Áp dụng chiến lược xanh trong bối cảnh bảo hộ thương mại: Tiếp cận từ phân tích các rào cản

Nội dung text: Áp dụng chiến lược xanh trong bối cảnh bảo hộ thương mại: Tiếp cận từ phân tích các rào cản

1. ADOPTING GREEN STRATEGY IN TRADE PROTECTIONISM CONTEXT: CONSTRAINS ANALYSIS APPROACH ÁP DỤNG CHIẾN LƯỢC XANH TRONG BỐI CẢNH BẢO HỘ THƯƠNG MẠI: TIẾP CẬN TỪ PHÂN TÍCH CÁC RÀO CẢN Do Thi Binh, PhD Thuongmai University Abstract ‘‘Global warming’’, ‘‘carbon footprint’’ or ‘‘green house gasses’’ have become common issues that put changing enterprises in ways that improve the environment, and that change is accelerating. However, very few Vietnamese companies have established an enterprise-level green strategy. Recognizing and ranking the constrains of adopting green strategy is become a call for export manufacturing Vietnamese firms, who are under more environmental pressures that act as nontariff trade barriers in trade protectionism context, from imported countries, so that they can overcome them to adopt environmentally friendly strategies. This study employs a two-phase methodology to identify constrains of environmental strategies in Vietnamese export manufacturing firms in trade protectionism context. Through literature review and interviews of selective manager's, main and sub- category constrains were identified and then Best - Worst methodology is applied to rank the constrains. The results of the analysis can act as suggestions for Vietnamese managers to eliminate and overcome constrains to adopt green strategies as ways to become successful in trade protectionism context. Keywords: Constrains analysis, green strategy adoption, Vietnam export manufacturing firms, Best - Worst methodology. Túm tắt “Sự núng lờn toàn cầu”, “”Dấu chõn carbon”, “Hiệu ứng nhà kớnh” đó trở thành những vấn đề phổ biến làm thay đổi cỏc doanh nghiệp theo hướng vcải thiện vấn đề mụi trường và sự thay đổi đú đang gia tăng. Tuy nhiờn, rất ớt cụng ty Việt Nam hiện nay ỏp dụng chiến lược xanh ở cấp cụng ty. Việc nhận thức và xếp hạng cỏc rào cản trong ỏp dụng chiến lược xanh trở nờn cấp thiết đối với cỏc cụng ty sản xuất xuất khẩu của Việt Nam, những doanh nghiệp chịu ỏp lực ngày càng lớn về vấn đề mụi trường từ cỏc nước nhập khẩu như là những rào cản phi thuế trong bối cảnh bảo hộ thương mại, để giỳp những doanh nghiệp này cú thể vượt qua là ỏp dụng chiến lược kinh doanh thõn thiện với mụi trường. Nghiờn cứu này sử dụng phương phỏp hai giai đoạn để xỏc định cỏc rào cản trong ỏp dụng chiến lược mụi trường của cỏc cụng ty sản xuất xuất khẩu của Việt Nam trong bối cảnh bảo hộ thương mại. Giai đoạn 1, cỏc rào cản chớnh và phụ được xỏc định thụng qua tổng quan lý thuyết và phỏng vấn cỏc nhà quản lý trong mẫu chọn lọc, và sau đú giai đoạn 2, phương phỏp Tốt nhất - Tệ nhất được ỏp dụng để xếp hạng cỏc rào cản đú. Kết quả phõn tớch cú thể gúp phần tạo hàm ý kiến nghị cho cỏc nhà quản lý Việt Nam loại 131
2. bỏ và vượt qua cỏc rào cản nhằm ỏp dụng chiến lược xanh như một cỏch thức thành cụng trong bối cảnh bảo hộ thương mại. Từ khoỏ: Phõn tớch cỏc rào cản, ỏp dụng chiến lược xanh, cỏc doanh nghiệp sản xuất xuất khẩu Việt Nam, phương phỏp nghiờn cứu Tốt nhất - Tệ nhất. 1. Introduction Customers are more conscious about environment and the government is making stricter regulations to control the environmental pollution caused by these organizations than ever before (Mumtaz et al., 2018; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2014). So many countries, especially developed countries are using environmental regulations as non-tariff barriers, new trade protectionism ways and therefore, organizations irrespective of their type are essential for growth of a country and also contribute substantially towards the degradation of the environment. Consequently, due to surmounting customer awareness, calls by various stakeholders and pressure from the government, eventually has increased the responsibility of these organizations, especially export manufacturing firms, towards minimizing the impact of industrial activities on the environment (Walker et al., 2008). Various conventions at international level have highlighted the need to protect environmental resources and also eliminate the challenges of climate change through reductions in environment pollution by industries. In response, Vietnamese export manufacturing firms are gradually shifting their business strategies to green but they are facing lots of constrains. Thus, there is growing need for Vietnamese firms to identify and overcome these constrains. Keeping in view of the above, this study has following 02 objectives: (1) Identifying the constrains of adopting green strategies for Vietnamese export manufacturing firms; and (2) Ranking these constrains to highlight implementations for public policy makers and firms’ managers to adopt green strategies as ways to become successful in trade protectionism context. To achieve these objectives a two-phase method is used in this research. In the first phase, Delphi method along with literature review is used to identify the constrains of adopting green strategies. In second phase, Best - Worst methodology is used to rank the constrains. 2. Identifying constrains to the addoption of green strategy Green strategy leads to a reduction in pollution, environmental risks and another negative impact of product use on the environment throughout its life cycle. There are many definitions of green strategy given by researchers over the period of time. Green strategy, environmentally friendly strategy and environmental strategy are used interchangeably. Kemp (2010) defines green strategy as a set of initiatives that mitigate a firm’s impact on the natural environment. Firms achieve such a strategy by implementing products, processes, and policies that reduce energy consumption and waste, use ecologically sustainable resources, and employ environmental management systems (Bansal & Roth, 2000). However, adopting a green strategy is often marred with many obstacles. Firms in developing country like Vietnam especially are at the back foot when it 132
3. comes to adaptation and implementation of green strategies. After studying the available papers on barriers and constrains to green strategy (Table 1), Delphi method approach as applied by Bouzon et al. (2016) was used to finalize the constrains. Table 1. Previous studies on constrains to green strategy Author(s) Key findings/issues Methodology Context A detailed review of 33 studies was done to identify constrains, opportunities, and drivers for green strategy implementation. The major constrains identified include, “resources, understanding & perception, implementation, attitudes & company culture, Europea Hillary certifiers, economics, institutional weaknesses and Literature n (2004) support & guidance”. review Union This paper studied environmental leaders from different backgrounds regarding their recommendations for going green. The study came out with around 26 constrains and prominent among these based on their frequency are modest demand for Runhaar green and sustainable products, increased costs, Exploratory et al. availability of resources for green production and study/intervie Netherla (2008) customer not willing to pay for sustainability. ws nds The paper explores the barriers and drivers to green strategy in SMEs. Few important barriers identified Walker are characteristics of SMEs, resource availability and et al. lack of environmental knowledge apart from strict Literature (2008) legislation and policies. review Australia The paper identified the constrains of green strategy, Arundel which includes: economic barriers, regulations, lack and of research efforts, lack of market demand, Kemp technological barriers, labor-related barriers, Survey-based (2009) managerial and supplier related barriers. research Japan The study formulates policy strategies for promoting green strategy. The studied barriers to green strategy Del Rớo and found the absence of pressure from stakeholders, et al. weak legislation, lack of financial resources, low Conceptual Generali (2010) technological competencies as key barriers. Study zed The paper identifies drivers, policies, and constrains to green strategy in China. The major constrains identified include: “competition between economic growth and environmental agenda”, “regulatory and Matus et bureaucratic barriers”, “availability of research Semi- al. funding”, “technical barriers”, “workforce training”, structured (2012) “industrial engineering capacity”, and “economic and interviews China 133
4. financial barriers”. Cluster In their study of constrains to green strategy in analysis, Marin et European SMEs, the author have identified certain Principal Europea al. barriers namely funds, uncertain returns, technical Component n (2015) capabilities, knowledge barriers, market barriers etc. Analysis Union A sample of 435 SMEs was taken to analyze the extent Multinomial to which SMEs perceive these to be barriers to green logit Pinget et strategy. Important barriers that were identified estimation al. include: knowledge barriers, financial barriers, and and (2015) market-related barriers. regression France The paper identified internal and external constrains to green strategy and found that barriers are different for product, process and service innovations. Environmental resources, attitude and perception, customer demand and government support are specific to green product innovation whereas poor Abdulla external partnerships, lack of information and h et al. environmental benefits are few barriers related to Partial Least (2016) green process innovations. Square (PLS) Malaysia The authors have analyzed the effect of financial constrains and public funding on green strategy. They tried to distinguish between internal, external and public funding. The study found that lack of internal Cecere funding is a major challenge for green strategy and et al. also public funding effectively improve green Logit (2016) strategy regression Europe Hojnik The paper categorized the barriers to internal and and external and found that cost is the most important Ruzzier internal barrier and legislations are a most important (2016) external barrier. Case study Slovenia The paper analyzed the effect of financial constrains in the adoption of green strategy in SMEs. It was Ghisetti found that financial barriers often impede the Simultaneous Europea et al. adoption of green strategy and they are mostly Equation n (2017) neglected by SMEs. Modelling Union After several rounds of discussion with managers, seven main categories of constrains and thirty-two sub-constrains were finalized. The various constrains finalized after literature review and discussion with managers are discussed below: 134
5. 2.1. Managerial, organizational and human resource related constrains Lack of commitment from top management is a major impediment to adopt green strategy in organizations (Fai Pun, 2006). Management needs to ensure superior human resources for implementation of green strategy (Lee, 2008; Wu et al., 2012). Firms in developing countries are often marred in this aspect due to lack of commitment from top management, their top management consists of entrepreneurs which often tend to work in traditional ways in order to avoid risk and lack commitment towards green strategy. The major constrains under this category involves, lack of commitment from entrepreneur (Ashford, 1993; Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Zhu et al., 2012a, 2012b; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Dubey et al., 2015; Mangla et al., 2017); reluctance to switch to green strategy (Ashford, 1993; Zhu et al., 2012a, 2012b; Lin and Ho, 2008; Jones et al., 2011); lack of training and consultancy programs related to green strategy (Ashford, 1993; Carter and Dresner, 2001; Urban and Naidoo, 2012; Longoni et al., 2014; Mangla et al., 2017); lack of human resources for green strategy (Collins et al., 2007; Lin and Ho, 2008); high costs for certifications related to green strategy for firms (Hillary, 2004); lack of interaction with government agencies and participation in programs organized by government related to green strategy (Gupta & Barua, 2018); lack of reward systems for green strategy (Gupta & Barua, 2018). 2.2. Technological and green resource-related constrains Technology is defined as “the practical knowledge, know-how, skill and artifacts that can be used to develop a new product or service and/or a new production/delivery system” (Moriarty and Kosnik, 1989). Resources can be defined as “stocks of available factors that are owned or controlled by the firm (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). Technology and resources are essential for strategy are often found to be resource constrains (Gupta and Barua, 2017). The major constrains under this category involves, lack of capabilities in green strategy (Lai et al., 2003; Perron, 2005; Silva et al., 2008; Pawanchik and Sulaiman, 2010); technological and market uncertainty and fear of failure related to green strategy (Rao and Holt, 2005; Jinzhou, 2011); incompetent technologies to absorb green strategy (Del Rớo et al., 2010); complex designing process in order to reuse/recycle products and reduce resource usage (Russel, 1998; Beamon, 1999; Perron, 2005); lack of new technology, materials, processes and skills to green strategy (Perron, 2005; Collins et al., 2007); lack of investments in strategy (Hall and Lerner, 2010; Mina et al., 2013; Nanda and Kerr, 2015; Hall et al., 2016). 2.3. Financial and economic constrains High cost often acts as a deterrent to finance a green strategy. Organizations often face cash crunch due to lack of internal and external financial resources (Pinget et al., 2015). These financial barriers hamper environmental plans of the organizations and thus preclude them from adopting strategy (AlKhidir and Zailani, 2009; Ghisetti et al., 2017). The major financial barriers to strategy include, less payoff as compared to investment in strategy (Matus et al., 2012; Govindan et al., 2014); lack of access to government subsidies and financial incentives (EIO, 2011; Cecere et al., 2016; Hojnik and Ruzzier, 2016); 135
6. unavailability of bank loans to promote green strategy (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Cecere et al., 2016); high costs of disposing hazardous wastes (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2014); high change over costs from traditional to green strategy (Konar and Cohen, 2001; Mudgal et al., 2010); no economies of scale for green products for green strategy (Gupta & Barua, 2018). 2.4. Poor external partnership and stakeholders' engagement External linkages are essential for firms to pursue green strategy. However, finding partners having common interests in green strategy is difficult for firms in developing countries (Ylinenpọọ, 1998; Hadjimanolis, 1999). External organizations often shy away from connecting with firms for green initiatives for variety of reasons, the major barriers under this category involves, unwillingness of supply chain partners to exchange information on green practices (Walker et al., 2008; Hong et al., 2009; Mudgal et al., 2010; Ninlawan et al., 2010; Dhull and Narwal, 2016); lack of understanding regarding green strategy by other partners (Sarkar and Mohapatra, 2006; Wolf and Seuring, 2010; Dhull and Narwal, 2016); poor communication with external partners and lack of role clarity (Lettenmeier et al., 2012; Dubey et al., 2015; Mangla et al., 2017); lack of platforms or forums for firms to discuss problems related to green strategy (Gupta & Barua, 2018). 2.5. Lack of government support for green strategies Often government regulations and policies act as impediment for green strategy due to their stringent nature and unclear procedures. Organizations are often demotivated due to lack of government support to green strategy (Runhaar et al., 2008). The major barriers under this category are discussed below, complex and rigid rules for green strategy (Runhaar et al., 2008; Brammer et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2012a, 2012b); poor enforcement of environmental policies thus giving trespassing advantage to few firms (Runhaar et al., 2008; AlKhidir and Zailani, 2009; Zhu et al., 2012a, 2012b; Blok et al., 2015); lack of training programs by government to incorporate green strategy (Gupta & Barua, 2018); 2.6. Market and customer related constrains Customers are determinant in deciding the demand of green products in the market and hence are the basis for implementation and adoption of green strategy in firms (Dhull and Narwal, 2016). Generally high costs associated with producing green products often forces industries not to adopt green strategy and this problem is more prominent in firms in developing countries (Ghisetti et al., 2017). However, high market demand can spur even small industries to adopt green strategy. The various barriers under this category involves, lack of customers' responsiveness towards green strategy (Ashford, 1993; Silva et al., 2008; Dhull and Narwal, 2016); lack of awareness and knowledge regarding green strategy (Min and Galle, 2001; Chen et al., 2006; Mudgal et al., 2010; Dhull and Narwal, 2016). 2.7. Insufficient knowledge and information regarding green strategy Green strategies require certain information and employees that have required skills and knowledge regarding environmental practices and technologies (Pinget et al., 2015). The level of knowledge required to pursue green strategy is quite high and complex 136
7. (MesseniPetruzzelli et al., 2011; De Marchi, 2012). However, firms in developing country lack necessary skills, managerial expertise and knowledge to adopt green strategy. The various barriers under this category involves, lack of knowledge regarding green strategy and legislations by employees and entrepreneurs (Shen and Tam, 2002; Simpson et al., 2004; Runhaar et al., 2008; Mudgal et al., 2010; Horbach et al., 2012; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Longoni et al., 2014; Mangla et al., 2017); lack of ability of employees to identify environmental opportunities (Theyel, 2000; Runhaar et al., 2008; Govindan et al., 2014); lack of belief in environmental benefits of green products (Revell and Rutherfoord, 2003; Walker et al., 2008; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2014); lack of technological information regarding green technologies (Woolman and Veshagh, 2006; Madrid-Guijarro et al., 2009; Pinget et al., 2015; Mangla et al., 2017); lack of awareness about recycling and reverse logistics facilities (Ravi and Shankar, 2005; Meade et al., 2007; Marsillac, 2008; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013). 3. Research method for ranking constrains to the adoption of green strategy To identify and rank constrains to adoption of green strategy in Vietnamese firms, a two-phase methodology is proposed. Figure 1. Percentage of companies for each sector Phase 1 involves the identification of managers of Vietnamese exporting firms, literature review and discussion with these managers through Delphi method to finalize constrains to green strategy. The empirical investigation is restricted to the case of exporting companies and classified into 3 sectors, namely seafood, textile, and footwear (Figure 1). Not only these 3 sectors are in the list of Top export products of Vietnam and but also their manufacturing processes have affected much to natural environment. Therefore, they are chosen as typical sample of this research. Delphi method involves several rounds of discussion with managers until a final consensus is reached between managers. Through a detailed literature review, a total of thirty-two constrains were identified and put for discussion with 32 managers of 32 Vietnamese export manufacturing firms. After three rounds of discussion with these managers (1st round was taken in March 2019, 2nd round was in June, 2019 and 3rd round was in October 2019), three constrains were deleted and six new barriers were added in the context of Vietnam and a total of thirty-five constrains were identified which were categorized into seven main categories. 137
8. Phase 2 involves ranking of the constrains. Best - Worst Methodology (BWM) given by Rezaei (2015, 2016) is used to rank the constrains. There are several MCDM techniques available like AHP, ANP, MAUT, SMART etc. to rank the constrains by calculating weights of the constrains but BWM has advantage over these MCMD techniques because it requires lesser number of pairwise comparisons as compared to other MCDM techniques like AHP (Rezaei, 2015). BWM compares the alternatives with best alternatives and worst alternative with all other alternatives only, so relatively lesser data is required than AHP which requires pairwise comparison among all the alternatives. The steps of using BWM as given by Rezaei (2015, 2016) are explained below: Step 1: Selection of attributes (constrains) for analysis. Through literature review and manager opinion, the attributes (constrains) are finalized for analysis. Step 2: Among finalized attributes best and the worst attribute is finalized by each manager for both main category and subcategory attributes. Step 3: Next each manager is asked to give preference rating for the best attribute selected over all other attributes using a scale of 1 to 9. Step 4: After this, preference rating of all attributes with the worst attribute is taken by managers. Step 5: Optimized weights (w1, w2, ,wn) for all the attributes is calculated next. The objective is to obtain the weights of attributes so that the maximum absolute differences for all j can be minimized for {|wB − aBjwj|,|wj − ajWwW|}. This minimax model will be obtained: min max {|wB − aBjwj|,|wj − ajWwW|} wj ≥0; for all j (1). Model (1) when transformed into a linear model gives better results, the model is shown below: |wB − aBjwj| ≤ξL, for all j. |wj − ajWwW| ≤ξL, for all j wj ≥0; for all j (2) Model (2) can be solved to obtain optimal weights (w 1 , w 2 , , wn) and optimal value ξL Consistency (ξL) of attribute comparisons close to 0 is desired (Rezaei, 2016). 4. Results of ranking constrains to the adoption of green strategy 4.1. Finalization of selection constrains A combined method of extensive literature review and Delphi method developed by Dalkey and Helmer (1963) is used to finalize the criteria constrains to green strategy. This approach involves first identifying constrains through review of past studies and then putting these constrains before 32 Vietnam firms’ managers for their deliberations to add or delete any constrains. A panel of all the 32 managers selected for study was formed and they were made to hold 03 rounds of discussions in order to finalize the constrains among the thirty- two constrains that were identified through literature review. After three rounds of discussions among managers and various additions and deletions in constrains, thirty-five constrains were finalized which were categorized into seven categories as shown in Table 2. 138
9. Table 2. Constrains to the adoption of green strategy Constrains Sub-constrains Managerial, Lack of commitment from export manufacturing firms’ entrepreneur organizational (MO1) and human Reluctance to switch to green strategy (MO2) resource related Lack of training and consultancy programs related to green strategy constrains (MO) (MO3) Lack of human resources for green strategy (MO4) High costs for certifications related to green strategy (MO5) Lack of interaction with government agencies and participation in programs organized by government related to green strategy (MO6) Lack of reward systems for green strategy (MO7) Technological Lack of capabilities in R&D for green strategy (TG1) and green Technological and market uncertainty and fear of failure related to resource-related green strategy (TG2) constrains (TG) Incompetent technologies to adopt green strategy (TG3) Complex designing process in order to reuse/recycle products and reduce resource usage (TG4) Lack of new technology, materials, processes, and skills to innovate (TG5) Lack of investments in R&D for green strategy (TG6) Financial and Less payoff as compared to investment in green strategy (FE1) economic Lack of access to government subsidies and financial incentives constrains (FE) (FE2) Unavailability of bank loans to promote green strategy (FE3) High costs of disposing of hazardous wastes (FE4) High change over costs from traditional strategy to the green strategy (FE5) Poor external The unwillingness of supply chain partners to exchange information partnership and on ES (PP1) stakeholder Lack of understanding about green strategy (PP2) engagement Poor communication with external partners and lack of role clarity (PP) (PP3) Lack of platforms or forums for export manufacturing firms to discuss problems related to green strategy (PP4) Lack of pressure from partners to switch to green strategy (PP5) Lack of Complex and rigid rules for green strategy (GS1) government Enforcement of environmental policies thus giving trespassing support for advantage to few (GS2) green strategy Lack of training programs by the government regarding green 139
10. (GS) strategy for export manufacturing firms (GS3) Lack of help by the government for technology upgradation by export manufacturing firms (GS4) Market and Lack of customers' responsiveness towards green products (MC1) customer related Lack of awareness and knowledge regarding green products (MC2) constrains (MC) Unable to access resources from market to produce green products (MC3) Insufficient Lack of knowledge regarding ES and legislations among employees knowledge and and entrepreneurs (IK1) information Lack of ability of employees to identify environmental opportunities regarding green (IK2) strategy (IK) Lack of belief in environmental benefits of green products (IK3) Lack of technological information regarding green technologies (IK4) Lack of awareness about recycling and reverse logistics facilities (IK5) 4.2. Calculation of weights of constrains using Best-Worst Methodology After constrains are finalized by 32 managers of Vietnamese firms, they are then evaluated the weights. All 32 managers were asked to rate the constrains in main criteria as well as sub-criteria as best and worst constrains. Here the best constrains in BWM methodology is the one that is most severe and needs to be addressed first and the worst barrier is the one that is least severe and hence least important from the point of view of study and can be addressed last. The managers from each firms were asked to rate the main criteria constrains as well as sub-criteria constrains using the steps shown in Section 3 above. 32 export manufacturing firms are considered as 32 cases. The results of pairwise comparison of each of the main criteria constrains and sub-criteria constrains are separated into 32 scenarios for 32 firm and the results of pairwise comparison of each of the main criteria constrains and sub-criteria constrains for scenario 1 - case 1 (company 1) as in Table 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as following: Table 3. Pairwise comparison of Managerial, organizational and human resource related constrains for company 1 140
11. Table 4. Pairwise comparison of Technological and green resource-related constrains for company 1 Table 5. Pairwise comparison of Financial and economic constrains for company 1 Table 6. Pairwise comparison of Poor external partnership and stakeholder engagement for company 1 141
12. Table 7. Pairwise comparison of Lack of government support for green initiatives for company 1 Table 8. Pairwise comparison of Market and customer related constrains for company 1 Table 9. Pairwise comparison of Insufficient knowledge and information regarding green strategy for company 1 After the pairwise comparison of each of the main criteria constrain and sub-criteria constrain by 32 Vietnamese managers, the main criteria and sub-criteria weights for all the constrains are calculated and an average of weights obtained through ratings are presented in Table 10. Weights of main category and sub-category constrains are calculated individually through ratings obtained by each expert and they were then aggregated using average of weights obtained by each manager. A similar method was adopted for calculating aggregated consistency ratio. 142
13. Table 10. Aggregate weights of main and sub-criteria constrains for Vietnamese export manufacturing firms Main Weig Aggrega Sub Weigh Aggregat Glob Ranki criteria hts of ted criter ts of ed al ng main consiste ia sub- consisten weig criter ncy criteri cy hts ia ratio of a ratio of main sub- criteria criteria Managerial, 0.059 0.033 MO1 0.166 0.029 0.012 24 organizatio MO2 0.250 0.017 18 nal and MO3 0.256 0.016 19 human MO4 0.121 0.009 28 resource MO5 0.054 0.005 34 related MO6 0.036 0.004 35 constrains MO7 0.083 0.007 31 (MO) Technologi 0.376 TG1 0.220 0.033 0.085 3 cal and TG2 0.126 0.049 5 green TG3 0.113 0.047 7 resource- TG4 0.056 0.029 14 related TG5 0.421 0.162 1 constrains TG6 0.064 0.024 15 (TG) Financial 0.201 FE1 0.045 0.027 0.011 27 and FE2 0.149 0.032 11 economic FE3 0.071 0.016 19 constrains FE4 0.165 0.035 10 (FE) FE5 0.430 0.089 2 Poor 0.046 PP1 0.174 0.042 0.008 30 external PP2 0.376 0.019 16 partnership PP3 0.256 0.015 21 and PP4 0.063 0.006 33 stakeholder PP5 0.130 0.009 28 s engagement (PP) Lack of 0.072 GS1 0.407 0.028 0.031 12 government GS2 0.130 0.013 23 support for GS3 0.071 0.007 31 green GS4 0.392 0.031 12 initiatives (GS) Market and 0.136 MC1 0.098 0.036 0.015 21 customer MC2 0.336 0.048 6 related MC3 0.567 0.079 4 constrains (MC) Insufficient 0.110 IK1 0.322 0.044 0.039 9 knowledge IK2 0.073 0.012 24 143
14. and IK3 0.139 0.018 17 information IK4 0.378 0.044 8 regarding IK5 0.088 0.012 24 green strategies (IK) 5. Findings In this study, Delphi method is used to identify and then Best-Worst analysis is used to rank the constrains to green strategy. Table 10 shows the weights of main criteria constrains as well as sub-criteria constrains, the rankings are obtained on their respective weights. Total seven main constrains were finalized and among them, Technological and green resources related constrains (TG) is ranked first through manager opinion and analysis. The results are in conformance with previous studies of Perron (2005) and Silva et al. (2008) wherein they also found lack of technical expertise as one of the major barriers to green strategy. Lack of technical expertise negatively effects green strategy abilities of firms (Revell and Rutherfoord, 2003), and sufficient R&D capabilities, resources, and green strategy abilities provides an edge to firms over their competitors and help them further venture into green product categories through innovations (Lai et al., 2003). For any firm to sustain in long run, environmental resources are a necessity. The general deficiency of resources and the reluctance of management in order to allocate resources for green initiatives act as a major constrain for firms in developing countries (Hillary, 2004; Silva et al., 2008). Physical as well as science-technology infrastructure is an important part of innovation system but this infrastructure requires monetary support and private agencies are often unable to support much, thus assistance from public agencies is required to build infrastructure for innovation (Foxon and Pearson, 2008). Second among a ranking of constrains is Financial and economic constrains (FE). Financial support is necessary for innovations but despite the need to develop a proper financial system, the financial support system for green strategy is still not developed (Cainelli and Mazzanti, 2013). Companies often invest more than 20% of their revenues towards buying resources for green strategy (Nikolaou and Evangelinos, 2010). But firms in developing countries lack the capital investments for these resources and thus financial barriers act as a major constrain for green strategy (Del Rớo et al., 2010). High cost for green strategy is also a major concern for Vietnamese export manufacturing firms. Green strategy’s activities like environmental packing of materials, environmentally friendly waste disposal, and management, maintaining hazardous material inventory all involve substantial investments. The amount of financial budget available with these firms are too less to handle these activities, thus costs along with limited financial support from both internal and external sources act as a major impediment to green strategy (Pinget et al., 2015). Third among main category constrains is Market and customer related constrains (MC). The demand for any product depends upon willingness of the customers to pay for that product, with green products customers are often reluctant to shed extra money, this, in turn, hampers green strategy efforts of the firms which often loose motivation to carry on innovations due to lack of customer demand (Silva et al., 2008). It is generally found that 144
15. customers are not aware of the benefits of green products and this lack of awareness about benefits of eco-friendliness influences their buying decisions and thus leads to the low demand of green products (Chen et al., 2006; Mudgal et al., 2010; Dhull and Narwal, 2016). Green strategy involves complex technologies and different demand pattern, thus there is a need to effectively manage the technology push and demand pull for green products that often act as a barrier to green strategy (Pinget et al., 2015). Among sub- criteria constrains, lack of new technology, materials, processes, and skills to innovate (TG5) is ranked first. Innovation requires access to latest technologies, raw materials, and novel methodologies. Almost Vietnamese firms lack on all these fronts and thus are unable to innovate to that extent. Lack of technology to design efficient products, inadequate facility to switchover to the new system (Revell and Rutherfoord, 2003; Perron, 2005) are few constrains under this category. Second among sub-criteria constrains is high change over costs from traditional to the green system (FE5). Mudgal et al. (2010) also found that adoption of the new system is often costly and switching over to the green system is considered unnecessary burden by the organizations and act as a major barrier. Third among sub-criteria constrain, is lack of capabilities in green strategy (TG1). Organizations involved in innovations get first mover advantage, increase their market share significantly and gain over their competitors and this is possible only when organizations have more capabilities in R&D and green strategy as compared to its competitors (Lai et al., 2003). 6. Discussions and conclusions The results obtained through this research has several managerial and practical implications, these are discussed as follows. First of all, export manufacturing firms in Vietnam are recently facing to various constrains to adopting green strategies. Green strategy can act as a way to become successful in trade protectionism context, and Vietnamese export manufacturing firms are also not left out. However, as compared to other firms in developed countries, Vietnamese export manufacturing firms face a lot of constraints in adopting green strategies. To become environmentally and economically sustainable, Vietnamese export manufacturing firms need to overcome these barriers. This study can act as a cornerstone for Vietnamese export manufacturing firms to identify hindering forces to green strategy and work towards overcoming them. Through extensive literature review and discussion with 32 managers, seven main constrains and thirty-five subcategory constrains were identified. Managers of export manufacturing companies, as well as other firms, can benefit from these constrains as they can work towards improving these constrains in their firm. Second, attention should be devoted to the different meanings that barriers to green strategy adoption assumes depending on the specific sector. In this research, the sample is focus on seafood, footwear and textile export manufacturing companies. They are all in low-tech character of the industries. Therefore, technological and resource-related constrains are ranked first among all constrains. In the past, sustainability efforts in these industries focused on safe, fair working conditions, and eradicating child labor practices. In recent years, the growing concern has been the industries’ environmental impact. Challenges focus on resource depletion and pollution emissions from processing fossil 145
16. fuels for synthetic fibers, significant water and chemical use related to production of fiber crops, and water, toxicity and hazardous waste and effluents related to the production stage. To overcome this constrain, managers can work towards improving their technologies and also look for avenues to acquire green resources from the market. However, the ranking of this constrain may be changed depending on the specific sector. For example, it has emerged that in the ‘energy’ and ‘utilities’ sectors, green product development is mainly referred to renewable energy offerings and technologies, while in the ‘basic materials’, ‘industrial’ and ‘consumer’ sectors it is mainly concerned with the use of recycled materials, the adoption of a life cycle approach and green packaging. Moreover, in the ‘healthcare’ sector it is mainly related to green packaging, while in the ‘technology’ and ‘telecommunication’ sectors to energy efficient products or to services that replace physical mobility. Finally, the study carried out may be particularly useful for Vietnam manufacturing companies that want to pursue green strategy as a way to become successful in trade protectionism context. Given that companies in the sample belong to Top export sectors of Vietnam, they are typical manufacturing companies. Therefore, the constrains they are facing can be considered as a benchmark for other manufacturing companies. However, further research should be devoted to extend the analysis to companies operating in the same sectors and geo- graphical areas as those analyzed in this paper. REFERENCES 1. Abdullah, M., Zailani, S., Iranmanesh, M., Jayaraman, K., 2016. Barriers to green innovation initiatives among manufacturers: the Malaysian case. Rev. Manag. Sci. 10 (4), 683-709. 2. AlKhidir, T., Zailani, S., 2009. Going green in supply chain towards environmental sustainability. Global Journal of Environmental Research 3 (3), 246-251. 3. Amit, R., Schoemaker, P.J., 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strateg. Manag. J. 4 (1), 33-46. 4. Ashford, N.A., 1993. Understanding technological responses of industrial firms to environ-mental problems: implications for government policy. In: Fischer, K., Schot, J. (Eds.), Environmental Strategies for Industry, pp. 277-307. 5. Beamon, B.M., 1999. Designing the green supply chain. Logist. Inf. Manag. 12 (4), 332-342. 6. Beise, M., Rennings, K., 2005. Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations. Ecol. Econ. 52 (1), 5-17. 7. Bliesner, A., Liedtke, C., Rohn, H., 2014. Resource efficiency and culture—workplace training for small and medium-sized enterprises. Sci. Total Environ. 481, 645-648. 8. Blok, V., Long, T.B., Gaziulusoy, A.I., Ciliz, N., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Boks, C., 2015. From best practices to bridges for a more sustainable future: advances and challenges in the transition to global sustainable production and consumption: introduction to the ERSCP stream of the special volume. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 19-30. 146
17. 9. Brammer, S., Hoejmose, S., Marchant, K., 2012. Environmental management in SMEs in the UK: practices, pressures and perceived benefits. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 21 (7), 423-434. 10. Cainelli, G., Mazzanti, M., 2013. Environmental innovations in services: manufacturing- services integration and policy transmissions. Res. Policy 42 (9), 1595-1604. 11. Carter, C.R., Dresner, M., 2001. Purchasing's role in environmental management: cross- functional development of grounded theory. J. Supply Chain Manag. 37 (2), 12-27. 12. Chen, Y.S., Lai, S.B., Wen, C.T., 2006. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 67 (4), 331-339. 13. Collins, E., Lawrence, S., Pavlovich, K., Ryan, C., 2007. Business networks and the uptake of sustainability practices: the case of New Zealand. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (8), 729-740. 14. De Marchi, V., 2012. Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 41 (3), 614-623. 15. Del Rớo, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., Kửnnửlọ, T., 2010. Policy strategies to promote eco-innovation. J. Ind. Ecol. 14 (4), 541-557. 16. Dhull, S., Narwal, M., 2016. Drivers and barriers in green supply chain management adaptation: a state-of-art review. Uncertain Supply Chain Management 4 (1), 61-76. 17. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Ali, S.S., 2015. Exploring the relationship between leadership, operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance: a framework for green supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 160, 120-132. 18. Eltayeb, T.K., Zailani, S., Ramayah, T., 2011. Green supply chain initiatives among certified companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: investigating the outcomes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (5), 495-506. 19. Fai Pun, K., 2006. Determinants of environmentally responsible operations: a review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 23 (3), 279-297. 20. Foxon, T., Pearson, P., 2008. Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (1), S148-S161. 21. Friedman, A.L., Miles, S., 2002. SMEs and the environment: evaluating dissemination routes and handholding levels. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 11 (5), 324-341. 22. Ghisetti, C., Mancinelli, S., Mazzanti, M., Zoli, M., 2017. Financial barriers and environmental innovations: evidence from EU manufacturing firms. Clim. Pol. 17 (sup1), S131-S147. 23. Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., Haq, A.N., 2014. Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 555-568. 24. Green, K., McMeekin, A., Irwin, A., 1994. Technological trajectories and R&D for environ-mental innovation in UK firms. Futures 26 (10), 1047-1059. 147
18. 25. Gupta, H., 2017. Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR. Journal of Air Transport Management jairtraman.2017.06.001 (in press). 26. Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., 2018. A grey DEMATEL-based approach for modeling enablers of green innovation in manufacturing organizations. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.:1-23 27. Hadjimanolis, A., 1999. Barriers to innovation for SMEs in a small less developed country (Cyprus). Technovation 19 (9), 561-570. 28. Hall, B.H., Lerner, J., 2010. The financing of R&D and innovation. Handbook of the Econom-ics of Innovation 1, 609-639. 29. Hall, B.H., Moncada-Paternũ-Castello, P., Montresor, S., Vezzani, A., 2016. Financing con-straints, R&D investments and innovative performances: new empirical evidence at the firm level for Europe. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 25 (3), 183-196. 30. Hillary, R., 2004. Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. J. Clean.Prod. 12 (6), 561-569. 31. Hojnik, J., Ruzzier, M., 2016. Drivers of and barriers to eco-innovation: a case study. Inter-national Journal of Sustainable Economy 8 (4), 273-294. 32. Hong, P., Kwon, H.B., Jungbae Roh, J., 2009. Implementation of strategic green orientation in supply chain: an empirical study of manufacturing firms. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 12(4), 512-532. 33. Horbach, J., 2008. Determinants of environmental innovation—new evidence from Ger-man panel data sources. Res. Policy 37 (1), 163-173. 34. Horbach, J., Rammer, C., Rennings, K., 2012. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact—the role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecol. Econ. 78, 112-122. 35. Jabbour, C.J.C., Jugend, D., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Gunasekaran, A., Latan, H., 2015. Green product development and performance of Brazilian firms: measuring the role of human and technical aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 442-451. 36. Jinzhou, W., 2011. Discussion on the relationship between green technological innovation and system innovation. Energy Procedia 5, 2352-2357. 37. Jones, P., Hillier, D., Comfort, D., 2011. Shopping for tomorrow: promoting sustainable consumption within food stores. Br. Food J. 113 (7), 935-948. 38. Kapetanopoulou, P., Tagaras, G., 2011. Drivers and obstacles of product recovery activities in the Greek industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 31 (2), 148-166. 39. Konar, S., Cohen, M.A., 2001. Does the market value environmental performance? Rev. 40. Econ. Stat. 83 (2), 281-289. 41. Lee, S.Y., 2008. Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain initiatives. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13 (3), 185-198. 148
19. 42. Madrid-Guijarro, A., Garcia, D., Van Auken, H., 2009. Barriers to innovation among Spanish manufacturing SMEs. J. Small Bus. Manag. 47 (4), 465-488. 43. Marin, G., Marzucchi, A., Zoboli, R., 2015. SMEs and barriers to eco-innovation in the EU: exploring different firm profiles. J. Evol. Econ. 25 (3), 671-705. 44. Marsillac, E.L., 2008. Environmental impacts on reverse logistics and green supply chains: similarities and integration. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 4 (4), 411-422. 45. Maruthi, G.D., Rashmi, R., 2015. Green manufacturing: its tools and techniques that can be implemented in manufacturing sectors. Mater. Today 2 (4), 3350-3355. 46. Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., Noorul-Haq, A., 2014. Pressure analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod Res. 52 (1), 188-202. 47. Min, H., Galle, W.P., 2001. Green purchasing practices of US firms. Int. J. Oper. Prod.Manag. 21 (9), 1222-1238. 48. Montalvo, C., 2003. Sustainable production and consumption systems—cooperation for change: assessing and simulating the willingness of the firm to adopt/develop cleaner technologies. The case of the In-Bond industry in northern Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 11 (4), 411-426. 49. Perron, G.M., 2005. Barriers to Environmental Performance Improvements in Canadian SMEs. Dalhousie University, Canada. 50. Pinget, A., Bocquet, R., Mothe, C., 2015. Barriers to environmental innovation in SMEs: empirical evidence from French firms. Management 18 (2), 132-155. 149