difference (I-

J)

Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1,00 2,00 -,38500 ,62107 1,000 -2,4235 1,6535

3,00 -,66417 ,67083 1,000 -2,8660 1,5377

4,00 ,40679 ,49796 1,000 -1,2277 2,0412

5,00 ,01583 ,50710 1,000 -1,6486 1,6803

6,00 -,46250 ,56696 1,000 -2,3234 1,3984

7,00 ,96350 ,51962 ,824 -,7420 2,6690

8,00 -,49000 ,62107 1,000 -2,5285 1,5485

2,00 1,00 ,38500 ,62107 1,000 -1,6535 2,4235

3,00 -,27917 ,67083 1,000 -2,4810 1,9227

4,00 ,79179 ,49796 ,950 -,8427 2,4262

5,00 ,40083 ,50710 1,000 -1,2636 2,0653

6,00 -,07750 ,56696 1,000 -1,9384 1,7834

298

7,00 1,34850 ,51962 ,037 -,3570 3,0540

8,00 -,10500 ,62107 1,000 -2,1435 1,9335

3,00 1,00 ,66417 ,67083 1,000 -1,5377 2,8660

2,00 ,27917 ,67083 1,000 -1,9227 2,4810

4,00 1,07095 ,55880 ,782 -,7632 2,9051

5,00 ,68000 ,56696 ,998 -1,1809 2,5409

6,00 ,20167 ,62107 1,000 -1,8369 2,2402

7,00 1,62767 ,57818 ,017 -,2701 3,5254

8,00 ,17417 ,67083 1,000 -2,0277 2,3760

4,00 1,00 -,40679 ,49796 1,000 -2,0412 1,2277

2,00 -,79179 ,49796 ,950 -2,4262 ,8427

3,00 -1,07095 ,55880 ,782 -2,9051 ,7632

5,00 -,39095 ,34553 ,999 -1,5251 ,7432

6,00 -,86929 ,42858 ,698 -2,2760 ,5374

7,00 ,55671 ,36366 ,965 -,6369 1,7504

8,00 -,89679 ,49796 ,857 -2,5312 ,7377

5,00 1,00 -,01583 ,50710 1,000 -1,6803 1,6486

2,00 -,40083 ,50710 1,000 -2,0653 1,2636

3,00 -,68000 ,56696 ,998 -2,5409 1,1809

4,00 ,39095 ,34553 ,999 -,7432 1,5251

6,00 -,47833 ,43916 1,000 -1,9198 ,9631

7,00 ,94767 ,37608 ,032 -,2867 2,1821

8,00 -,50583 ,50710 1,000 -2,1703 1,1586

6,00 1,00 ,46250 ,56696 1,000 -1,3984 2,3234

2,00 ,07750 ,56696 1,000 -1,7834 1,9384

3,00 -,20167 ,62107 1,000 -2,2402 1,8369

4,00 ,86929 ,42858 ,698 -,5374 2,2760

5,00 ,47833 ,43916 1,000 -,9631 1,9198

7,00 1,42600 ,45357 ,073 -,0627 2,9147

8,00 -,02750 ,56696 1,000 -1,8884 1,8334

7,00 1,00 -,96350 ,51962 ,824 -2,6690 ,7420

2,00 -1,34850 ,51962 ,037 -3,0540 ,3570

3,00 -1,62767 ,57818 ,017 -3,5254 ,2701

4,00 -,55671 ,36366 ,965 -1,7504 ,6369

5,00 -,94767 ,37608 ,032 -2,1821 ,2867

6,00 -1,42600 ,45357 ,073 -2,9147 ,0627

8,00 -1,45350 ,51962 ,175 -3,1590 ,2520

8,00 1,00 ,49000 ,62107 1,000 -1,5485 2,5285

2,00 ,10500 ,62107 1,000 -1,9335 2,1435

3,00 -,17417 ,67083 1,000 -2,3760 2,0277

4,00 ,89679 ,49796 ,857 -,7377 2,5312

5,00 ,50583 ,50710 1,000 -1,1586 2,1703

6,00 ,02750 ,56696 1,000 -1,8334 1,8884

7,00 1,45350 ,51962 ,175 -,2520 3,1590

299