Green supply chain management (GSCM) involves integrating environmentally friendly practices into supply chain management (SCM) to respond to stakeholders’ demand for products and services that are produced through environmentally sustainable practices (Mvubu & Naude 2016). Green supply chain management is attracting increasing interest in industry, research and SCM driven by the escalating environmental degradation, for example, diminishing raw material resources, high industrial emissions and the increase in waste dumps (Srivastava 2007).

Growth of economies increases the level of energy and material consumption as the demand for products increases. The higher energy and material consumption contribute to environmental issues and natural resources depletion problems (Seman et al. 2012). In the case of South Africa, the country’s economy was recording positive growth for more than two decades, except during the 2008/2009 world recession period and 2016/2017 (Statistics South Africa n.d.). South African economic growth is mainly backed by agriculture, mining, manufacturing, transport and the wholesale sectors (Statistics South Africa n.d.). These five sectors contribute close to two-thirds of economic growth (Statistics South Africa n.d.). The high-energy and resource-consuming nature of the five sectors implies that South African economic growth is associated with some negative environmental issues. Thus, South Africa is the 12th largest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the world and is responsible for nearly half of the CO₂ emissions in Africa (Dahan et al. 2015). In their case study, Dahan et al. (2015) indicated that the total South African greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2010 amounted to 579 256 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO₂e), to which CO₂ contributed 80%. On the other hand, the third and latest national waste baseline conducted in 2011 showed that South Africa generated approximately 108 million tonnes of waste in 2011, of which 98 million tonnes was disposed of in landfills and only 10% was recycled (Republic of South Africa 2012).

To curb these ever-increasing environmental problems, the South African government has continuously been reviewing environmental legislation to force the industry to reduce environmental pollution. For example, in the last decade, the South African government introduced the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of 2008), the National Waste Management Strategy (DEA 2012), the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (Act No. 39 of 2004) and the Carbon Tax.

The emerging government regulations and stronger public awareness about the environment are forcing manufacturers to explore strategies that will help mitigate the environmental impacts of their supply chains (Mvubu & Naude 2016). The manufacturing industry, such as the South African cement industry, cannot afford to continue ignoring environmental concerns if it wants to remain competitive in the international market (Dhull & Nawal 2015). Consequently, it is a requirement for manufacturers to embrace GSCM because of pressure from the government and also environmental consciousness amongst customers (Srivastava 2007). Green supply chain management is defined as:

Besides trying to satisfy the environmental concerns in organisations, some organisations have found a positive relationship between GSCM and economic performance. Zhu and Sarkis (2004) found that enterprises that have higher levels of GSCM practices have better positive economic performance. Chiou et al. (2011) investigated the correlation between supplier green practices and green innovation in the Taiwanese industry. They concluded that the implementation of green innovation by suppliers leads to better environmental performance and competitive advantage of the firm. Similar results were obtained by Seman et al. (2012), who concluded that green innovation is a novel approach that can contribute to differentiation from competitors which might lead to competitive advantage.

Many researchers (Diabat & Govindan 2011; Gandhi et al. 2016; Khiewnavawongsa 2011; Ojo, Mbowa & Akinlabi 2014; Rahman & Srivastava 2011; Singh, Singh & Dhingra 2012; Vachon 2008; Walker, Sisto & McBain 2008; Zhu & Sarkis 2004) have highlighted drivers and barriers that affect the implementation of GSCM in many industries around the world; therefore, it is necessary to identify these drivers and barriers in the South African cement industry context. This article identifies significant drivers of and barriers to the implementation of GSCM in the South African cement industry.

Global warming, waste management issues and depleting natural resources force governments to develop stringent environmental regulations. The manufacturing industry finds it challenging to comply with these (Ghazilla et al. 2015). Organisations therefore must find innovative ways of ensuring their supply chains comply with the environmental regulations whilst still creating value for their stakeholders (Khaksar et al. 2016).

Niemann, Hall and Oliver (2016) noted that although many studies have been conducted on the drivers of and barriers to GSCM practices, there is still conflicting information on the ranking of these drivers and barriers. This might be because of these studies having been conducted in different contexts, namely, different countries and industries (Niemann et al. 2016), and therefore, country- and industry-specific issues like legislation might influence the ranking of the drivers and barriers.

This study identifies the drivers of and barriers to the implementation of GSCM in the South African cement industry and determines the relative weights of these barriers and drivers using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The research objectives include the identification of factors that are critical in implementing GSCM in South African cement industry as well as ranking of these factors according to their significance in driving or providing barriers to the GSCM implementation.

As GSCM is a relatively new concept in the South African manufacturing industry, this study will help the industry understand the drivers of and barriers to GSCM implementation. The cement industry has been a slow uptaker of these concepts, as previously it was a cartel that did not necessitate marketing and sales solutions traditionally required in competitive environments. Prior to the dissolution of the cartel, the South African cement industry focused on producing cement that was sent to a centralised distribution centre before being sold to customers. As a result, issues of differentiation and competition for customers were not forefront in the South African cement industry. Consequently, customer pressure to apply GSCM principles was not a focus. However, since the unbundling of the cartel, companies producing cement have had to be more attentive to issues of customer satisfaction, efficient production processes and aspects of differentiation (Mbango & Phiri 2015).

Since 1994, the South African cement industry landscape has been dominated by six major players that are PPC Cement, AfriSam, Lafarge-Holcim, Natal Portland Cement (NPC), Sephaku and Mamba cement (Association of Cementitious Material Producers n.d.). The South African cement industry has a total of 21.7 million tonnes per annum of installed capacity although about 4 million tonnes of this installed capacity is lying idle (Electus Fund Managers 2016). This idle-installed capacity places pressure on cement industry players to adopt strategies that acquire more customers in order to attain improved return on investment, particularly in the post-cartel competitive environment. Green supply chain management practices have been recognised as a potential lever for organisations based on the positive relationship between GSCM and efficient performance. Knowledge from this study will inform strategy formulation and direction for the cement industry and other manufacturing industries towards the implementation of GSCM.

The ultimate goal is for the cement industry and the manufacturing industry to utilise the findings of this study to help implement GSCM practices. This will contribute towards South Africa’s pledge to reduce GHG emissions by 42% by 2025.

Green supply chain management originated from conventional SCM that involves connecting manufacturing activities from raw material supply to the delivery of the final product (Dhull & Narwal 2015). The concept of GSCM was conceived in 1990, but it was only in 1994 that the first effort of GSCM was implemented through green purchasing (Khaksar et al. 2015). However, because of increasing environmental concerns and awareness, it became necessary to implement green strategies and policies at every stage of the supply chain (Khaksar et al. 2015). Thus, as organisations drive towards sustainable SCM systems, GSCM practices are now at the centre of policy and strategy development in organisations (Luthra, Garg & Haleem 2013).

There is a considerable amount of literature relating to studies conducted in South Africa (Dos Santos, Svesson & Padin 2013; Mvubu & Naude 2016; Ojo et al. 2014; Pooe & Mhelembe 2014; Schoeman & Sanchez 2009) on GSCM implementation in South African industry. The literature reviewed in the South African context covers the construction industry (Ojo et al. 2014), transport (Schoeman & Sanchez 2009), retail (Dos Santos et al. 2013), logistics (Niemann, Hall & Oliver 2017), mining (Pooe & Mhelembe 2014) and the fast-moving consumer goods industry (Mvubu & Naude 2016).

The definition of GSCM ranges from green purchasing to integrated supply chains, starting from supplier to manufacturer, to customer and reverse logistics, which is closing the loop (Zhu & Sarkis 2004). Similarly, Srivastava (2007) defined GSCM as:

Mvubu and Naude (2016) reviewed the definitions suggested by Green et al. (2012) and Srivastava (2007). These definitions also focused on integrating environmentally friendly practices in SCM in response to customer demand. Many definitions converge around ‘greening’ the supply chain, and therefore this article defines GSCM as the integration of sustainable environmental practices into every stage of traditional supply chains. This entails ‘greening’ the product design, product selection, material sourcing, manufacturing and production, operation and end-of-life management.

It is generally accepted that GSCM practices can be divided into four main areas, namely, green procurement, green manufacturing, green distribution and reverse logistics (Luthra et al. 2013; Ninlawan et al. 2010; Wiese et al. 2015). This is illustrated by the supply chain model in Figure 1.

To successfully implement GSCM, organisations need to develop strategies for integrating the GSCM practices, namely, green procurement, green manufacturing, green logistics and reverse logistics. Luthra et al. (2013) identified 30 strategies, categorised into four major dimensions, through which GSCM can be implemented in manufacturing organisations. According to Luthra et al. (2013), the first category is ‘non-members of the supply chain’, which consists of international environmental agreements (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2009), government legislation and non-government organisations. The second category is ‘downstream supply chain members’, which consists of collaboration with suppliers, knowledge and technology transfer and environmental auditing of suppliers. The third category, according to Luthra et al. (2013), is ‘organisational perspective’ which includes green practices implementation, top management initiation and commitment, quality human resources, economic interests, organisations’ competitiveness and waste avoidance or minimisation. The fourth category relates to ‘upward stream supply chain members’, which consists of customer awareness, end-of-life management and recycling.

Other researchers (Dhull & Narwal 2015; Diabat & Govindan 2011; Gandhi et al. 2016; Kamolkittiwong & Phruksaphanrat 2015; Niemann et al. 2016) also identify government legislation, market, supplier collaboration, internal organisational innovation, logistics and stakeholder awareness as strategies for the successful implementation of GSCM in many organisations. Similarly, other researchers (Diabat & Govindan 2011; Gandhi et al. 2016; Kamolkittiwong & Phruksaphanrat 2015; Luthra et al. 2013; Niemann et al. 2016; Potgieter 2012) conclude that GSCM in the cement industry can be implemented through research and development, collaboration with suppliers and customers and innovation within the value chain.

Research and development is critical in the cement industry for GSCM implementation because several technologies that can ‘green’ the cement industry supply chain are still in their infancy (Potgieter 2012). These technologies therefore need to be developed further to be commercially viable. These technologies include the fluidised bed cement-making process, carbon capture and storage, and alternative cement types and binders that are less energy- and resource-intensive.

Collaboration with suppliers and customers is meant to promote closed-loop supply strategies and green design (Odeyale, Oguntola & Odeyale 2014; Potgieter 2012). Collaboration with suppliers and customers will facilitate the recycling and remanufacturing of internal process waste as well as wastes from other industries (Odeyale et al. 2014; Potgieter 2012).

Although GSCM has been topical for the last decade (Srivastava 2007), its implementation is still a challenge because of the lack of understanding and poor implementation of GSCM strategies, especially in emerging economies where research on this topic still needs to advance for companies to make real contributions to environmental management (Teixeira et al. 2016). A research gap exists in the South African cement industry to explore and rank the drivers and barriers that hinder the successful implementation of GSCM. This study therefore identifies the significant drivers and barriers that hinder the successful GSCM strategy development and implementation.

To gain more relevant insights into the drivers and barriers relating to the implementation of GSCM in South African cement industry, this literature review focuses more on studies conducted in South Africa and other developing countries. The researcher did not consider research conducted in developed countries as this study assumes that the drivers and barriers in developing countries are different from those of developed countries. This is because of differences in economic activities, legislation and technological advancement (Rahman, Ho & Rusli 2014).

The term ‘drivers of GSCM’ refers to the factors that motivate and enable organisations to reduce environmentally damaging substances in their SCM (Dhull & Narwal 2015).

Numerous researchers (Gandhi et al. 2016; Kamolkittiwong & Phruksaphanrat 2015; Kathiresan & Ragunathan 2016; Liu et al. 2012; Luthra et al. 2013; Niemann et al. 2016) agree that organisational strategy, support from top management, economic benefits from reverse logistics, cost reduction, organisational environmental policies and the cost and liability of harmful material disposal are all major internal drivers for the implementation of GSCM. Suppliers, government regulations and legislation, consumers, competitors, stakeholders and investor pressure are the major external drivers of GSCM.

The barriers to GSCM implementation are those that, if addressed, will enhance the implementation of GSCM in an organisation (Balaji, Velmurugan & Manikanda 2014). Various scholars (Dhull & Narwal 2015; Faisal 2015; Luthra et al. 2016; Ojo et al. 2014; Pooe & Mhelembe 2014; Wang et al. 2016) identified various barriers for the implementation of GSCM, which include the lack of infrastructure, government legislation, organisational factors, high cost and lack of knowledge.

Various researchers (Dhull & Nawal 2015; Gandhi et al. 2016; Kamolkittiwong & Phruksaphanrat 2015; Niemann et al. 2017) have identified significant drivers and barriers for the implementation of GSCM in various industries. With respect to internal drivers, the literature reviewed showed that researchers seem to concur on support from top management, economic benefits through gains of reverse logistics and cost reduction, organisational and environmental policies and the cost and liability of harmful material disposal. The researchers, however, disagree on the ranking of the internal drivers most likely because of differences in countries and industries. This study determines the significant internal drivers and ranks these drivers from a South African cement industry perspective.

The literature reviewed, as indicated in Figure 2, also identified suppliers, government regulations and legislation, consumers, competitors, stakeholders and investor pressure as being significant external drivers. This study determined external drivers from a South African cement industry perspective. Thus, this study determined the gaps between the external drivers identified in the literature. This study also ranks the external drivers according to their importance.

Based on the literature reviewed (Figure 2), the following were identified as being the most significant internal barriers to the successful implementation of GSCM:

External barriers to the successful implementation of GSCM include:

With regard to the drivers of the implementation of GSCM, the following were identified as internal drivers:

The external drivers were identified as:

This literature review clearly shows that there is a research gap in identifying and ranking drivers of and barriers to GSCM implementation in the context of the South African cement industry in particular. This study therefore closes this gap by identifying and ranking the drivers of and barriers to GSCM implementation.

This research started with a literature review to identify significant drivers and barriers from studies conducted in other industries and countries. Information obtained from the literature review was used to develop a questionnaire that, in turn, was used to collect quantitative data. This was followed by the collection of qualitative information through detailed interviews with specialists in SCM.

Data and information from quantitative and qualitative methods were analysed using AHP to determine the most significant drivers of and barriers to GSCM implementation.

The research methodology of this study builds on the work performed by Kamolkittiwong and Phruksaphanrat (2015), who studied the critical factors for GSCM implementation in Thailand’s electronic industry. The AHP is considered to be the best analytical tool to rank the significant drivers (Figure 3) and barriers (Figure 4) in this study because of its capability to combine tangible and intangible aspects to observe the priorities associated with the alternatives of the problem (Kamolkittiwong & Phruksaphanrat 2015).

The procedure for implementing the AHP as an analytical tool is explained by Saaty (2008). The scale of absolute judgements has been developed by experts to show how dominant one element is over another element with respect to a chosen criterion.

The steps followed in the AHP are guided by Kamolkittiwong and Phruksaphanrat (2015). Furthermore, Pareto analysis was the statistical analysis employed for its appropriateness, as this technique uses the concept based on identifying the top 20% of causes that need to be addressed to resolve 80% of the problems. In this study, this analysis is used to identify 20% of drivers and barriers that contribute to the 80% successful implementation of GSCM.

Green supply chain management is a relatively new concept in the South African cement industry, and, therefore, some respondents lacked in-depth knowledge of GSCM drivers and barriers or lacked interest in participating in the research. To improve the understanding of GSCM, the researcher included an introduction to the GSCM concept in the invitation e-mail sent to the respondents.

This study has shown that drivers of and barriers to the implementation of GSCM are not universally standard; rather they slightly vary according to industry and country. Thus, although significant barriers and drivers are generally similar between industries, the ranking of these drivers and barriers varies slightly from one industry to another and from one country to another. For example, most literature reviews concerning the Indian, Chinese and Malaysian manufacturing industry concluded that government regulations, customer awareness and top management are the most crucial drivers of GSCM implementation (Dhull & Narwal 2015; Ghazilla et al. 2015; Luthra et al. 2013); however, the results of this study show that financial or economic performance and the need to gain market competitive advantages are the top-ranked drivers of GSCM implementation in the South African context.

This is indicative of the different forces that influence the performance of various industries in different countries. It is therefore crucial that, before embarking on putting strategies to implement GSCM, top management review drivers and barriers relevant to their industry and country. Similarly, studies in the three countries listed above show that the lack of customer awareness and lack of top management commitment are the critical barriers to GSCM implementation (Luthra et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2016), and yet, in the South African cement industry context, high initial capital costs and the lack of supplier commitment to GSCM are the most significant barriers.

Of the 27 and 29 drivers and barriers identified in the literature, respectively, only seven drivers are significant for the South African cement industry and 10 barriers are also significant according to the 80:20 rule.

With regard to the results obtained from this study, one can conclude that the implementation of GSCM in the cement industry and any other manufacturing industry is a crucial process (Walker et al. 2008) and needs coordination between all players in the organisational value chain (staring from employees to top management) as well as external stakeholders (government, customers, suppliers, technology and financing partners).

The South African cement industry would benefit from ideas suggested in this article as it suggests critical factors for GSCM adoption. The results point to the fact that the forces from both drivers and barriers are highly significant, and they must all be considered when planning GSCM implementation. The contents of this article are part of a larger framework of environmental responsibility and the strategic implications of GSCM implementation.