Vol. 7 Núm. 2, 2025
Artículo original
Effect of green management on sustainability of global fast food restaurants: analysis of Nigeria perspective
Yinusa Alabi-Olawale*
*Autor de correspondencia: olawale.ya@unilorin.edu.ng, https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5886-4118
University of Ilorin
Recepción: 19/07/2025
Aprobación: 26/08/2025
Publicación: 30/10/2025
Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional.
Como citar: Alabi-Olawale, Y. (2025). Effect of green management on sustainability of global fast food restaurants: analysis of Nigeria perspective. Economía & Negocios, 7(2), 51-60. https://www.doi.org/10.33326/27086062.2025.2.2343
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the effect of green management on sustainability of global fast food restaurants in Ilorin metropolis, Kwara state, Nigeria. Specifically, the study examined the effect of green products on product innovation of global fast food restaurants, and assessed the impact of green marketing on competitive advantage of global fast food restaurants. A survey method with census was adopted to examine 58 staff of fast food restaurants administered questionnaire. Collected data was analyzed using multiple regression analysis to test the hypotheses. The findings of the study revealed that green product is significant to product innovation of fast-food outlets with R2 value of 97%; and green marketing has significant effect on the competitive advantage with R2 value of 94.5%. The study concluded that green management has a positive effect on organizational sustainability. It therefore recommended among others that Fast-food outlets should ensure that they focus on green production in managing their production and operation department. Also, the management of Fast-food outlets should ensure that it makes use of green marketing strategies that can help it achieve higher competitive advantage in the industry.
Keywords: green management, green products, green marketing, organizational sustainability, competitive advantage
INTRODUCTION
Global warming and increased pollution from business activities have raised concerns about the ecological environment, emphasizing the significance of green management (GM) for firms operating in Nigeria and worldwide. Green management involves adopting renewable energy sources, reducing emissions, implementing recycling programs, and incorporating environmental goals in organizational strategies. The need to “go green” has become a major concern among stakeholders, implicating businesses to incorporate sustainable practices. Adopting green management principles, policies, and practices is necessary for improving the quality of life for customers, employees, communities, and the environment. This includes using renewable resources, minimizing negative environmental impacts, and reducing waste through recycling programs (Loknath, & Abdul, 2017).
Sustainability refers to maintaining a continuous high-performance level for an extended period. Organizations with sustainability goals possess a defined mission, goals, and objectives that ensure successful pursuit of their mission. While sustainable organizations might not be financially self-sufficient, they are financially self-reliant, utilizing short, medium, and long-term planning, competent management, visionary leadership, and networking skills to pursue diversified funding sources while focusing on their mission (Daft, 2000). Green management encompasses the integration of innovation, waste reduction, social responsibility, and the pursuit of a competitive advantage. By embracing environmental goals and integrating them with the organization’s overall strategies, green management aims to achieve sustainability while reducing negative impacts (Haden, et al., 2009).
Nigeria faces significant environmental challenges, particularly within the oil industry. Global oil companies in Nigeria have caused years of devastating environmental pollution due to oil spills and vandalism of oil installations. Additionally, gas flaring leads to severe air pollution, with an estimated annual emission of 16.5 million tons of carbon dioxide. To address these challenges, firms with a greater negative impact must resolve their environmental problems and adopt green management practices (Hage, & Taruna, 2016). Pollution carries substantial costs for businesses. In China, pollution cost the economy 112 billion in 2005, while in Hong Kong, medical bills and lost productivity due to pollution amounted to HK39.4 billion in 2013. Polluted areas face challenges in hiring and retaining employees and may need to relocate operations to less polluted regions. Businesses need to prioritize proper waste disposal and efficient production methods to ensure environmental sustainability.
Barriers to Implementing Green Initiatives: Implementing green initiatives, such as green production, green human resource training, and green marketing, can be challenging for organizations lacking specialized skills and technical know-how. These initiatives demand competent individuals with green competency and skills. Organizations that fail to prioritize green management face obstacles in achieving innovation, fulfilling social responsibilities, and gaining a competitive advantage (Loknath, & Abdul, 2017).
Therefore, the importance of green management for corporate sustainability is evident in Nigeria and globally. Businesses are urged to adopt renewable energy sources, reduce emissions, implement recycling programs, and integrate environmental goals into their strategies. The fast food industry in Ilorin metropolis, Kwara state serves as a case study used in examining the influence of green management on corporate sustainability in Nigeria context. By embracing green practices, organizations can enhance workplace quality, protect the environment, and promote long-term solutions for a sustainable future.
Research objectives
The main objective of this study is to examine the effect of green management on sustainability of global fast food restaurants in Ilorin metropolis, Kwara state. The specific objective are - to:
Examine the effects of green products on product innovation of global fast food restaurants.
Assess the impact of green marketing on competitive advantage of global fast food restaurants.
Research hypotheses
Ho1: Green products have no significant effects on product innovation of global fast food restaurants.
Ho2: Green marketing does not have a significant impact on competitive advantage of global fast food restaurants.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Concept of Green Management (GM)
Maximum definition of GM focuses around minimizing environmental impact by reducing toxics, waste, pollution, optimizing use of raw material, and energy by applying end of life (EOL), cradle to cradle and close loop approach. Various definitions of GM by prominent researchers are as under. According to Mendler et al. (2005), GM is meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. According to Chien and Shih (2007) GM technology through sustainable design of products and processes saves energy and reduces reliance on non-replaceable raw materials.
Ramakrishnan (2006) states that GM is about designing products using design for environment (DfE) principles, manufacturing them with eco-efficient processes, delivering them to the customer with the least environmental impact and applying ‘cradle to cradle’ approaches for handling EOL products. Hicks and Dietmar (2007) stresses on design improvement, utilisation of clean energy and raw materials, the implementation of advanced processes, technologies and equipment. According to Pojasek (2008), GM has different meanings to different people, usually based on their discipline and training. Becoming Green should be considered to be a journey, not a destination or static state.
Measures of Green Management
Green Products/Productivity
The greening of products is the process whereby an organization seeks to reduce its negative impact on the natural environment, caused by its conducted activities. The indirect actions are the steps taken to produce more environmentally friendly products, starting from designing the product, its production process and the point where they become waste. The concept of Green productivity was first introduced by the Asian Productivity Organization (APO) following the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, according to Tuttle and Heap (2007).
Gandhi et al. (2006) highlights Green productivity index (GPI) of the continuous improvement performed in a foundry casting, which includes both economic and environmental performances. Current economic policies highlighted only productivity and economic growth, without addressing the environment, have resulted in adverse and irreversible environmental impacts. Similarly, Reid (2006) presents a logical and well-structured framework to improve the productivity and quality of the organization as a whole, as well as its work-performing processes.
Green Marketing
Once the concept of GM has been embraced, it can be turned into a marketing advantage. Some of the corporate heavyweights using leading-edge technology, such as Toyota and General Electric, have been prominently portrayed as Green manufacturers. Green marketing encourages Green management and eco product development through the market. Public opinion polls consistently show that consumers would prefer to choose a Green products over one that is less friendly to the environment when all other things are equal. Prakash (2002) claims that in addition to manipulating the 4Ps (product, price, place and promotion) of the traditional marketing mix, it requires a careful understanding of public policy processes. Ottman et al. (2006) believes that Green marketing must satisfy two objectives, improved environmental quality and customer satisfaction.
Dimensions of Organizational Sustainability
Product Innovation
Product innovation is the development of new products, making changes in the current product design or using new techniques and means in the current production methods (Eris, & Saatcioglu, 2006), in other words, it focuses on existing markets for existing products, differentiating through features and functions that current offers do not have. We can look at product innovation from two sides; the internal side where it depends on knowledge, capacities, resources and the technologies used in the company, however; from the external side product innovation focuses on the consumers’ needs and the owners’ expectations (wikipedia.org). Looking at the terms used in the product innovation field one can conclude that there has been a change of meanings over time. Although “design” originates from the “making of a drawing” it is obvious that the meaning of “design” has been enriched over time. In parallel to “design” the term “product development” has evolved describing the generation of products, processes or services. In the last couple of years, the term innovation has been used in a variety of meanings although the original meaning refers to a more or less radical introduction of changes.
Competitive Advantage
In business, a competitive advantage is the attribute that allows an organization to outperform its competitors. A competitive advantage may include access to natural resources, such as high-grade ores or a low-cost power source, highly skilled labor, geographic location, high entry barriers, and access to new technology. The term competitive advantage refers to the ability gained through attributes and resources to perform at a higher level than others in the same industry or market (Srivastava et al., 2001).
Competitive advantage seeks to address some of the criticisms of comparative advantage. Competitive advantage rests on the notion that cheap labor is ubiquitous and natural resources are not necessary for a good economy. The other theory, comparative advantage, can lead countries to specialize in exporting primary goods and raw materials that trap countries in low-wage economies due to terms of trade. Competitive advantage attempts to correct this issue by stressing on maximizing scale economies in goods and services that garner premium prices (Stutz, & Warf, 2007).
Effect of Green Management on Organizational Sustainability
Green management is all about the sustainability for business without compromising the future need. Sustainability in relation to corporate plan implies the opportunity for business to provide a long-term solution, such as the need to enhance the quality of the workplace and natural environment. Sustainability in management has various nomenclatures such as corporate sustainability, sustainable development, and corporate social responsibility. Generally, sustainability term “as the development that meets the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own need” (Hage, & Taruna, 2016) and work in three-tier i.e., environmental protection, economic growth, and social equality. Corporate sustainability cluster around People, Planet and Profit (3P) and seek to identify the way to balance between all this 3P.
Go Green/Green initiatives is an organization’s effort to reduce pollution and carbon emission that lead to the Greenhouse effect on planet Earth. And basically comprise of three activities i.e., Recycle, Reduce and Reuse. These three primary activities help to reduce the burden poured by human activity, mostly by industrial operation. Management can prevent and minimize the effect on the environment by assimilating such significant activity in the functioning of an organization. Upgrading and modifying green technology with eco-friendly policies in managing the organization is needed before moving forward in such a movement (Hage, & Taruna, 2016).
THEORETICAL REVIEW
Resource‐Based Theory
This study adopts the resource based view theory. According to the study by Amores‐Salvadó et al. (2015), the maturity of the environmental management system (EMS) moderates the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm performance. However, according to the study, the causal relationship between EMS and innovation is ambiguous because the internal capabilities and intangible resources that are conductive of environmental innovation could be equally considered as antecedents of EMS implementation.
According to the RBT, firms exploit combinations of valuable organizational capabilities and resources to formulate value‐creating strategies that are not duplicable by current or potential competitors (Wernerfelt, 1984). Resources and capabilities are deemed valuable when rare, imperfectly imitable, and not substitutable (Peteraf, 1993). Under such circumstances, organizational resources and capabilities are suitable to build and sustain a long‐lasting competitive advantage and preserve it against competitors’ attempts to erode it (Barney, 1986).
Within the corporate sustainability literature, the RBT has been frequently adopted to motivate the relation between proactive environmental strategies and enhanced competitive performance, by highlighting the specific organizational capabilities that underlie such relation (Hart, 1995; Russo, & Fouts, 1997). The majority of EMS studies based on RBT explore the outcomes of EMS implementation in terms of business performance, sometimes providing ambiguous or nonconclusive results (Djupdal, & Westhead, 2015).
Empirical Review
Onwudiwe et al. (2019) studied green management and organizational effectiveness. Reviewed literature was used to discuss various aspects of green management mainly renewable energy and waste recycling. A questionnaire survey was conducted within the printing press (paper) industry with a sample of 20 firms that were randomly drawn from a population of 146. In testing the hypotheses, T-Test Statistic was used. The results showed waste recycling has a positive and significant effect on cost reduction and pollution reduction. The study hence recommends that the paper industry (printing press) in Nigeria should realize that green products will become a mainstream manufacturing concept and that green management (GM) will become a core business principle. Firms operating in this industry must be able to make effective use of these green opportunities to transfer the original environmental pressures into a competitive advantage, improve corporation image, develop new market segments, expand into new markets, and maximize benefits.
Loknath and Abdul (2017) investigated green management; concept and strategies. The paper attempted to provide a basic overview of the concept of green management at the introductory level and discuss different types of green management strategies adopted by organisations. The paper attempted to contribute to the emerging field of green management and the stakeholders of sustainable development.
Similarly, the study of Ho et al. (2016) on green management and performance in Taiwanese electronics firms by, the study surveyed 213 Taiwanese electronics manufacturers. The study used multiple regression analysis to measure the factors of GM that affect firms’ performance. The findings indicate that GM has a significant impact on firm performance.
The study by Ngniatedema and Li (2014) on the influence of green operations on organizational performance on top 500 publicly traded companies in the US. Based on metrics for environmental impact and green reputation, manufacturing companies scored lower on the environmental impact metrics and higher on the green reputation metric than companies in services industries. Additionally, the overall impact of green operations was found to be different between the manufacturing and service firms studied. For manufacturing firms, environmental impact score and green policies and performance score were found to have an impact on organizational performance; while, green reputation plays a more important role in impacting the organizational performance of service firms.
METHODOLOGY
The research design that was used for the purpose of this study is a survey research design. The category of people that would make up the population of the study are the employees of three (3) global fast-food outlets which are Domino’s Pizza Nigeria, Cold Stones Creamery and Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). The category of employees that will be used for this study are the attendants of each of the food outlets. The current population of each of the global fast food outlets attendants’ workforce are; 23, 14, 21 for Domino’s Pizza Nigeria, Cold Stones Creamery and Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), respectively (Restaurant Manager, 2025). The total is 58. Thus, 58 employees of the three global fast-food outlets will be considered as the population for this study. Census was used since the population is not too large and can easily be captured while there won’t be much problems associated with the use of the whole population. The research study used a questionnaire for collections and gathering of primary data with open ended questions as the research instrument for data collection. This research report used inferential statistical analysis to analyze data collected in the course of this research. All computation on the study was done through Statistical Products and Services Solution (SPSS) version 23.
Model Specification
H01: Green products have no significant effects on the product innovation of fast-food outlets.
Regression model:
Y= a + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3 + ε
Where:
Y means Product Innovation
a means the constant
b means the gradient/slope of each variable
X means Green products which are broken down into the following:
X1 means Green products development
X2 means Green products design
X3 means Waste reduction
ε means error
H02: Green marketing does not have a significant impact on the competitive advantage of fast-food outlets.
Regression model:
Y= a + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3+ ε
Where:
Y means Competitive Advantage
a means the constant
b means the gradient/slope of each variable
X means Green marketing which is broken down into the following:
X1 means Package material
X2 means Green value positioning
X3 means Product credibility
ε means error
Data Analysis
Hypotheses one: Green products have no significant effects on product innovation of global fast food restaurants.
Table 1 presents the model summary with r (correlation coefficient) equal to 0.785 which indicates that there exists a positive relationship between the independent and the dependent variable. R2 from the table which is the coefficient of determination is 0.616. This implies that 61.6% changes in product innovation is explained by green products while the remaining 39.4% is attributed to other variables not included in the model. This means that green products as a measure of green management has significant impact on product innovation as a measure of organizational sustainability.
Table 1
Model summary
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.785a |
.616 |
.616 |
.18401 |
|
Predictors: (Constant), Green products development, Green products design, Waste reduction |
||||
Source: SPSS Output, 2025
The F-statistics shown in the ANOVA table 2 is significant since the ANOVA significance of .000 is less than the alpha level of .05. Thus, the result is achieved. Also, the regression sum of square of 190.239 is greater than residual sum of square of 5.858, this further shows the significance of the overall model. Therefore, the model is fit. Thus, green products is significant to product innovation in fast food outlets.
Table 2
ANOVAa
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
Df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression Residual |
190.239 5.858 |
4 173 |
47.560 .034 |
1404.558 |
.000b |
|
Total |
196.097 |
177 |
||||
|
a. Dependent Variable: Product Innovation b. Predictors: (Constant), Green products development, Green products design, Waste reduction |
||||||
Source: SPSS Output, 2025
The coefficient table 3 shows the overall significance of 0.030, 0.011, and 0.000 for new green products development, green products design and waste reduction respectively which are less than the set alpha of 0.05 significant level implies that the stated variables have significant impact on product innovation which consequently means that there is a significant effect of green products on product innovation. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted. The positive Beta value of 0.257, 0.140 and 0.326 for green products development, green products design and waste reduction shows that an increase or change in these variables will lead to a 25.7%, 14.0 and 32.6% changes in product innovation, respectively. Waste reduction has the highest beta coefficient, this implies that it has the highest contribution to product innovation compared to other variables. This is due to the green concept that greatly supports the need for environmental waste to be reduced through the use of waste for further production through the recycling process, which ends in the production of a newly refined product.
Table 3
Coefficients
|
Model |
Unstandardized coefficients |
Standardized coefficients |
T |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) Green products development Green products design Waste reduction |
.223 .251 .161 .286 |
.080 .115 .062 .050 |
.257 .140 .326 |
2.778 2.189 2.582 5.706 |
.006 .030 .011 .000 |
|
a. Dependent Variable: Product Innovation |
||||||
Source: SPSS Output, 2025
Hypothesis two: Green marketing does not have a significant impact on the competitive advantage of global fast food restaurants.
Table 4 presents the model summary with r (correlation coefficient) equal to 0.772 which indicates that there exists a positive relationship between the independent and the dependent variable. R2 from the table which is the coefficient of determination is 0.596. This implies that 59.6% changes in competitive advantage is explained by equal increase in percentage of green marketing while the remaining percentage is attributed to other variables not included in the model. This means that green marketing as a measure of green management has a significant impact on competitive advantage as a measure of organizational sustainability.
Table 4
Model summary
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.772a |
.596 |
.595 |
.18401 |
|
Predictors: (Constant), Package material, Green value positioning, Product credibility |
||||
Source: SPSS Output, 2025
The F-statistics shown in the ANOVA table 5 is significant since the ANOVA significance of .000 is less than the alpha level of .05. Thus, the result is achieved. Also, the regression sum of square of 169.138 is greater than residual sum of square of 9.751, this further shows the significance of the overall model. Therefore, the model is fit. This implies that green marketing is significant to the competitive advantage of fast-food outlets.
Table 5
ANOVAa
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
Df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression Residual |
169.138 9.751 |
4 173 |
42.284 .056 |
750.180 |
.000b |
|
Total |
178.889 |
177 |
||||
|
Dependent Variable: Competitive Advantage b. Predictors: (Constant), Package material, Green value positioning, Product credibility |
||||||
Source: SPSS Output, 2025
The coefficient table 6 shows the overall significance of 0.005, 0.000, and 0.007 for package material, green value positioning, and product credibility, respectively, which are less than the set alpha of 0.05 significant level shows that all the stated variables have significant effect on competitive advantage, and this implies that there is a significant influence of green marketing on competitive advantage. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis accepted. The positive Beta value of 0.065 and 0.371 for package material and product credibility respectively shows that they have weak but positive contribution to competitive advantage while on the other hand, green value positioning with -0.576 has a negative contribution to the competitive advantage and consequently, an increase or change in these variables will lead to a 6.5%, -57.6% and 37.1% changes in competitive advantage, respectively. Amongst the variables of green marketing, product credibility has the highest contribution to competitive advantage of fast-food outlets. Product credibility assures customers of the quality of the product, and this convinces customers to buy the product and thus gaining more market share for the organization. This gives an organization a competitive edge over competitors in the industry.
Table 6
Coefficientsa
|
Model |
Unstandardized coefficients |
Standardized coefficients |
T |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) Package material Green value positioning Product credibility |
.736 .045 -.484 .332 |
.073 .016 .121 .122 |
.065 -.576 .371 |
10.024 2.844 -4.001 2.709 |
.000 .005 .000 .007 |
|
a. Dependent Variable: Competitive advantage |
||||||
Source: SPSS Output, 2025
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The analysis of the first objective revealed that green products such as green products development (0.030), green products design (0.011), and waste reduction (0.000) have significant impact on product innovation of fast-food outlets. The p-value gives 0.030, 0.011, and 0.000 which is less than the alpha level of 0.05 which implies that there is a strong significant impact of green products on product innovation of fast-food outlets. Thus, green products are significant to the product innovation of fast-food outlets. The positive Beta value of 0.257, 0.140, and 0.326 for green products development, green products design, and waste reduction show that they have a weak but positive contribution to product innovation of fast-food outlets. While ANOVA shows that there’s a significant influence of green products on product innovation of fast-food outlets. This goes along with the findings of Onwudiwe et al. (2019).
The analysis of the second objective revealed that competitive advantage is influenced by green marketing in fast-food outlets. The p-values of the proxies give 0.005, 0.000, and 0.007 which are less than the alpha level of 0.05 which implies that package material, green value positioning, and product credibility as proxies of green marketing have significant influence on the competitive advantage of fast-food outlets. Thus, green marketing is significant to competitive advantage of fast-food outlets. The positive Beta value of 0.065 and 0.371 for package material and product credibility respectively shows that they have weak but positive contribution to the competitive advantage while on the other hand, green value positioning with -0.576 has a negative contribution to the competitive advantage. ANOVA shows that the model is fit as there’s high level of significance between the dependent and independent variables. This goes in line with the findings of Ngniatedema and Li (2014).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
From the above findings on green management and organizational sustainability, this study concluded that green products have significant effects on innovation. Green products should be given consideration when discussing factors affecting the product innovation of fast-food outlets. Green products development, green products design, and waste reduction are significant to maximize the product innovation level of fast-food outlets.
Furthermore, this study also concluded that green marketing has a significant effect on competitive advantage. The findings show that the competitive advantage of fast-food outlets is significantly influenced by green marketing. Package material, green value positioning, and product credibility are important factors affecting the competitive advantage of fast-food outlets.
In view of the findings given above, the following recommendations were suggested:
The study recommends firstly that fast-food outlets should ensure that they focus on green production in managing their production, and operation department. This will help achieve continuous product innovation in the outlets and other organizations that adopt it properly. This can be done through the development of green products, ensuring that green products designs are continuously innovated to attract customers and also make use of recycling processes to reduce waste in the community.
The study also recommends that fast-food outlets should also ensure that it makes use of green marketing strategies that can help it achieve higher competitive advantage in the industry. This can be done by focusing on the type of package material used, the value of the product as well as the credibility of the products.
REFERENCES
Amores Salvadó, J., Martinde Castro, G., & Navas Lopez, J. E. (2015). The importance of the complementarity between environmental management systems and environmental innovation capabilities: A firm level approach to environmental and business performance benefits. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 96, 288-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.004
Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic Factor Markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.10.1231
Chien, M-K., & Shih, L-H. (2007). Relationship between management practice and organization performance under European Union directives such as RoHS: a case-study of the electrical and electronic industry in Taiwan. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 1(3), 037-048.
Daft, R. L. (2000). Organization theory and design. Cengage Learning.
Djupdal, K., & Westhead, P. (2015). Environmental certification as a buffer against the liabilities of newness and smallness: Firm performance benefits. International Small Business Journal, 33(2), 148-168. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0266242613486688
Eris, E. D., & Saatcioglu, O. Y. (2006). A system look for technological innovation: Firm based perspective. European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS), Costa Blanca, Alicante, España.
Gandhi, N. M. D., Selladurai, V., & Santhi, P. (2006). Green productivity indexing. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(7), 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400610702179
Haden, R. J., Oyler, J. D., & Humphreys, J. H. (2009). The ideal of the green organization: Context, dynamics, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 87-106.
Hage, P., & Taruna, A. (2016). Sustainability and management: An international perspective. Routledge.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural resource based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986-1014. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280033
Hicks, C., & Dietmar, R. (2007). Improving cleaner production through the application of environmental tools in China. JO Cleaner Production, 15(5), 395-408.
Ho, Y. C., Wang, W. B., & Shieh, W. L. (2016). An empirical study of green management and performance in Taiwanese electronics firms. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1266787
Loknath, S. A., & Abdul, N. (2017). Green management and corporate sustainability: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Economic Research, 14(4), 151-159.
Mendler, S. F., Odell, W., & Lazarus, M. A. (2005). The HOK Guidebook to Sustainable Design (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Ngniatedema, T., & Li, S. (2014). Green operations and organizational performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(3), 50-56. https://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_3_March_2014/6.pdf
Onwudiwe, U. J., Agwamba, A. C., & Ugwuegbu, C. O. (2019). Green management and organizational effectiveness. Strategic Journal of Business and Social Science (SJBSS), 2(2), 1-22.
Ottman, J., Edwin, R., Stafford, C., & Hartman, L. (2006). Green marketing Myopia. JO Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 48(5), 22-36, ©Heldref Publications. http://www.heldref.org/env.php
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191.
Pojasek, R. B. (2008). Risk management 101. Environmental Quality Management, 17(3), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.20180
Prakash, A. (2002). Green Marketing, public policy and managerial strategies. JO Business. Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 285-297.
Ramakrishnan, L. (2006). FIEMA, C. Env. Regional Environmental Coordinator Philips Lighting, Asia. http://www.igpn.org/workshop/pdf/PhilipsGreenMfgring pdf
Reid, R. A. (2006). Productivity and quality improvement: an implementation framework. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 1(1/2), 26. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpqm.2006.008371
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534-559.
Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (2001). The resource-based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), 777-802. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700610
Stutz, F. P., & Warf, B. (2007). The world economy: Resources, location, trade, and development (5th ed.). Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Tuttle, T., & Heap, J. (2007). Green productivity: moving the agenda. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(1), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400810841254
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207