Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practice of Ethiopian Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Industry

Abstract

Next to the oil industry, the apparel industries are strongly criticized for their negative impact on the ecosystem. Due to the current global trend, manufacturing industries are expected to consider sustainability issues beyond conventional business goals. In this regard, the study investigates the Ethiopian apparel and textile manufacturing industries’ sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) practices. A descriptive research design methodology using a cross-sectional survey was used. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires. A simple random sampling technique to decide sample size and a purposive sampling technique to select respondents were employed. A total of 71 participants provided a valid response. The metrics for the survey were developed from different literature, and structural equation modeling was used for data analysis. The results demonstrated that the state of the implementation of SSCM practices by the fashion manufacturing industry in Ethiopia is still in its promising stages. The hypotheses test results showed that SSCM practices positively impact SSCM performance and competitiveness at $p$ values of 0.05, except environmental practices with economic performance. The study provides additional insight into the growing field of literature that examines the relationships among SSCM practices, performance, and competitiveness. The findings offer insight for industrial policymakers to improve sustainability for global competitiveness. The Ethiopian government is making significant efforts to boost the manufacturing sector through the “Let Ethiopia Produce” campaign, and sustainability is among the significant necessities for the global competitiveness of the Ethiopian manufacturing industry.

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Introduction

In the years since the Industrial Uprising, the increasing demand for competition has led to the birth of several management theories to gain a comparative advantage over competing firms in the marketplace. Accordingly, supply chain management (SCM) is theories introduced in the early 1980s [1, 2]. Various trends, including market economic globalization, digitalization, the shortened life cycle of a product, restricted customer/government requirements, and resource scarcity, have led to the advent of SSCM, which combines sustainable development and SCM [3]. Therefore, the need to understand how to assimilate sustainability in globally distributed supply chains is important.

The fashion and textile industries are resource-intensive due to their short production, consumption cycles, and complicated supply chain nature, and the sectors are vulnerable to the dawn of social, economic, and environmental problems along the SC [4, 5]. This sector is a significant contributor to several social and environmental concerns around the world [6]. The apparel industry, responsible for 35.6% of global energy usage and projected to rise at a 1.2% rate, is forecast to raise CO₂ emissions by 60% to approximately 2.8 billion tons per year by 2030, contributing 10% of global carbon emissions [7], 20% of all water pollution is caused by the apparel industry [8], and the industry consumes significant resources, including 93 billion meters cubic water, 130 million tons of coal and chemicals, and accounting for 4% of the total global solid wastes as [9] cited [10] making it the second most pollution releasing sector globally. The fashion business is chastised for its environmental and social consequences, such as water pollution, land utilization, textile waste, and harmful chemicals. It is also criticized for its bad working conditions, unethical methods, worker safety, social security, labor violence, and equality [5, 11]. Then, focusing on implementing sustainability practices is crucial to reduce the impacts.

At this time, interested parties, especially consumers, are more aware of the textile and garment industry’s influence on the environment, driving manufacturing sectors to integrate and coordinate SCM techniques [12–14]. Sustainability practices and performances vary by nation and economic level [15, 16]. Developing countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Ethiopia are prioritizing sustainable textile and apparel manufacturing practices globally [17]. The study explores the impact of SSCM practices on Ethiopian industries and their effect on SSCM performance. It emphasizes the essentiality of significant research and interventions to improve sustainable practices, focusing on the three sustainability attributes and reducing industries’ impact throughout their supply chain. First, studies on sustainability that are empirically tested from an integrated perspective, that is, considering “economic, social, and environmental” perspectives, are rare, as most academics focus on social or environmental sustainability. Second, sustainability studies from developing economies are fewer in number. Third, as per a literature review by [18], the relationship between a firm’s sustainability performance and its implementation of sustainable practices is uncertain. In addition, some studies show both significant and insignificant results [19]. Furthermore, the success of Ethiopia’s manufacturing industries is not significantly linked to the use of SSCM techniques [20]. Still, agreeing with [20], the Ethiopian apparel manufacturing sector lacks adequate empirical research on sustainable practices throughout the supply chain system and subgroups. The aim is to look into existing industry practices for SSCM, with an emphasis on Triple E performance. The study tries to determine the reasons influencing these practices, the driving forces, and the influence on individual firm performance. It seeks to fill this gap by investigating the influence of sustainable SCM practices on a company’s performance. To address the aforementioned flaws, this study tried to answer the following research issues:

  RQ1. What kind of SSCM practices is undertaken by the Ethiopian “textile and apparel industry” to enhance their sustainability performance?

  RQ2. What is the extent of the implementation of SSCM practices in the Ethiopian “textile and apparel industry”?

  RQ3. How does the practice of SSCM practices affect the SSCM performance of organizations and their competitiveness?

To answer the above question, the research adopts a different methodology. First, study metrics were collected from various literature. The first research question was addressed during data collection by the data collector. The respondent’s rate on the practice extracted from the literature was analyzed by sample paired t-test analysis, and the relationship of the variable and the SSCM practice effect on firms’ performance was assessed by the structural equation modeling (SEM) to address the third question. This study makes a noteworthy contribution to the ongoing research that relates sustainable practices to performance outcomes in a new framework. Furthermore, data are collected from Ethiopia, an unindustrialized country with an increasingly global business presence, but of which very little SSCM research has been carried out.

This study is arranged in five sections. The first section explains the research background, foundation of the problem, and objectives. The second portion conducts a rigorous literature assessment of SSCM methods and their consequences, spanning theoretical, empirical, and conceptual ideas. The third section contains the research design, sampling, approach, data collection instrument, and data analysis techniques. Section four highlights the analysis outcomes and discussion. Finally, section five concludes the study and the implications from the theoretical, practical, and limitations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Review

2.1.1. SSCM Practices

As production increases in response to fast fashion trends, the environmental effect of the clothing business is rising. To mitigate this impact, the garment supply chain has taken proactive steps, ranging from raw material selection to end-of-life apparel goods. Sustainability practices are adopted as a proactive technique in business administration to reduce the ecological impact of the sector particularly in their SCM in particular [5, 21]. Sustainability means a business strategy that promotes long-term corporate growth and profitability by mandating the incorporation of environmental and social issues into the business model [22, 23]. Consequently, SSCM means a managerial activity relating to the integration of supply chain with sustainable development [18, 24, 25]. SCM includes various concepts such as environment, which includes organizations that seek to reduce negative environmental impacts in their supply chains, social practices to improve the working conditions of employees or support community activities, and economic practices that plan to sustain the companies’ financial interests [26, 27].

2.1.1.1. Environmental SSC Practices

The study of environmental initiatives in the framework of supply chains is named green SCM (GSCM) [28, 29]. Industries implemented SSCM through environmental programs (such as the design of recycled products, sustainable product and process design, packaging improvements, energy efficiency, reverse logistics, environmental purchasing, green logistics, customer collaboration, and environmental certification) [30, 31]. The practices of GSCM are intended to reduce the impact of the industries on the ecosystem [31].

2.1.1.2. Socially SSC Practices

The focus on social sustainability in the SC has grown due to increased awareness of equity, wellness, security, education, bonded labor, and ethical practices [32]. Social SSCM refers to the impact of supply chain processes on stakeholders and society as a whole, with an emphasis on equality and social justice [33]. Industries are implementing social SSCM through programs focusing on worker working conditions, ethics, safety, health, equity, labor welfare, social security, human rights, socially responsible purchasing, and customer social responsibility [34, 35]. SPC involves local community investments for job and commercial opportunities, as well as offering, education, training, and healthcare facilities, enabling the corporation to thrive in stakeholders’ eyes [36–39].

2.1.1.3. Economical SSC Practices

Economic sustainability involves enhancing efficiency, quality, inventory reduction, and waste reduction throughout the value chain, promoting sustained economic expansion without negatively impacting a society, and the environment [30]. Industries have adopted economic practices that prioritize quality, speed, dependability, adaptability, and cost as metrics [23, 40], plus time and innovation [35].

2.1.2. SSCM Performance

Firm performance can be measured using various dimensions such as environmental, operational, organizational, financial, economic, marketing, and competitive [41]. The House of Sustainable SCM proposed by [42] identified three magnitudes of SSCM performance environmental, economic, and social. A sustainable system meets current needs without conceding the resources of future generations’ capability [43]. Organizations performance, on the other hand, is a measure of economic achievement, often measured by financial metrics like return on investment and profit [25]. The study assessed the performance of SSCM in four dimensions: environmental, social, economic, and competitiveness.

2.1.2.1. Environmental Performance

EPR is a performance metric that strives to reduce waste discharge, effluent treatment, and discharge costs, and the frequency of environmental mishaps by limiting the discharge of solid, liquid, gaseous, and toxic substances [31, 44], and the focus was on reducing shop floor accidents and promoting the protection of biodiversity [45].

2.1.2.2. Social Performance

Organizational performance in this domain is typically categorized into employee-centered social performance (ESP) and community-centered social performance (CSP). ESP reduces inequity in employee remuneration and improves health, working conditions, and living conditions, enabling employees to develop their capabilities within the organization [37, 39]. CSP enhances corporate social image by improving opportunities for employment and business for the surrounding community, improving their education, literacy, and health [46].

2.1.2.3. Economic Performance

Operations performance (OPR) analyzes an organization’s ability to reduce costs and increase efficiency across its entire supply chain. A decrease in the cost of purchased materials/cost of production was suggested by the authors of [12, 45]. A decrease in the energy consumption/cost of energy consumption was recommended by the authors of [44, 47]. Further enhancement of logistics efficiency was utilized by the authors of [48].

2.1.2.4. Overall Firm Performance/Competitiveness

Competitiveness is a key management decision that identifies the unique capabilities that set a firm apart from its competitors [30]. The literature suggests competitiveness measures in terms of price/cost, quality, delivery dependability/fill rate, and productivity/capacity utilization improvement [49]. These include differentiation in competition/products [42], retention of customer base, new market opportunities [50, 51], and improvement in the corporate image [42, 51]. The term “overall performance/competitivity” refers to the overall and competitive aspects of a firm’s performance.

2.2. The Hypothesis Development and Empirical Review of the Study

This research examines the relationship between SSCM practices, performance, and company competitiveness by reviewing existing ideas and formulating hypotheses for testing. Environmental sustainability refers to the reduction of the environmental sway of an organization’s facilities, products, and operations through the implementation of sustainable processes and systems. Studies indicate that sustainability practices in SCM significantly influence the “environmental, social, and economic” performance of organizations [34, 52]. According to Kumar & Kushwaha [53], GSCM practices offer cost savings, improved efficiency, and enticing new vendors and customers. Some studies such as [25, 34, 54] demonstrated that corporate performance and environmental practices were positively correlated, and other studies such as [30, 55] found no substantial relationship between practices, organizational sustainability, and overall performance. Other research studies, including [56], discovered a combination of positive and other correlations. The authors emphasized that excessive deals in environmental protection activities could lead to subpar economic performance [57]. GSCM practices significantly enhance a firm’s economic performance [24, 28, 29]. Yet [58], environmental management and socially responsible management techniques have no direct impact on a company’s financial performance. Still, the effect of environmental sustainability practices on the performance and competitiveness of firms in SSCM remains unclear [20]. To reduce resource consumption, improve stakeholder relations, enhance brand image, and maybe boost revenue, strategic research advises corporations to combine economic strategy with environmental responsibilities. There is conflicting evidence in the literature about how SSCM affects performance outcomes; however environmental practices and SSCM performance are generally positively correlated. Then, the proposed theory is as follows:

  H1a: The environmental practices in the SCM significantly impact the performance of environmental sustainability.

  H1b: Environmental practices in the SCM significantly impact the performance of social sustainability.

  H1c: Environmental practices in the SCM significantly impact the performance of economic sustainability.

The firm’s social reputation and financial performance are enhanced through sustainable relationships with stakeholders such as employees, customers, business partners, and the community [59]. The social aspect of a business involves adhering to laws and international treaties, involving stakeholders in transparent processes, establishing rights, and ensuring decent wages, working conditions, worker safety, and collective bargaining rights [60, 61]. Studies such as [34] and [25] organizational performance was found to be positively correlated with socially sustainable activities, and other studies such as [62] discovered a substantial indirect association but no meaningful correlation between these behaviors and organizational performance. Yet, studies by [30] and [63] discovered an amalgamation of significant and other associations, indicating a significant relationship but in the opposite direction. Sustainable environmental and socially responsible management practices indirectly influence environmental and social performance, which in turn affects firm economic performance [57]. Studies [39, 57, 64] found that social practices focusing on human rights, organizational governance, and a conducive environment significantly enhance social performance but do not affect a firm’s financial performance. The authors of [39, 64] implementing CSR policies significantly improve employee happiness, morale, community relationships, and environmental sustainability, leading to improved competitive performance. Then, the proposed theory is:

  H2a: Social practices in SCM significantly impact the performance of environmental sustainability.

  H2b: Social practices in SCM significantly impact the performance of social sustainability.

  H2c: Social practices in SCM significantly impact the performance of Economic sustainability.

The traditional practice of SCM or SSCM positively impacts a company’s competitiveness and sustainability performance. A study by Kannan & Tan [65] demonstrated that economic practices significantly impact a firm’s competitiveness. Studies indicate that the conventional practice of SCM enhances both financial and market performance [49, 66]. SCM practices, including all relevant components, significantly impact organizational performance and a firm’s competitive advantage [30, 57]. In line with the discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:

  H3a: Economic practices in SSCM significantly affect environmental sustainability performance.

  H3b: Economic practices in SSCM significantly affect social sustainability performance.

  H3c: Economic practices in SSCM significantly affect economic sustainability performance.

The relationship between green performance and firm competitiveness is not supported by any convincing evidence. Several authors have found a significant and positive correlation between sustainable environmental practices and overall firm competitiveness [29, 67, 68]. On the contrary, the authors of [30, 49] revealed a substantial negative association between SSCM performance and competitiveness. EPR enhancement significantly enhances cost competitive advantage, but not differentiation competitive advantage [68]. The authors of [62, 69] found that a firm’s competitive performance is significantly influenced by its environmental performance.

The study reveals a significant negative correlation between socially sustainable performance and competitiveness when considering only a direct relationship. Nonetheless, there is a significant correlation between it and competitiveness in an indirect way [30]. The authors of [14] argued that enhanced safety and working conditions in businesses can enhance employee satisfaction, prevent accidents, boost productivity, and minimize loss. By promoting social legitimacy, improving business conditions, and increasing financial returns for organizations, SSCM techniques have greatly enhanced social sustainability [70].

An organization’s competitiveness can be logically enhanced through improved operations and SC performance in terms of cost, quality, delivery, and responsiveness. Operational performance is crucial for a firm to gain a competitive advantage, as it significantly impacts its overall performance [71]. The authors of [72] mentioned that the enhancement of a firm’s operational capabilities leads to enhanced performance. The proposed hypotheses include the following:

  H4a: Environmental performance significantly impacts a firm’s competitiveness.

  H4b: Social performance significantly impacts a firm’s competitiveness.

  H4c: Economic performance significantly impacts a firm’s competitiveness.

The study’s conceptual framework, as depicted in Figure 1, is based on the aforementioned hypotheses.

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

3. Methodology

3.1. Overview of the Research Process

The research strategies for the study were initiated with a study of literature, followed by hypotheses conceptualization and model development, survey instrument development, face validity through expert opinion, followed by the administration of a questionnaire survey, and focus group discussion. The study adopted the two-step approach suggested by the authors of [34]; in the first part, the scale was developed using the study of literature and validated by employing reliability analysis with SPSS 26 and CFA with the software AMOS 26. In the second part, the hypotheses will be tested using SEM with AMOS 26.

3.2. Research Method

A conceptual model was developed using practices-performance-competitiveness principles. This study utilized a cross-sectional, explanatory, and descriptive survey design, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative approaches for its analysis.

3.3. Sampling and Data Collection

The study applied only to assess the sustainability practices of the Ethiopian textile and fashion manufacturing sector. So, the survey questionnaire targeted supply chain professionals working in the Ethiopian textile and fashion industries, working at junior to top management levels. First, the sample size was determined by a simple random technique. From each sample firm, one to three respondents were selected by using the purposive sampling technique and taken as a single sample by taking the average one. The study includes all supply chain professionals in each selected sample study as much as possible either directly or indirectly. The data were collected in four months from July to October 2023. A total of 155 questionnaires were delivered to participants, with 71 complete and useable responses received accounting for a 45.8% response rate. The data were collected during the declaration of state emergency of the country in the region of Amhara. This is one of the big challenges of the study that makes the respondent’s rate low.

3.4. Sample Size Determination

According to the Ethiopian Textile Industry Development Institute 2021 report, there are more than 252 textile and fashion industries in Ethiopia. So known population sample method was used to determine the sample size, and a particularly simple random sampling technique was applied. According to Smith [73], the most widespread confidence intervals are 95%, 95%, and 99%. In using formula, 90% confidence level and a confidence interval of ± 5% are used. This study used Yamane’s [74] formula to calculate the sample size Yamane’s [74]:$$\begin{array}{}\text{(1)}& n=\frac{\mathrm{N}}{1}+N{\mathrm{e}}^2,\end{array}$$where

✓ N = is the population size i.e. 252

✓ n = is the sample size to be calculated

✓ e = is the error of margin, i.e., 5% (0.05) was used to obtain the maximum sample size [75].

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{(2)}& n=\frac{\mathrm{N}}{1}+N{\mathrm{e}}^{2}n=\frac{252}{1}+252{0.05}^2\\ n=\frac{252}{1.63}=154.601\\ n=154.601\sim \sim 155.\end{array}$$

Therefore, this study surveyed 155 Textile and Apparel Industries. One to three pieces of data from each industry were distributed. A cross-sectional technique was used to collect data. Each participant was instructed about the study, and their doubts were also cleared by the data collectors and researchers.

3.5. Data Collection Instruments

A systematic questionnaire was used to gather data, consisting of three sections. First, respondents were asked to provide industry demographic information, including industry scale, market type, and business categories. The second section included 74 items to evaluate the adoption of SSCM practices on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from not considering it to successfully implementing it, 18 items to evaluate SSCM performance (1 = not at all to 5 = significant), and 6 items to examine the competitiveness of the firms (1 = well below the industry average and 5 = well above the industry average). The measurements for each variable were adapted from the literature. The items that are mostly repeated and tested by different authors are selected as metrics for this research. The summary of the metrics or selected constructs is presented in Table 1. In the last section, the participants were asked to list any other variables or practices implemented in their industries, the pressures or drivers for implementation, and the challenges they faced during implementation based on open-ended questions.

Table 1

Constructs and respective measures.

Latent variable (LV)	Measured variable (MV)	Adapted from
Environmental responsibility sustainable practice
Sustainable product design	1. Utilize biodegradable or recyclable raw materials in product design.2. Use environmentally friendly raw materials while designing items.3. Design goods that consider environmental impact throughout their lifespan.4. Create reusable components for our products.	[34, 76]
Sustainable process design	1. Evaluate existing operations to reduce environmental effects.2. The focus is on designing processes that minimize emissions and employee exposure to hazardous substances.3. Reduce production resource consumption.	[34, 76]
Waste minimizations	1. Optimize processes to reduce solid water, air pollutants, and noise.2. Optimize procedures to minimize waste (scrap).3. The implementation of cleaner production technology is being implemented in our processes.4. Implementing a waste product recycling system.	[57]
Sustainable packaging	1. Materials remain healthy in all end-of-life scenarios.2. Promotes the use of renewable and recycled materials.3. Implementing clean production technologies and best practices.4. Packaging follows environmental norms.5. Eco-labeling for product packaging6. Use minimal packaging materials.	[77, 78]
Environmental certifications	1. Implemented environmental management systems, such as ISO 14000, to reduce environmental effects.2. Select new suppliers based on EMS/ISO 14000 standards.3. Encourages existing suppliers to comply with EMS/14000.	[34]
Environmentally responsible purchasing	1. Encouraging our suppliers to implement environmental improvement programs and cleaner industrial technology.2. Encouraging vendors to obtain ISO 9000 QMS/14000 Ems certifications.3. Environmental factors for supplier selection and evaluation.4. Purchasing eco-labeled items5. Buys recycled packaging.	[34, 58, 78]
Customers sustainability information	1. Educating customers about ecologically responsible items.2. Collaborating with consumers for cleaner production.3. Collaborating with consumers to lessen our environmental effects through planning and decision-making.4. Establishing shared responsibility for environmental performance.	[34]
Social responsibility sustainable practice
Human rights	1. We rigorously follow labor regulations and do not use child labor.2. We offer a “living wage” that exceeds a country or region’s minimum wage.3. Implements a human rights-compliant employee policy.4. We provide employees with safe and healthy working conditions.5. We offer career planning for staff growth.6. We offer continuing education opportunities for our staff.	[70, 79]
Philanthropy and social welfare	1. Establish health campuses in and around manufacturing facilities.2. We frequently donate to social and religious organizations. 3. We volunteer with local charities.3. We promote local education and cultural development.4. We support corporate social responsibility within the sector.5. Purchasing products from indigenous or impoverished communities.	[57, 79]
Safety and health	1. We provide a safe product to our customers.2. Implemented an environmental health and safety policy for organizations.3. Ensure the availability of basic healthcare facilities at organizational sites.4. We ensure the safe flow of products into our facilities.5. We prioritize safety when operating our locations.	[57]
Equity and ethics	1. Ensure timely payment of taxes and customary dues.2. Avoid using substandard materials in production.3. Promote workplace diversity and equal opportunities for all employees.4. Ensures gender non-discrimination standards.5. Pays compensation equivalent to or higher than minimum wage.6. Offers merit-based incentives and promotions.	[34]
Employee welfare	1. Providing competitive compensation for employees2. Providing skill development education and training.3. Offering employees a pension or retirement savings plan.4. Scholarships for employees’ deserving children.	[34, 70]
Socially responsible purchasing	1. We prioritize environmental and social responsibility in supplier selection.2. Our vendors must acquire environmental and social responsibility certifications.3. We make formal demands to vendors for environmental and social responsibility.4. We conduct environmental audits for suppliers’ internal management systems.5. We request that suppliers pay a “living wage” that is higher than the country or region’s minimum wage.6. Ensures our vendors do not employ child or bonded labor.7. Ensures suppliers provide safe and healthy work environments for their staff.8. Ensures our suppliers supply protective equipment for their staff in dangerous places.	[57, 76, 80]
Customers social responsibilities	1. Allows users to track the merchandise and confirm authenticity.2. Provides a quality hotline or other communication channel for customers to report product faults.3. Provides informative product labeling to educate users on proper usage, consumption, and disposal methods.	[34]
Economic responsibility sustainable practice
Economic Practices	1. We aim to realize economies of scale in inbound and outbound transportation.2. Consistent use of scientific inventory control methodologies ensures inventory management in production environments.3. We use lean production continuously to reduce waste.4. We communicate clients’ future demands to suppliers promptly.5. We adjust production plans to meet changing client needs and communicate them with suppliers.6. Our business efficiently fulfills customer requests by maintaining a sufficient inventory of finished goods.	[40, 81, 82]
SSCM performance
Economic performance	1. Improvement in market share2. Improvement in profit and profit margins3. Reducing environmental damage caused by the accident4. Increase in return on assets5. Increased revenue from product sales6. Improved return on investment	[25, 33, 34], [31, 39, 57, 83, 84]
Environmental performance	1. Reduction in air emissions, wastewater, and solid waste2. Reduced intake of dangerous, damaging, or toxic materials.3. Decrease in the amount of energy used4. Reduced frequency of environmental accidents5. Improved compliance with environmental regulations6. Improvement in the capacity to reuse and recycle
Social performance	1. Mitigation of the effects and dangers to the public2. Employee health and safety have improved.3. Creating more positions in the community4. Improved product image5. Improve the company’s image in the eyes of clients.6. Upgrading the firm’s social reputation
Overall firm performance or competitiveness
Overall firm performance or competitiveness	1. Improve our organization’s overall productivity/capacity utilization.2. Improved product and service quality.3. Improved our company’s competitive advantage by offering differentiated items to its customers.4. Boost the degree of employee satisfaction5. Maintaining the current clientele.6. Sales have grown more than competitors.	[30, 47, 68, 85]

3.6. Data Analysis

The scale reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, resulting in a score of 0.906, exceeding the 0.7 threshold [86]. The questionnaire’s construct validity was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett test of sphericity, with a KMO measure of sampling adequacy of 0.883, exceeding the 0.6 threshold [87]. The sphericity test by Bartlett was found to be significant (2 (2211) = 18,048.289, $p=0.000$) [88].

Maximum likelihood estimation was chosen for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) due to the normality of the data set and its ability to evaluate theoretical models using specific data [89]. This study also utilized covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM). CB-SEM is a more effective method for factor-based models, resulting in higher model fit indices [90, 91]. The study assessed model fit using CFI, GFI, RMSEA, and χ2 values and used paired sample t-tests to compare mean score differences among respondents.

4. Result and Discussion

4.1. Respondent’s Demographic Profile

Table 2 presents an analysis of the demographic characteristics of the respondents using descriptive statistics. Among participants, 78.8% (n = 56) were garment product manufacturers. About 42.3% (n = 30) of the respondents were engaged in the domestic market. Based on their investment capital and number of employees, the classification of the Ethiopian investment office has categorized industries as small, medium-, and large-scale industries. In this study, 45.1% (n = 32) of the respondents were medium-scale industries.

Table 2

Demographic characteristics of respondents.

		Count	%	Valid %	Mean	Skewness		Kurtosis		${\chi }^2$	DF	Asymp. Sig.
						Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
Business categories	Textile production	6	8.5	8.5	2.0423	0.166	0.285	1.919	0.563	66.451	2	0.000
	Garment Production	56	78.9	78.9
	Integrated	9	12.7	12.7
	Total	71	100.0	100.0
Target market	Domestic Oriented	30	42.3	42.3	0.298	0.285	−1.458	0.563	0.298	2.732	2	0.255
	Export Oriented	22	31.0	31.0
	Both Domestic and export	19	26.8	26.8
	Total	71	100.0	100.0
The scale of the industries	Small scale industry	16	22.5	22.5	2.0986	−0.160	0.285	−1.133	0.563	5.437	2	0.066
	Medium-scale industry	32	45.1	45.1
	Large-scale industry	23	32.4	32.4
	Total	71	100.0	100.0

4.2. Extent of Adoption of Supply Chain Practices

The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they adopted various SSCM practices in their organization using a scale of 1–5, where (1) not considering it and (5) implementing (practiced) successfully for the SSCM practice of the three attributes and (1 = well below the industry average and 5 = well above the industry average) to the performance of SSCM attributes. Table 3 presents the mean scores of respondents’ SSCM practices.

Table 3

Descriptive statistics.

	N	Mean	$G$. Mean	Std. Deviation	Skewness		Kurtosis
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
Descriptive statistics
Social practices	71	1.97	2.24	0.69	0.89	0.29	3.90	0.56
Economic practices	71	2.29		0.56	−1.32	0.29	1.11	0.56
Environmental practices	71	2.45		0.83	1.29	0.29	3.35	0.56
Environmental performance	71	2.03	2.25	0.87	−0.25	0.29	−1.80	0.56
Social performance	71	2.27		0.84	−0.48	0.29	−1.11	0.56
Economic performance	71	2.46		0.68	−0.80	0.29	0.78	0.56
Firm performance	71	2.13	2.13	0.83	0.33	0.29	−0.43	0.56
Valid N (listwise)	71

Table 3 displays the final score of SSCM practices and performance in the Ethiopian fashion and textile industry, indicating the extent of adoption of SSCM practices and performance. The mean scores of the studied variables were rated by using a 3-level mean score scale (mean score 1.00–2.33 is leveled low, 2.34—3.67 is medium, and 3.68—5.00 is leveled high) developed by the authors of [92, 93]. These results indicated that SSCM practices, SSCM performance, and competitiveness of the Ethiopian fashion and textile industries are low. From the three practices, Ethiopian textile and fashion industries have a better experience of environmental practice to some extent with (mean = 2.45), followed by Economic Practices (mean = 2.29) and Social Practices (mean = 1.97). The SSCM performance of the industries also rates at a low rate. The economic performance of the industries is slightly higher mean (mean = 2.46) value followed by social performance (mean = 2.27) and environmental performance (mean = 2.03). The industry’s competitiveness also rates at a low level (mean = 2.13) [92, 93] as seen in above Table 3.

4.3. Model Validations and Verifications

The fit index for the variables model was approved, and all values, as shown in Table 4, meet the requirements for model fit testing [94] as follows: ${\chi }^2$/Df (< 5) = 2.890; GFI (> 0.90) = 0.897–0.90; CFI (> 0.90) = 0.947–0.95; and RMSEA (< 0.1) = 0.062. The results are all above the threshold value for each index [95].

Table 4

Final CAF path analysis model statistical summary.

Variables	Items	Factor loading	CR	AVE	AVE^2 (DV)	${\chi }^2$/df	GFI	CFI	RMSEA
Environmental practices	Product Design	0.80	0.95	0.74	0.86	(3365.227/1048) = 3.210	0.897	0.947	0.062
	Prrocess_Design	1.00
	Waste minimizations	1.00
	Sustainable packaging	0.99
	E_Certification	0.68
	E_purchasing	0.51
	Information	0.91
Social practices	Human_rights	0.74	0.87	0.50	0.70
	social_welfare	0.84
	Safety_health	0.61
	Equity_ethics	0.59
	Employee_welfare	0.66
	SR_purchasing	0.74
	Social_responsibilities	0.69
Economic practices	economic1	0.59	0.78	0.45	0.67
	economic2	0.67
	economic3	0.53
	economic4	0.62
	economic5	0.56
	Economic6	0.67
Environmental performance	envo_prefo1	0.81	0.94	0.71	0.84
	envo_prefo2	0.86
	envo_prefo3	0.86
	envo_prefo4	0.87
	envo_prefo5	0.87
	envo_prefo6	0.79
Social performance	soco_prefo1	0.95	0.98	0.88	0.94
	soco_prefo2	0.86
	soco_prefo3	0.95
	soco_prefo4	0.98
	soco_prefo5	0.94
	soco_prefo6	0.94
Economic performance	eco_prefo1	0.93	0.97	0.84	0.91
	eco_prefo2	0.96
	eco_prefo3	0.86
	eco_prefo4	0.88
	eco_prefo5	0.88
	eco_prefo6	0.98
Firm performance	FPC1	0.78	0.95	0.76	0.87
	FPC2	0.97
	FPC3	0.73
	FPC4	0.97
	FPC5	0.97
	FPC6	0.78

The validity and reliability of the modified and new items generated for this study were established before evaluating the research model [96, 97]. According to [98], CFA can be used to examine whether the sample data are consistent with the study’s postulated model. Figure 2 shows how CFA was used to test the variable’s compatibility and validity with the model.

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

Table 4 presents a summary of the goodness-of-fit indices for the constructed variables model, indicating that all values were acceptable.

The measurement model’s convergent validity can be evaluated using the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). The AVE values, as per Table 4, were found to be valid with a cut-off value of 0.50 with $p=0.001$, indicating discriminant validity for all constructs [99]. The CR measures demonstrated high-scale reliability, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.6 [100, 101]. The CFA path model demonstrated convergent validity, with all variables being significant and every factor having a CR greater than 0.6. According to [95], the CFA model’s factor correlation values were found to be lower than the AVE^2, indicating discriminant validity, with a significant correlation at $p<0.05$ across all seven examined factors.

4.4. Model Fit of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

The research model was evaluated using CB-SEM (AMOS version 26) to estimate parameters and fit, and the final standardized SEM path model is shown in Figure 3.

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

Table 5 summarizes the goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement model, which revealed that all values were adequate, as were the results of factor analysis, convergent validity, and overall values for AVE, CR, and DV.

Table 5

Final SEM path analysis model statistical summary.

Variables	CR	AVE	AVE^2	${\chi }^2$/df	GFI	CFI	RMSEA
			(DV)
Social practices	0.87	0.50	0.70	(4678.733/1084) = 4.32	0.87	0.92	0.067
Economic practices	0.77	0.46	0.68
Environmental practices	0.95	0.74	0.86
Environmental performance	0.91	0.63	0.80
Social performance	0.97	0.84	0.92
Economic performance	0.96	0.78	0.88
Firm performance	0.93	0.70	0.83

4.5. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Variables

The research model uses economic practice, environmental practice, and social practice as a direct predictor of the performance of the three bottom lines of SSCM and turns the triple bottom line of SSCM with competitiveness. The research model or conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1. In the model, there is no direct relationship between the SSCM practices and competitiveness. So, the indirect effect is also investigated in this study. Table 6 shows that the standardized direct (unmediated) effect of economic practices on social performance, environmental performance, and economic performance is 0.182, 0.336, and 0.395, respectively. When economic practices go up by 1 standard deviation, social performance, environmental performance, and economic performance go up by 0.182, 0.336, and 0.395 standard deviations, respectively. The result also indicates that economic practice has a slightly higher effect on economic performance (0.395), followed by environmental performance (0.336) and social performance (0.182), respectively. This is in addition to any mediated effect that economic practices may have on social performance, environmental performance, and economic performance. According to the model, economic practices have no direct effect on firms’ overall performance. The details of each variable effect are seen in Table 6. The standardized mediated effect of economic practice, social practice, and environmental practice on firms’ overall performance or competitiveness is 0.338, 0.403, and 0.177, respectively. Generally, as seen in above Table 6, each independent variable has a significant effect on the firms’ overall performance or competitiveness. Social practice (0.403) has a slightly higher indirect effect followed by economic practice (0.338) and environmental practice (0.177), respectively, on the firm’s overall performance or competitiveness.

Table 6

The direct and indirect effects of the variables.

	Practices			Performance			Firm’s performance
	Economic	Social	Environment	Social	Environment	Economic
Standardized direct and indirect effects
1	Standardized Direct Effects
Social performance	0.182	0.461	0.241	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Environmental performance	0.336	0.441	0.127	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Economic performance	0.395	0.343	0.169	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Firms performance	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.226	0.274	0.518	0.000
2	Standardized Indirect Effects
Social performance	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Environmental performance	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Economic performance	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Firms performance	0.338	0.403	0.177	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000

4.6. Hypotheses Testing

The study used a $p$ value to assess the relationship between independent and dependent variables. All item loadings were significant at $p<0.05$, except for the hypothesized path of environmental practice with economic performance. All hypotheses were statistically significant and positive at a 0.05 level. The regression path’s critical ratio exceeded the required threshold values, indicating that each independent variable significantly and positively impacts the dependent variables [98, 102]. The study’s findings, supported by regression coefficients, indicate that changes in independent variables resulted in changes in dependent variables, as shown in Table 7 of the SEM analyses.

Table 7

Hypothesis testing results of SEM (AMOS) and its Significance.

Dependent variable		Independent variable	Beta	S.E.	C.R.	$\mathit{p}$	Remark
Economic performance	<---	Economic practices	0.327	0.058	5.620	${}^{\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }}$	Supported
Environmental performance	<---	Environmental practices	0.112	0.061	1.824	${}^{\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }}$	Supported
Social performance	<---	Social practices	0.378	0.059	6.366	${}^{\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }}$	Supported
Environmental performance	<---	Economic practices	0.355	0.073	4.854	0.017	Supported
Social performance	<---	Economic practices	0.180	0.070	2.562	0.010	Supported
Social performance	<---	Environmental practices	0.198	0.060	3.301	${}^{\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }}$	Supported
Economic performance	<---	Environmental practices	0.117	0.049	2.381	0.068	Unsupported
Environmental performance	<---	Social practices	0.387	0.061	6.374	0.006	Supported
Economic performance	<---	Social practices	0.235	0.048	4.872	0.007	Supported
Firms performance	<---	Economic performance	0.433	0.062	6.946	${}^{\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }}$	Supported
Firms performance	<---	Environmental performance	0.180	0.043	4.205	${}^{\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }}$	Supported
Firms performance	<---	Social performance	0.159	0.045	3.533	${}^{\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }\mathrm{\ast }}$	Supported

Note: Each ∗∗∗ value is equivalent to 0.001.

4.7. Content Analysis

4.7.1. Responses to Open-Ended Questions

Respondents were asked open-ended questions about their industries’ sustainability practices. This section discusses best practices for implementing sustainability practices and the pressures and challenges faced in achieving these practices. The Ethiopian textile and fashion industry has implemented various measures to enhance employee welfare, including free medical services, sick leave, time advantage for education, scholarships, childcare centers, milk products for chemical workers, provision of personal protective equipment (PPE), shelter, and PPEs such as eye mask/google, face/ear mask and housing allowance. Industries are implementing activities such as charity donations, discounts for special customers, and free donations for charity organizations to support stakeholders or the outside community. The Ethiopian textile and fashion industries are implementing sustainability measures in their entire supply chain, including proper chemical waste disposal, waste management, water treatment, waste disposal, and tree planting to reduce environmental impact. Figure 4 illustrates the various pressures that drive the execution of sustainability practices in the apparel industry.

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

The implementation of sustainability in the Ethiopian “fashion and textile industry” is also faced with various challenges. The weight of the challenges varies by company size. The most common and frequently mentioned challenges are mentioned in Figure 5.

[figure(s) omitted; refer to PDF]

4.7.2. A Focus Group Discussion

A focus group discussion was also conducted with the experts to dig out the grounded practice of sustainability programs in the Ethiopian apparel industry. The discussion was conducted on November 15/2023 by the Microsoft team. In the discussion, an expert from the industry, university, Ethiopian investment office, and IPDC office participated. From the discussion, we found out that there is sustainability awareness to some extent in the Ethiopian apparel industry, but the enactment of sustainability is at a promising stage.

The Ethiopian textile and fashion industry’s sustainability practices were examined in two phases. In the first phase, which can be called as sustainability planned phase, the Ethiopian investment office, IPDC office, and other concerned bodies over-examine their intended plan for implementing the sustainability practices. The environmental sustainability practice is examined through the environmental impact assessment of the business. In this assessment, the industry’s plan for protecting the environment, handling byproducts, managing, treating, and recycling of left-over products and/or waste and like is detailed and examined by the offices. With the social sustainability aspect, the office only overlooked the number of jobs created but did not consider the way of handling their stakeholder, working condition, and their projections to support the external community as an evaluation. For the economic sustainability dimension, the office only considers their feasibility study as an economic sustainability evaluation program, and here also, the office did not see the way or programs that an industry will use to implement the economic sustainability practices. Generally, this phase is an initial phase that a business must fulfill here in Ethiopia to get an investment license. However, according to the investment office personnel’s participated in this discussion, not all investors implement their plan into action. From the local investor, only around 18%–25% and around 73% of foreign investors translate into action, but still, there is a performance gap.

The second phase is just a phase after a business is launched. During this time, the industries are forced by different stakeholders to practice sustainability programs. The discussion considered the governed body, the scale of the industry, and their market orientation as a base. Accordingly, industries governed under IPDC have a better sustainability practice. To improve their sustainability, different programs are practiced like safety and compliance, and environment management system programs, and incorporated into their structure. In this segment, environmental sustainability practices programs are practiced in a better manner than the other aspects of sustainability. However, industries not governed by the IPDC (locally owned industry) have low sustainability practices. When we consider the scale of the industry, large-scale industries practice sustainability in a better manner followed by medium-scale and small scale, respectively. However, when we see individually, social sustainability is practiced in a better way by medium-scale industry followed by large-scale and small scale, respectively. Export-oriented industries have also paid attention to sustainability, but still, they focus on the environmental aspect only in a greater manner than the other dimension. In this phase also, the industries try to practice different sustainability programs, but it is for the certification purpose.

The Ethiopian fashion and textile industry is facing low sustainability practices, according to industry experts. They believe this requires skilled manpower, resources, and commitment from top management, and viewing sustainability as an additional burden hinders its implementation. The Ethiopian fashion and textile industry faces challenges such as raw material shortage, price fluctuations, inflation, employee skills, business objectives, contraband clothing, funding limitations, second-hand clothing, and staff resistance to change. The sector especially locally owned industries is stuck at the production marketing concept. The industry’s intention is just to make money without considering the interested parties’ intentions. Poor design of working conditions, high employee turnover, poor product quality, increased training costs, and low wages were investigated in the study. The industries are also not innovative, and their manufacturing system is just copy products available in the market without considering the market demand.

4.8. Discussions and Implications of the Study

This study adds to the literature by investigating the influence of SSCM practices on the sustainability performance and competitiveness of the Ethiopian garment manufacturing industry using the triple bottom line approach. In Ethiopia’s textile and apparel manufacturing sector, sustainability practices were found to be widely underutilized, with social practices receiving less attention than other practices, in line with [103], which was partially similarly established in investigations conducted in many countries throughout the world including, Malaysia’s [104], Kenyan [22, 60], Sri Lanka, and South Africa face challenges in transitioning to sustainable practices [105], but in Vietnam’s textile and apparel manufacturing sector, there are better adoption practices [106]. In addition, developed countries such as Australia, the USA, and Singapore have better sustainability practices [107].

4.8.1. Environmental Practice With SSCM Performance

Environmental sustainability practices involve strategies and actions aimed at conserving resources, reducing pollution, and promoting a healthy ecosystem. The β std regression coefficient for environmental practice ⟶ environmental performance, economic performance, and social performance is 0.112, 0.117, and 0.198, respectively, at a significance level of 0.05, except environmental practice ⟶ economic performance which indicates a positive and significant linkage between environmental practices with social performance and environmental performance and a positive and nonlinear relation with economic performance in the SCM, and supports H1a, and H1b, but H1c is not supported. This is in line with other studies [9, 34, 108] where a positive relationship between GSSM environmental supply chain practices and economic firm performance has been observed. While GSCM was found to be positively associated with environmental and financial performance, leading to improved financial performance [109], GSCM practices significantly contribute to operational performance [110–112]. All of the above supports our study that GSCM impacts the multiple elements of SSCM performance.

4.8.2. Social Practice With SSCM Performance

Social practices emphasize sustainability’s social aspects, including fair labor practices, community engagement, and social equity. The firm’s social reputation and financial performance are enhanced through sustainable relationships with stakeholders such as employees, customers, business partners, and the community [59]. The β standardized regression coefficient for social practice ⟶ environmental performance, social performance, and economic performance is 0.387, 0.378, and 0.235 at a significance level of 0.01. This would indicate a positive and significant path between social practices in SCM and SSCM performance and supports H2a, H2b, and H3c. This is in line with [35], who suggest that CSR indirectly promotes firm performance by enhancing reputation and competitive advantage, simultaneously enhancing customer satisfaction.

4.8.3. Economic Practices With SSCM Performance

The β std regression coefficient for economic practice ⟶ environmental performance, social performance, and economic performance is 0.357, 0.180, and 0.327, respectively, at a significance level of 0.01, which indicates a positive and significant linkage between economic practices with social performance, environmental performance, and economic performance in the SCM and supports H3a, and H3b, but H3c is supported. However, according to Tchaikovsky [113], SSCM performance and competitiveness have a nonsignificant interaction effect.

4.8.4. SSCM Performance With Competitiveness

The β std regression coefficient for (environmental performance, social performance, and economic performance) ⟶ competitiveness is 0.180, 0.159, and 0.433, respectively, at a significance level of 0.01, which indicates a positive and significant linkage between SSCM performance with the firm’s overall performance or competitiveness in the SCM and supports H4 and H5, but H6 is supported. The result is in line with [9, 41]. However, according to [113], SSCM performance and competitiveness have a nonsignificant interaction effect.

Generally, SSCM has a positive correlation with competitiveness in the textile and fashion industry. Studies conducted in the Egyptian textile industry [114], Ethiopian apparel manufacturing industries [103, 115], and Bangladesh RMG sector [116, 117] all support this finding. SSCM practices have been found to positively influence competitiveness in the textile and apparel industry [27, 118, 119]. External factors such as international buyers, self-developed technology and innovation, and international standards and regulations contribute to this phenomenon. The manufacturing sectors are compelled to adopt sustainability due to various factors including international buyers, regulation, standardization, consumer demand, technology, and innovations. SSCM practices significantly enhance performance and competitiveness in the fashion and textile industry [120–122]. The competitiveness is significantly influenced by each variable.

The findings show that the level of sustainability implementation in the Ethiopian fashion and textile manufacturing industry (small and medium) is low compared to large-scale organizations in line with [12]. Overall, the industry has a low level of sustainability practice adoption and is distinguished by bad social practices supported by the authors of [34]. This is due to financial constraints, a lack of market demand, insufficient policies or regulations promoting sustainability, a lack of access to advanced technologies, a lack of awareness and skills related to sustainable practices, low levels of public awareness about environmental issues and sustainability, weak enforcement of environmental laws, and corruption all have the potential to undermine sustainability efforts. This study adds to the literature on manufacturing SMEs in Ethiopia by providing evidence of the adoption of SSCM practices.

5. Conclusion and Managerial Implications

The textile and fashion industry is implementing various programs to promote sustainability and responsible practices, aiming to achieve its sustainability goals. The successful implementation of sustainability in the apparel industry requires collaboration among various industry stakeholders, including buyers, manufacturers, suppliers, consumers, and governments. Accordingly, the Ethiopian Government is attempting to boost the manufacturing sector through the “Let Ethiopia Produce” [“Ethiopia Tamrit (ኢትዮጲያ ታምርት)”] campaign. However, it has been predictable by the government and manufacturing sector that both competitiveness and sustainability are priorities for market entry in global markets. Implementing and improving sustainability in the apparel sector is a crucial issue. Indeed, while the sector faces increasing worldwide demand, it is also under increasing pressure to be more sustainable. The study reveals low sustainability practices and performance in the Ethiopian clothing industry, along with a lack of awareness of the Ethiopian clothing sector is undervaluing sustainability concepts, with less emphasis on social aspects. The clothing industry in Ethiopia is experiencing low sustainability practices, resulting in low competitiveness in both export and local markets. SSCM has a positive correlation with competitiveness in the clothing industry. SSCM practices significantly enhance competitiveness in the apparel industry, contributing to improved performance and overall competitiveness. SSCM practices can significantly improve sustainability and performance in the textile and apparel industry, with each variable having a positive effect on competitiveness.

5.1. The Practical Implication of the Study

The research provides significant insights for both practitioners and the manufacturing sectors. Organizations are increasingly adopting SSCM practices to reduce costs due to competition in the market. However, in today’s world with the TBL approach, sustainability in SCM is an equal imperative. The study provides valuable insights for managers of various sustainability programs on how to effectively implement sustainable practices and improve supply chain performance.

From a business perspective, this paper has made several contributions. First, our results can assist businesses in understanding the significance of SSCM and how SSCM practices affect a company’s competitiveness or success. Textile and apparel manufacturers should comprehend the entire supply chain and collaborate with their partners to establish a long-term SCM agreement. This study offers recommendations for improving sustainable practices in companies, emphasizing the importance of traceability and collaboration in implementing sustainable manufacturing strategies.

5.2. Theoretical Contributions

The study adds to the knowledge in SSCM by creating a comprehensive model that evaluates the impact of sustainability practices on manufacturing firms’ sustainability performance and competitiveness. The study aims to integrate economic and social sustainability in SCM practices and performance in Ethiopia, addressing the lack of scales for social sustainability in the field of environmental practices and organizational performance. The study explores the correlation between sustainability pressures, practices, and performance. The study explores the sustainability practices in the clothing manufacturing sector and suggests future research areas in the sustainable fashion industry.

5.3. Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research

The study does suffer from some limitations, which also gives scope and prospects for future research. First, the study has not focused on a particular industry but taken feedback from respondents from multiple industries. There is always an issue of generalizations from a multi-industry study; hence, future researchers can perhaps focus on one particular sector/industry for increased credibility and validity of results, wherein responses are expected to evidence a more consistent pattern. Second, with the sample size, while adequate for the present study, future researchers may find it beneficial to employ this model with a larger sample size, which can increase the power of the study. Third, the study only focuses on the manufacturing perspective, and future research may add the supplier, distributor, and customer perspectives. Fourth, this model has been hypothesized and tested only by using a triple bottom line; future researchers can perhaps review the literature and extend the model by adding relevant variables to the model. Fifth, the study applied CB-SEM as a methodology to the empirical test; future researchers may use other statistical tools such as SmartPLS, mathematical modeling, simulation, and related sophisticated techniques. Finally, this study is based out of Ethiopia, where perhaps the present levels of environmental and social standards are much lower than in developed countries. Hence, it would be interesting to study and compare findings from cross-country surveys.

5.3.1. Note

The terms “Firms overall performance” and “Competitiveness” are used interchangeably in this study.

The terms “Green SSCM” and “environmental SSCM” are used interchangeably in this study.

Author Contributions

Mr. Eyob Minbale: study conceptualization and design, review of literature, methodology, data collection instrument development, data analysis, interpretation, manuscript drafting, and editing. Dr. Berihun Bizuneh: methodology, data collection instrument approval, supervision, and validation. Mr. Wendosen Seife: data collection, data screening, data encoding, and investigation. Dr. Shalemu Sharew: literature review, draft manuscript preparation, and editing. Mr. Tinsaye Asfaw: data collection, data screening, and data encoding. Mrs. Saba Mekonnen: data collection, data screening, and data encoding. Mrs. Ruth Tadesse: study conception and editing. Mr. Lioul Getachew: validation, data encoding, and editing. Mr. Kumlachew Bitew: interpretation of results and editing.

All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ethiopian Institute of Textile and Fashion Technology (EiTEX), Bahir Dar University.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the Ethiopian Institute of Textile and Fashion Technology, Bahir Dar University staff, and all the respondents for their valuable time, comments, and opinions during the survey.

References

[1] M. Feldmann, S. Müller, "An Incentive Scheme for True Information Providing in Supply Chains," Omega, vol. 31 no. 2, pp. 63-73, DOI: 10.1016/S0305-0483(02)00096-8, 2003.

[2] D. F. Ross, Distribution: Planning and Control, 2015.

[3] T. Dyllick, K. Hockerts, "Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability," Corporate Environmental Responsibility, vol. 141, pp. 213-224, DOI: 10.4324/9781315259277-7, 2017.

[4] M. Bruce, L. Daly, N. Towers, "Lean or Agile: A Solution for Supply Chain Management in the Textiles and Clothing Industry?," International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 24 no. 2, pp. 151-170, DOI: 10.1108/01443570410514867, 2004.

[5] R. Warasthe, M. Brandenburg, S. Seuring, "Sustainability, Risk and Performance in Textile and Apparel Supply Chains," Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, vol. 5 no. July,DOI: 10.1016/j.clscn.2022.100069, 2022.

[6] L. McNeill, B. Venter, "Identity, Self-Concept and Young Women’s Engagement with Collaborative, Sustainable Fashion Consumption Models," International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 43 no. 4, pp. 368-378, DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12516, 2019.

[7] T. T. Muthukumarana, H. P. Karunathilake, H. K. G. Punchihewa, M. M. I. D. Manthilake, K. N. Hewage, "Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of the Apparel Industry in Sri Lanka: Analysis of the Energy Sources," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172, pp. 1346-1357, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.261, 2018.

[8] B. Sudhakara Reddy, B. Kumar Ray, "Understanding Industrial Energy Use: Physical Energy Intensity Changes in Indian Manufacturing Sector," Energy Policy, vol. 39 no. 11, pp. 7234-7243, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.044, 2011.

[9] M. A. Habib, S. Balasubramanian, V. Shukla, D. Chitakunye, J. Chanchaichujit, "Practices and Performance Outcomes of Green Supply Chain Management Initiatives in the Garment Industry," Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, vol. 33 no. 4, pp. 882-912, DOI: 10.1108/MEQ-08-2021-0189, 2022.

[10] World Bank, "How Much Do Our Wardrobes Cost to the Environment?," 2019. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/09/23/costo-moda-medio-ambiente

[11] A. Kavvada, E. Chuvieco, "Towards Delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals Using Earth Observations," Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 247 no. 15, 2020.

[12] T. Laosirihongthong, D. Adebanjo, K. Choon Tan, "Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Performance," Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 113 no. 8, pp. 1088-1109, DOI: 10.1108/IMDS-04-2013-0164, 2013.

[13] I. Poderytė, A. Banaitis, "The Embeddedness of Sustainability in the Construction Industry: Identifying Key Drivers and Barriers to Implementation," E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 546 no. 2024,DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202454601011, 2024.

[14] H. Walker, N. Jones, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management across the UK Private Sector," Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 17 no. 1, pp. 15-28, DOI: 10.1108/13598541211212177, 2012.

[15] K. Imasiku, "Organizational Insights, Challenges and Impact of Sustainable Development in Developing and Developed Nations," Intech, vol. 11 no. tourism, 2016. https://www.intechopen.com/books/advanced-biometric-technologies/liveness-detection-in-biometrics

[16] L. Kvasničková Stanislavská, L. Pilař, M. Fridrich, "Sustainability Reports: Differences between Developing and Developed Countries," Frontiers in Environmental Science, vol. 11 no. March,DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1085936, 2023.

[17] A. Ghaffar, T. Islam, "Factors Leading to Sustainable Consumption Behavior: an Empirical Investigation Among Millennial Consumers," Kybernetes, vol. 53 no. 8, pp. 2574-2592, DOI: 10.1108/K-12-2022-1675, 2024.

[18] S. S. Panigrahi, B. Bahinipati, V. Jain, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Review of Literature and Implications for Future Research," Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, vol. 30 no. 5, pp. 1001-1049, DOI: 10.1108/MEQ-01-2018-0003, 2019.

[19] A. Harif, P. Natasha, "A Review on Green Accounting Practices and Sustainable Financial Performance," Journal of Business Management and Information Systems, vol. 11 no. March, pp. 82-88, DOI: 10.48001/jbmis.2024.si1015, 2024.

[20] M. A. Weldemichael, S. P. Nadeem, J. A. Garza-Reyes, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management Drivers and Barriers in the Ethiopian Manufacturing Sector," Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, .

[21] M. Ehrgott, F. Reimann, L. Kaufmann, C. R. Carter, "Environmental Development of Emerging Economy Suppliers: Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 34 no. 2, pp. 131-147, DOI: 10.1111/jbl.12015, 2013.

[22] V. M. Mulwa, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and the Performance of United Nations Agencies in Nairobi," kenya victoria mwikali mulwa a Management Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Master of Business Ad, 2015.

[23] Y. I. Purnama, "Implementation of the Triple Bottom Line Concept to Improve Sustainable Marketing Performance," Journal of Economics and Business Letters, vol. 4 no. 2, pp. 40-50, DOI: 10.55942/jebl.v4i2.284, 2024.

[24] A. K. Kähkönen, K. Lintukangas, J. Hallikas, "Sustainable Supply Management Practices: Making a Difference in a Firm’s Sustainability Performance," Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 23 no. 6, pp. 518-530, DOI: 10.1108/SCM-01-2018-0036, 2018.

[25] J. Raza, Y. Liu, J. Zhang, "Sustainable Supply Management Practices and Sustainability Performance: The Dynamic Capability Perspective," Sage Open, vol. 11 no. 1,DOI: 10.1177/21582440211000046, 2021.

[26] C. Busse, "Doing Well by Doing Good? the Self-Interest of Buying Firms and Sustainable Supply Chain Management," Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 52 no. 2, pp. 28-47, DOI: 10.1111/jscm.12096, 2016.

[27] A. Hessa, A. Hanan, "The Impact of Sustainability Practices on the Financial Performance of Listed Companies in Saudi Arabia," Journal of Economics, Management and Trade, vol. 30 no. 7, pp. 38-46, DOI: 10.9734/jemt/2024/v30i71223, 2024.

[28] S. B. Choi, H. Min, H. Y. Joo, H. B. Choi, "Assessing the Impact of Green Supply Chain Practices on Firm Performance in the Korean Manufacturing Industry," International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, vol. 20 no. 2, pp. 129-145, DOI: 10.1080/13675567.2016.1160041, 2017.

[29] H. Younis, B. Sundarakani, P. Vel, "The Impact of Implementing Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Corporate Performance," Competitiveness Review, vol. 26 no. 3, pp. 216-245, DOI: 10.1108/CR-04-2015-0024, 2016.

[30] D. Das, "The Impact of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices on Firm Performance: Lessons from Indian Organizations," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 203, pp. 179-196, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.250, 2018.

[31] Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, "Relationships between Operational Practices and Performance Among Early Adopters of Green Supply Chain Management Practices in Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises," Journal of Operations Management, vol. 22 no. 3, pp. 265-289, DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2004.01.005, 2004.

[32] D. Eriksson, G. Svensson, "Elements Affecting Social Responsibility in Supply Chains," Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 20 no. 5, pp. 561-566, DOI: 10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0203, 2015.

[33] C. Gimenez, V. Sierra, J. Rodon, "Sustainable Operations: Their Impact on the Triple Bottom Line," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 140 no. 1, pp. 149-159, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.035, 2012.

[34] R. Baliga, R. D. Raut, S. S. Kamble, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and Performance an Integrated Perspective from a Developing Economy," Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, vol. 31 no. 5, pp. 1147-1182, DOI: 10.1108/MEQ-04-2019-0079, 2019.

[35] M. A. Saeed, W. Kersten, "Drivers of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Identification and Classification," Sustainability, vol. 11 no. 4,DOI: 10.3390/su11041137, 2019.

[36] C. R. Carter, D. S. Rogers, "A Framework of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Moving toward New Theory," International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 38 no. 5, pp. 360-387, DOI: 10.1108/09600030810882816, 2008.

[37] V. Mani, R. Agarwal, A. Gunasekaran, T. Papadopoulos, R. Dubey, S. J. Childe, "Social Sustainability in the Supply Chain: Construct Development and Measurement Validation," Ecological Indicators, vol. 71, pp. 270-279, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.007, 2016.

[38] D. Marshall, L. McCarthy, C. Heavey, P. McGrath, "Environmental and Social Supply Chain Management Sustainability Practices: Construct Development and Measurement," Production Planning & Control, vol. 26 no. 8, pp. 673-690, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2014.963726, 2015.

[39] Q. Zhu, J. Liu, K. Lai, "Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Performance Improvement Among Chinese National State-Owned Enterprises," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 115, pp. 60-66, DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002945, 2016.

[40] A. Gunasekaran, C. Patel, R. E. McGaughey, "A Framework for Supply Chain Performance Measurement," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 87 no. 3, pp. 333-347, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003, 2004.

[41] S. Mitra, P. P. Datta, "Adoption of Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Their Impact on Performance: an Exploratory Study of Indian Manufacturing Firms," International Journal of Production Research, vol. 52 no. 7, pp. 2085-2107, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2013.849014, 2014.

[42] D. Wittstruck, F. Teuteberg, "Understanding the Success Factors of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Empirical Evidence from the Electrics and Electronics Industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 19 no. 3, pp. 141-158, DOI: 10.1002/csr.261, 2012.

[43] J. Gualandris, R. Golini, M. Kalchschmidt, "Do Supply Management and Global Sourcing Matter for Firm Sustainability Performance ? an International Study," Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 19 no. 3, pp. 258-274, DOI: 10.1108/SCM-11-2013-0430, 2014.

[44] A. Esfahbodi, G. Yufeng Zhang, L. Watson, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Emerging Economies: Trade-Offs between Environmental and Cost Performance," Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids, vol. 115, pp. 60-66, DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002945, 2016.

[45] D. Harms, E. G. Hansen, S. Schaltegger, "Strategies in Sustainable Supply Chain Management: An Empirical Investigation of Large German Companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 20 no. 4, pp. 205-218, DOI: 10.1002/csr.1293, 2013.

[46] A. P. Duarte, D. R. Gomes, J. G. Neves, "Tell Me Your Socially Responsible Practices, I Will Tell You How Attractive for Recruitment You Are! the Impact of Perceived CSR on Organizational Attractiveness," Tekhne – Rev. Applied Manag.Studies., vol. 12 no. 1, pp. 22-29, 2014.

[47] K. W. Green, P. J. Zelbst, J. Meacham, V. S. Bhadauria, "Green Supply Chain Management Practices: Impact on Performance," Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 17 no. 3, pp. 290-305, DOI: 10.1108/13598541211227126, 2012.

[48] H. G. Park, Y. J. Lee, "The Efficiency and Productivity Analysis of Large Logistics Providers Services in Korea," The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, vol. 31 no. 4, pp. 469-476, DOI: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.01.005, 2015.

[49] M. G. Yang, P. Hong, S. B. Modi, "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, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.10.017, 2011.

[50] P. Rao, D. Holt, "Do Green Supply Chains Lead to Competitiveness and Economic Performance?," International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 25 no. 9, pp. 898-916, DOI: 10.1108/01443570510613956, 2005.

[51] P. Rao, A. K. Singh, O. la O. Castillo, P. S. I. Jr, A. Sajid, "A Metric for Corporate Environmental Indicators. For Small and Medium Enterprises in the Philippines," Plant Disease, pp. 14-32, DOI: 10.1002/bse.555, 2009.

[52] A. Paulraj, I. J. Chen, C. Blome, "Motives and Performance Outcomes of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices: A Multi-Theoretical Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 145 no. 2, pp. 239-258, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2857-0, 2017.

[53] A. Kumar, G. S. Kushwaha, "Supply Chain Management Practices and Operational Performance of Fair Price Shops in India: an Empirical Study," LogForum, vol. 14 no. 1, pp. 85-99, DOI: 10.17270/J.LOG.2018.237, 2018.

[54] O. S. Ochieng, Z. B. Awino, M. James, W. N. Iraki, "Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Performance of Iso 14001 Certified Manufacturing Firms in East Africa," DBA Africa Management Review, vol. 6 no. 3, pp. 103-128, 2023.

[55] P. De Giovanni, V. Esposito Vinzi, "Covariance versus Component-Based Estimations of Performance in Green Supply Chain Management," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 135 no. 2, pp. 907-916, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.11.001, 2012.

[56] S. G. Azevedo, H. Carvalho, V. Cruz Machado, "The Influence of Green Practices on Supply Chain Performance: A Case Study Approach," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 47 no. 6, pp. 850-871, DOI: 10.1016/j.tre.2011.05.017, 2011.

[57] J. Wang, J. Dai, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and Performance," Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 118 no. 1,DOI: 10.1108/IMDS-12-2016-0540, 2018.

[58] J. Wang, J. Dai, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and Performance," Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 118 no. 1,DOI: 10.1108/IMDS-12-2016-0540, 2018.

[59] L. Wu, N. Subramanian, M. D. Abdulrahman, C. Liu, K. H. Lai, K. S. Pawar, "The Impact of Integrated Practices of Lean, Green, and Social Management Systems on Firm Sustainability Performance-Evidence from Chinese Fashion Auto-Parts Suppliers," Sustainability, vol. 7 no. 4, pp. 3838-3858, DOI: 10.3390/su7043838, 2015.

[60] D. Mukanga, Sustainability Strategies Adopted by International Ngos in Nairobi , Kenya by Doreen Mukanga a Management Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of Master of Business Administration, 2011.

[61] S. Seuring, S. Gold, "Sustainability Management beyond Corporate Boundaries: From Stakeholders to Performance," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 56,DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.033, 2013.

[62] D. Das, "Development and Validation of a Scale for Measuring Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and Performance," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 164, pp. 1344-1362, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.006, 2017.

[63] S. Croom, N. Vidal, W. Spetic, D. Marshall, L. McCarthy, "Impact of Social Sustainability Orientation and Supply Chain Practices on Operational Performance," International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 38 no. 12, pp. 2344-2366, DOI: 10.1108/IJOPM-03-2017-0180, 2018.

[64] J. Herrera Madueño, M. Larrán Jorge, I. Martínez Conesa, D. Martínez-Martínez, "Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Competitive Performance in Spanish SMEs: Empirical Evidence from a Stakeholders’ Perspective," BRQ Business Research Quarterly, vol. 19 no. 1, pp. 55-72, DOI: 10.1016/j.brq.2015.06.002, 2016.

[65] V. R. Kannan, K. C. Tan, "Just in Time, Total Quality Management, and Supply Chain Management: Understanding Their Linkages and Impact on Business Performance," Omega, vol. 33 no. 2, pp. 153-162, DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2004.03.012, 2005.

[66] C. L. Yang, S. P. Lin, Y. H. Chan, C. Sheu, "Mediated Effect of Environmental Management on Manufacturing Competitiveness: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 123 no. 1, pp. 210-220, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.08.017, 2010.

[67] J. Hong, Y. Zhang, M. Ding, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices, Supply Chain Dynamic Capabilities, and Enterprise Performance," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172, pp. 3508-3519, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.093, 2018.

[68] M. R. Shaharudin, S. H. M. Zailani, S. C. Tan, C. L. Tan, "The Impact of Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Firm Competitiveness," International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, vol. 11 no. 4, pp. 539-558, DOI: 10.1504/IJBIR.2016.10000227, 2016.

[69] M. Larrán Jorge, J. Herrera Madueño, D. Martínez-Martínez, M. P. Lechuga Sancho, "Competitiveness and Environmental Performance in Spanish Small and Medium Enterprises: Is There a Direct Link?," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 101, pp. 26-37, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.016, 2015.

[70] Z. Wang, J. Sarkis, "Corporate Social Responsibility Governance, Outcomes, and Financial Performance," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 162, pp. 1607-1616, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.142, 2017.

[71] M. Zain, N. M. Kassim, "The Influence of Internal Environment and Continuous Improvements on Firms Competitiveness and Performance," Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 65 no. ICIBSoS, pp. 26-32, DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.086, 2012.

[72] M. U. Ahmed, M. M. Kristal, M. Pagell, "Impact of Operational and Marketing Capabilities on Firm Performance: Evidence from Economic Growth and Downturns," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 154, pp. 59-71, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.03.025, 2014.

[73] S. J. Smith, "Determining Sample Size: How to Ensure You Get the Correct Sample Size," 2013.

[74] T. Yamane, Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 1967.

[75] J. Nsowah, M. A. Phiri, "Factors Influencing Adoption of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices Among Manufacturing Firms," International Journal of Environmental, Sustainability, and Social Science, vol. 4 no. 3, pp. 822-831, DOI: 10.38142/ijesss.v4i3.416, 2023.

[76] C. R. Carter, R. Kale, C. M. Grimm, "Environmental Purchasing and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 36 no. 3, pp. 219-228, DOI: 10.1016/S1366-5545(99)00034-4, 2000.

[77] S. Dang, L. Chu, "Evaluation Framework and Verification for Sustainable Container Management as Reusable Packaging," Journal of Business Research, vol. 69 no. 5, pp. 1949-1955, DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.086, 2016.

[78] S. Zailani, K. Jeyaraman, G. Vengadasan, R. Premkumar, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) in Malaysia: A Survey," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 140 no. 1, pp. 330-340, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.008, 2012.

[79] C. R. Carter, M. M. Jennings, "Logistics Socialresponsibility: An Integrative Framework," Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 23 no. 1, pp. 145-180, DOI: 10.1002/j.2158-1592.2002.tb00020.x, 2002.

[80] D. R. Krause, T. V. Scannell, R. J. Calantone, "A Structural Analysis of the Effectiveness of Buying Firms’ Strategies to Improve Supplier Performance," Decision Sciences, vol. 31 no. 1, pp. 33-55, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2000.tb00923.x, 2000.

[81] D. C. de Morais, J. C. Barbieri, "Social Performance Measurement for Sustainable Supply Chain Management," Advanced Materials Research,DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.845.516, 2016.

[82] C. Shepherd, H. Günter, "Measuring Supply Chain Performance: Current Research and Future Directions," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 55 no. 3/4, pp. 242-258, DOI: 10.1108/17410400610653219, 2006.

[83] Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, Y. Geng, "Green Supply Chain Management in China: Pressures, Practices and Performance," International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 25 no. 5, pp. 449-468, DOI: 10.1108/01443570510593148, 2005.

[84] Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, K. hung. Lai, "Institutional-based Antecedents and Performance Outcomes of Internal and External Green Supply Chain Management Practices," Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, vol. 19 no. 2, pp. 106-117, DOI: 10.1016/j.pursup.2012.12.001, 2013.

[85] J. Perramon, M. d. M. Alonso-Almeida, J. Llach, L. Bagur-Femenías, "Green Practices in Restaurants: Impact on Firm Performance," Operations Management Research, vol. 7 no. 1–2,DOI: 10.1007/s12063-014-0084-y, 2014.

[86] D. Geroge, P. Mallery, SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 2003.

[87] B. Williams, A. Onsman, T. Brown, "Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Five-step Guide for Novices," Australasian journal of paramedicine, vol. 8,DOI: 10.33151/ajp.8.3.93, 2010.

[88] S. Tobias, J. E. Carlson, "Brief Report: Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and Chance Findings in Factor Analysis," Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 4 no. 3, pp. 375-377, DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0403_8, 1969.

[89] F. J. Orçan, "Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Which One to Use First?," Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, vol. 9 no. 4, pp. 414-421, DOI: 10.21031/epod.394323, 2018.

[90] G. Dash, J. J. Paul, "CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM Methods for Research in Social Sciences and Technology Forecasting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 173,DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092, 2021.

[91] E. Minbale, B. Bizuneh, W. Seife, A. Eyasu, T. Asfaw, S. Sharew, "Ethiopian Consumer ’ S Behavior towards Purchasing Locally Produced Apparel Products: An Extended Model of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Complexity, vol. 2024,DOI: 10.1155/2024/8745919, 2024.

[92] U. N. Ahmad, S. M. Amin, "The Dimensions of Technostress Among Academic Librarians," Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 65 no. ICIBSoS, pp. 266-271, DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.121, 2012.

[93] M. H. Amlus, A. Z. Abdullah, A. Ibrahim, H. Mokhtarudin, "The Relationship of Training on Manufacturing Capabilities Among Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers in Malaysia," Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 793, pp. 663-668, DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.793.663, 2015.

[94] F. Joseph, J. B. Barry, E. A. Rolph, E. A. Rolph, Multivariate Data Analysis, 2010.

[95] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, "Multivariate Data Analysis," Multivariate Data Analysis, 2010.

[96] G. D. Kang, J. James, G. Kang, J. James, "Service Quality Dimensions: an Examination of Nroos’ S Service Gro Quality Model," Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, vol. 14 no. 4, pp. 266-277, DOI: 10.1108/09604520410546806, 2004.

[97] J. Kang, C. Liu, S. H. Kim, "Environmentally Sustainable Textile and Apparel Consumption: The Role of Consumer Knowledge, Perceived Consumer Effectiveness and Perceived Personal Relevance," International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 37 no. 4, pp. 442-452, DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12013, 2013.

[98] B. M. Byrne, Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 2013.

[99] C. Fornell, D. F. Larcker, Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics, 1981.

[100] D. Alarcón, J. A. Sánchez, U. De Olavide, "Assessing Convergent and Discriminant Validity in the ADHD-R IV Rating Scale: User-Written Commands for Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Composite Reliability (CR), and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT)," Spanish STATA Meeting, vol. 39, 2015.

[101] M. Rožman, P. Tominc, B. Milfelner, "A Comparative Study Using Two SEM Techniques on Di Ff Erent Samples Sizes for Determining Factors of Older Employee’ S Motivation and Satisfaction," Sustainability, vol. 12 no. 6,DOI: 10.3390/su12062189, 2020.

[102] J. L. Arbuckle, IBM SPSS Amos 19 User’ S Guide User’ S Guide, 2010.

[103] R. E. Zeleke, S. S. Hailemariam, "Drivers for Sustainable Supply Chain Management and the Practices in Ethiopian Apparel Industries," Journal of Engineering, vol. 2023,DOI: 10.1155/2023/2625998, 2023.

[104] R. Hashim, N. Hami, S. Omar, "Sustainable Manufacturing Practices in a Textile Company: A Case Study," International Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 9 no. 3, pp. 94-99, 2020.

[105] W. Abimbola, U. Nnedinma, "Promoting Sustainable Building Practices in Developing Countries: Comparative Perspectives and Future Directions," Journal of construction business and management,DOI: 10.15641/jcbm.6.2.1497, 2023.

[106] X. H. Nguyen, T. D. U. Doan, V. N. Hoang, V. N. Hoang, "The Impact of Global Supply Chain Management on Performance: Evidence from Textile and Garment Industry," Uncertain Supply Chain Management, vol. 8 no. 2020, pp. 17-26, DOI: 10.5267/j.uscm.2019.9.003, 2020.

[107] T. Laosirihongthong, P. Samaranayake, S. V. Nagalingam, D. Adebanjo, "Prioritization of Sustainable Supply Chain Practices with Triple Bottom Line and Organizational Theories: Industry and Academic Perspectives," Production Planning & Control, vol. 31 no. 14, pp. 1207-1221, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1701233, 2020.

[108] S. L. Golicic, C. D. Smith, "A Meta-Analysis of Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and Firm Performance," Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 49 no. 2, pp. 78-95, DOI: 10.1111/jscm.12006, 2013.

[109] C. Feng, G. Fan, Y. Zhang, T. Yang, "Collaboration in Humanitarian Logistics," ICLEM 2010: Logistics for Sustained Economic Development - Infrastructure, Information, Integration - Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference of Logistics Engineering and Management, vol. 387, pp. 1127-1133, DOI: 10.1061/41139(387)155, 2010.

[110] B. B. Gardas, R. D. Raut, B. Narkhede, "Determinants of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Case Study from the Oil and Gas Supply Chain," Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 17, pp. 241-253, DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2018.11.005, 2019.

[111] A. K. Mishra, R. K. Thakur, S. Dhakal, "The Influence of Environmental Sustainability Orientations on Organizational Performance: A Review," Journal of Productive Discourse, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 121-136, DOI: 10.3126/prod.v2i1.65730, 2024.

[112] R. D. Raut, S. K. Mangla, V. S. Narwane, B. B. Gardas, P. Priyadarshinee, B. E. Narkhede, "Linking Big Data Analytics and Operational Sustainability Practices for Sustainable Business Management," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 224, pp. 10-24, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.181, 2019.

[113] Z. Tchaikovsky, The Relationship between Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Stakeholder Pressure, and Financial Performance, 2017.

[114] A. Attia, "Effect of Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Customer Relationship Management on Organizational Performance in the Context of the Egyptian Textile Industry," Sustainability, vol. 15 no. 5, pp. 4072-4116, DOI: 10.3390/su15054072, 2023.

[115] L. T. Boson, Z. Elemo, A. Engida, S. Kant, "Assessment of Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Sustainable Business in Ethiopia," Logistic and Operation Management Research (LOMR), vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 96-104, DOI: 10.31098/lomr.v2i1.1468, 2023.

[116] B. Debnath, T. Siraj, K. Harun, "Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics Analyzing the Critical Success Factors to Implement Green Supply Chain Management in the Apparel Manufacturing Industry: Implications for Sustainable Development Goals in the Emerging Economies," Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics, vol. 2,DOI: 10.1016/j.smse.2023.100013, 2023.

[117] M. R. Uddin, M. Rashid, Sustainable Supply Chain in the Textile Industry, 2022.

[118] S. Cantele, I. Russo, J. F. Kirchoff, S. Valcozzena, "Supply Chain Agility and Sustainability Performance: A Configurational Approach to Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 414 no. January,DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137493, 2023.

[119] S. Lu, "Examining Green Innovation and Digital Transformation as Essential Factors of Sustainable Performance," Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, vol. 39, pp. 625-630, DOI: 10.54097/d8c3yk70, 2024.

[120] J. D. C. Negrete, V. N. López, V. N. Ló, "A Sustainability Overview of the Supply Chain Management in Textile Industry," International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, vol. 11 no. 5, pp. 92-97, DOI: 10.18178/ijtef.2020.11.5.673, 2020.

[121] A. Kumar, S. K. Shrivastav, A. K. Shrivastava, R. R. Panigrahi, A. Mardani, F. Cavallaro, "Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Performance Measurement, and Management: A Review," Sustainability, vol. 15 no. 6,DOI: 10.3390/su15065290, 2023.

[122] V. Sarasi, I. Primiana, B. Harsanto, "Sustainable Supply Chain of Indonesia ’ S Textile & Apparel Industry: Opportunities and Challenges," Research Journal of Textile and Apparel,DOI: 10.1108/RJTA-08-2022-0091, 2023.