| Literature DB >> 36078853 |
Sebastjan Lazar1, Vojko Potočan2, Dorota Klimecka-Tatar3, Matevz Obrecht1.
Abstract
The importance of sustainability in supply chain management is growing worldwide. It is possible to find reasons for this using various phenomena that negatively affect humanity, e.g., climate change, scarce materials, supply disruptions, and complex fossil fuel dependency. Because of that, is extremely important to constantly look for new ways to systematically increase sustainability in enterprises and their logistics and supply chain processes by considering different stakeholders and influential factors. Therefore, this paper explores how different types of organizational culture and normative commitment impact sustainability and each other in business logistics and supply chains and develops a conceptual model to manage this challenge. Gaining new insights is valuable especially for managers to obtain better information on how to improve sustainability not just by integrating green technologies but mainly by changing culture, attitude, and perception in their enterprises. The research is focused on employees from global logistics or related branches in micro, small, medium, and large enterprises with the primary activity mostly related to manufacturing, transport, and storage. The findings are based on the questionnaire which was sent directly to 1576 employees from 528 enterprises. A total of 516 employees from enterprises that are mostly located in 34 countries responded to requests for participation. The results reveal statistically significant positive and negative impacts, e.g., clan culture has a positive statistically significant impact on the sustainable development of supply chains. Most of the connections to the eighth Sustainable Development Goal by the United Nations (decent work and economic growth) were also found, which was the enterprise's highest priority with a share of 52.99%. A contribution to the theory development is gained using the developed model that considers both positive and negative statistically significant impacts studied.Entities:
Keywords: logistics; normative commitment (NC); organizational culture (OC); supply chain; sustainable development (SD); sustainable development dimensions; sustainable development goals (SDGs)
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078853 PMCID: PMC9518123 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191711131
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Demographic characteristics.
| Number | Question | Answer (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender | Male | 62.79% |
| Female | 37.21% | ||
| 2 | Age | Up to 30 years | 17.44% |
| From 31 to 40 years | 32.95% | ||
| From 41 to 50 years | 30.81% | ||
| 51 years or older | 18.80% | ||
| 3 | Education | High school | 25.39% |
| Bachelor’s degree/diploma | 45.16% | ||
| Master’s degree, MBA, or PhD | 27.52% | ||
| Other | 1.94% | ||
| 4 | Position in enterprise | Professional staff and others | 40.08% |
| Lower management | 12.94% | ||
| Middle management | 28.39% | ||
| Top management | 18.58% | ||
| 5 | Type of logistics/logistics subsystems | Procurement logistics | 16.08% |
| Production logistics | 13.99% | ||
| Distribution logistics | 52.19% | ||
| Other | 17.75% | ||
| 6 | Time of employment | From 0 to 3 years | 3.76% |
| From 3 to 10 years | 27.14% | ||
| From 10 to 20 years | 32.78% | ||
| 20 or more years | 36.33% | ||
| 7 | Time of employment in the current enterprise | From 0 to 3 years | 21.50% |
| From 3 to 10 years | 34.45% | ||
| From 10 to 20 years | 26.72% | ||
| 20 or more years | 17.33% | ||
| 8 | Enterprise size | Micro enterprise | 14.26% |
| Small enterprise | 21.70% | ||
| Medium enterprise | 28.09% | ||
| Large enterprise | 35.96% | ||
| 9 | Main activity of enterprise | Manufacturing activity | 35.74% |
| Transport and storage activity | 42.98% | ||
| Other business activities | 21.28% | ||
| 10 | Considering changing your job/employment | Yes, already decided | 3.62% |
| Yes, often | 5.74% | ||
| Yes, sometimes | 26.38% | ||
| Not really | 39.57% | ||
| Not at all | 24.68% | ||
| 11 | Enterprise location | Inside the European Union—21 countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden) | 86.81% |
| Outside the European Union—13 countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, China, Egypt, Mexico, North Macedonia, Philippines, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United States of America) | 11.70% | ||
| Other (answers, e.g., global, worldwide, multinational, etc.) | 1.49% | ||
Figure 1Average values of SD dimensions in sample enterprises (1 means a very low value, 5 means a very high value).
Figure 2The identified orientation toward specific SDGs in sample enterprises for the overall results.
Figure 3Current status of OC in sample enterprises considering six key dimensions of OC for the overall results.
Figure 4Current status of OC by its types in sample enterprises (1 means a very low value, 5 means a very high value).
Figure 5Current status of NC in sample enterprises (1 means a very low value, 5 means a very high value).
Results of statistical analysis for hypothesis H1 and its sub-hypotheses.
| Hypothesis and Sub-Hypotheses | Used for Statistical Analysis | Standardized Coefficient (β) | t |
| Impacts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistically Significant? | Positive? | |||||
| H1 | Factor OC on factor SD | 0.670 | 17.142 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes |
| H1a | Factor clan culture on factor SD | 0.635 | 15.585 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes |
| H1b | Factor adhocracy culture on factor SD | 0.584 | 13.649 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes |
| H1c | Factor market culture on factor SD | 0.390 | 8.031 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes |
| H1d | Factor hierarchy culture on factor SD | 0.547 | 12.394 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes |
Results of statistical analysis for hypothesis H2 and its sub-hypotheses.
| Hypothesis and Sub-Hypotheses | Used for Statistical Analysis | Standardized Coefficient (β) | t |
| Impacts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistically Significant? | Positive? | |||||
| H2 | Variable Q21a of NC on factor SD | 0.168 | 3.146 | 0.002 | Yes | Yes |
| Variable Q21b of NC on factor SD | −0.121 | −2.173 | 0.030 | Yes | No | |
| Variable Q21c of NC on factor SD | −0.052 | −0.966 | 0.335 | No | No | |
| Variable Q21d of NC on factor SD | 0.100 | 1.704 | 0.089 | No | Yes | |
| Variable Q21e of NC on factor SD | 0.148 | 2.703 | 0.007 | Yes | Yes | |
| Variable Q21f of NC on factor SD | 0.105 | 1.713 | 0.088 | No | Yes | |
| Variable Q21g of NC on factor SD | −0.060 | −1.044 | 0.297 | No | No | |
| Variable Q21h of NC on factor SD | −0.052 | −0.992 | 0.322 | No | No | |
| H2a | Variable Q21b of NC on factor SD | −0.148 | −2.789 | 0.006 | Yes | No |
| Variable Q21f of NC on factor SD | 0.220 | 4.257 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Variable Q21h of NC on factor SD | −0.053 | −1.008 | 0.314 | No | No | |
| H2b | Variable Q21a of NC on factor SD | 0.175 | 3.253 | 0.001 | Yes | Yes |
| Variable Q21c of NC on factor SD | −0.118 | −2.372 | 0.018 | Yes | No | |
| Variable Q21d of NC on factor SD | 0.151 | 2.711 | 0.007 | Yes | Yes | |
| Variable Q21e of NC on factor SD | 0.155 | 2.866 | 0.004 | Yes | Yes | |
| Variable Q21g of NC on factor SD | −0.034 | −0.618 | 0.537 | No | No | |
Results of statistical analysis for hypothesis H3 and its sub-hypotheses.
| Hypothesis and Sub-Hypotheses | Used for Statistical Analysis | Standardized Coefficient (β) | t |
| Impacts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistically Significant? | Positive? | |||||
| H3 | Factor OC on variable Q21a of NC | 0.260 | 5.168 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes |
| Factor OC on variable Q21b of NC | −0.100 | −1.929 | 0.055 | No | No | |
| Factor OC on variable Q21c of NC | −0.040 | −0.761 | 0.447 | No | No | |
| Factor OC on variable Q21d of NC | 0.303 | 6.087 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor OC on variable Q21e of NC | 0.287 | 5.747 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor OC on variable Q21f of NC | 0.278 | 5.541 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor OC on variable Q21g of NC | 0.161 | 3.117 | 0.002 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor OC on variable Q21h of NC | −0.023 | −0.442 | 0.659 | No | No | |
| H3a | Factor clan culture on variable Q21a of NC | 0.228 | 4.493 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes |
| Factor clan culture on variable Q21b of NC | −0.165 | −3.203 | 0.001 | Yes | No | |
| Factor clan culture on variable Q21c of NC | −0.130 | −2.515 | 0.012 | Yes | No | |
| Factor clan culture on variable Q21d of NC | 0.280 | 5.597 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor clan culture on variable Q21e of NC | 0.239 | 4.723 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor clan culture on variable Q21f of NC | 0.257 | 5.105 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor clan culture on variable Q21g of NC | 0.110 | 2.117 | 0.035 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor clan culture on variable Q21h of NC | −0.099 | −1.897 | 0.059 | No | No | |
| H3b | Factor adhocracy culture on variable Q21a of NC | 0.268 | 5.328 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes |
| Factor adhocracy culture on variable Q21b of NC | −0.085 | −1.636 | 0.103 | No | No | |
| Factor adhocracy culture on variable Q21c of NC | −0.004 | −0.077 | 0.938 | No | No | |
| Factor adhocracy culture on variable Q21d of NC | 0.312 | 6.289 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor adhocracy culture on variable Q21e of NC | 0.313 | 6.308 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor adhocracy culture on variable Q21f of NC | 0.298 | 5.989 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor adhocracy culture on variable Q21g of NC | 0.196 | 3.833 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor adhocracy culture on variable Q21h of NC | 0.015 | 0.281 | 0.779 | No | Yes | |
| H3c | Factor market culture on variable Q21a of NC | 0.131 | 2.541 | 0.011 | Yes | Yes |
| Factor market culture on variable Q21b of NC | 0.024 | 0.453 | 0.651 | No | Yes | |
| Factor market culture on variable Q21c of NC | 0.053 | 1.010 | 0.313 | No | Yes | |
| Factor market culture on variable Q21d of NC | 0.157 | 3.052 | 0.002 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor market culture on variable Q21e of NC | 0.188 | 3.658 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor market culture on variable Q21f of NC | 0.177 | 3.447 | 0.001 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor market culture on variable Q21g of NC | 0.105 | 2.019 | 0.044 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor market culture on variable Q21h of NC | 0.003 | 0.049 | 0.961 | No | Yes | |
| H3d | Factor hierarchy culture on variable Q21a of NC | 0.208 | 4.081 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes |
| Factor hierarchy culture on variable Q21b of NC | −0.088 | −1.701 | 0.090 | No | No | |
| Factor hierarchy culture on variable Q21c of NC | −0.040 | −0.769 | 0.442 | No | No | |
| Factor hierarchy culture on variable Q21d of NC | 0.222 | 4.362 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor hierarchy culture on variable Q21e of NC | 0.185 | 3.597 | 0.000 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor hierarchy culture on variable Q21f of NC | 0.160 | 3.098 | 0.002 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor hierarchy culture on variable Q21g of NC | 0.105 | 2.020 | 0.044 | Yes | Yes | |
| Factor hierarchy culture on variable Q21h of NC | 0.008 | 0.161 | 0.872 | No | Yes | |
Figure 6Developed model for improvement of supply chains’ sustainability.