Introduction

Rising environmental issues and resource depletion concerns have made regulators move to stricter regulations. Simultaneously, the public’s environmental consciousness has increased. Given these changes, manufacturers have been compelled to start environmental initiatives to improve their environmental performance (EP). In addition, recent regulations, such as the restrictions on the use of hazardous substances, require firms to extend their environmental initiatives to their customers and suppliers. As a result, green supply chain management (GSCM), which integrates environmental issues into supply chain management (SCM), has been increasingly implemented by organizations (Zhu et al., 2010). The GSCM aims to reduce the environmental impact of products and services through their life cycle (Zhu et al., 2005; Hendricks and Singhal, 2005; Navarro-García et al., 2016). Adding the “green” element to SCM involves moving the impact of supply chain processes to eco-friendly processes. Therefore, the development of environmentally friendly processes, products and services requires joint efforts by all partners in the supply chain to avoid sub-optimization at the partner level (Green et al., 2012). Organizations have begun to implement GSCM practices in response to customer demand for products and services that are environmentally sound and that are produced through environmentally sustainable processes and in response to environmental laws (Testa and Iraldo, 2010). There are different environmental SCM practices that are adopted by organizations to minimize environmental impacts (Hasan, 2013). Mirhedayatian et al. (2014) indicated that GSCM practices aim toward improving EP, given that GSCM practices make chances to decrease emissions and waste, therefore, the GSCM evaluation is important for any company’s EP. In line with international environmental regulations, the Jordanian government has adopted many environmental laws that support the notion of “greening.” These include regulations for the protection of air quality, soil protection, protection against pollution of the environment in emergency situations, management of solid waste and others (Omar et al., 2016). Jordan nationally determines to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent until 2030. However, Jordan, conditionally and subject to availability of international support and financial aid to means of implementation, obliged to reduce its GHGs emissions by additional, at least, 12.5 percent by 2030 (INDC, 2017). The Jordanian government obliges companies in both the service and manufacturing sectors to take these laws into account (Shehadeh et al., 2016; MOENV, 2017). In addition, Jordan has committed to several agreements in the field of environmental protection, including United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, Minamata Convention on Mercury, Paris Agreement and others. This enables Jordanian companies enhancing their EP and meeting environmental standards that are imposed on their exports, especially, industrial exports that contribute to about 85 percent of the total exports of Jordan ( JCI, 2018). In this context, Jordanian manufacturing companies lost many regional markets in the past several years due to the “Arab Spring” and, as a result, started focusing on exporting to East Asia, Europe and North America. Countries in these regions have strict environmental regulations and standards, such as US Energy Star program, ISO 14001, Green guard Certification Program, Clean Energy Standard, Carbon Trust Standard, EU Eco-label system and CE mark. Without meeting these standards, Jordanian companies will be unable to export their products to these markets. Balancing between economic performance and EP has become increasingly significant for organizations to meet competitive, regulatory and community pressures. Therefore, motivating firms to adopt GSCM practices starts through exploring the improvements these practices can bring about, not only for the environmental image but also on other firms’ performance dimensions (Younis et al., 2016).