2- Literature Review

3- Data and Methods

5- Empirical Results

6- Conclusion

References

Introduction

A key open question in analyzing policy responses to income inequality is why economic growth would decrease income inequality in developed countries (DCs) but increase income inequality in developing countries or less developed countries (LDCs)? What is the nature of the relationship between income inequality and economic growth, and other related macroeconomic variables? Kuznets (1955) shows how income inequality would increase until a critical threshold level of income is attained, and after reaching the threshold income inequality begins to decrease. Kuznets (1955) predicts that as economies develop and the level of income increases, income inequality will first rise, then reaches a maximum, and then falls after a specific critical threshold development stage and income level. Kuznets’s (1955) claim is based on both cross-country (a panel of countries including United States, England, and Germany) and time series data. Kuznets proposed the idea of the “inverted U-shaped hypothesis” of income inequality (Kuznets, 1955; 1963), which is consistent with the Lewis dual economy model (Lewis, 1954). On the other hand, inflation is considered to be as a purely monetary phenomenon that influences a country’s income inequality level in different ways. Since David Hume (1711-1776), it has long been believed that wages lag inflation (Mayer, 1980). Therefore, one mechanism through which inflation can increase income inequality is by shifting income away from wage earners towards profits (Laidler & Parkin, 1975; Fischer & Modigliani, 1978). Historically over the past few decades, and especially since the global financial crisis in 2008, income inequality has increased in most developed and many developing countries reflecting a range of external factors like globalization and its consequences as well as internal factors like monetary and fiscal policy affecting economic growth (OECD, 2013; IMF, 2014). The driving idea is that there is a typical trade-off between equality and economic growth (Okun, 1975). However, the findings of some recent research studies question this conclusion.

Introduction

The pollution haven hypothesis postulates that dirty industries migrate from high-income countries to low and middle-income countries through the trading of goods and foreign direct investment. Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows remain one of the main sources of external funding for developing countries, yet, the relocation of carbonintensive and energy-intensive industries from jurisdictions with more stringent environmental regulation to weak locales results in pollution haven. The transfer, dissemination, and diffusion of FDI inflows with polluting technologies, goods, and services to developing countries become the most important part of the challenge to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs). On the contrary, the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis postulates that the initial growth of a country’s economic development leads to gradual deterioration of environmental quality and improves environmental conditions after reaching a threshold in economic development (Grossman and Krueger, 1991). Thus, both the pollution haven hypothesis and the EKC hypothesis are important policy derivatives for developing countries. Considering the importance of climate change mitigation and its impacts, as accentuated in SDG 13, the effect of FDI inflows, economic development, and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries needs further attention to be able to alleviate the impacts. Studies on pollution haven hypothesis (Zakarya et al. (2015) Behera and Dash, 2017; Solarin et al. (2017) Sun et al. (2017), support the validity of this hypothesis. Solarin et al. (2017) validated the pollution haven hypothesis for Ghana using the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bounds testing approach. Sun et al. (2017) examined the impact of FDI inflows, economic growth, energy use, economic freedom, urbanization, financial development, and trade openness on CO2 emissions using the autoregressive distributed lag model. The study confirmed the validity of the pollution haven hypothesis in China and that the positive effect of FDI inflows stems from the large contribution of manufacturing, mining and electricity shifted from the developed countries. Using the fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS) and dynamic ordinary least squares regression, Behera and Dash (2017) found a positive impact of FDI inflows and energy consumption on CO2 emissions in 17 south and southeast Asian countries, thus, confirming the pollution haven hypothesis. Zakarya et al. (2015) found a long-run effect of FDI inflows and energy consumption on CO2 emissions in Brazil, Russia, India, and China, thus, validating the pollution haven hypothesis via panel causality and FMOLS regression. On the contrary, studies like Zhu et al. (2016) and Zhang and Zhou (2016), rejected the pollution haven hypothesis. Zhu et al. (2016) employed panel quantile regression to examine the heterogeneous effect of FDI inflows, economic growth, and energy consumption on CO2 emissions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand from 1981 to 2011. The study found insufficient support for the pollution haven hypothesis but rather found the halo effect hypothesis in high emission countries. Zhang and Zhou (2016) argue that FDI inflows of modern technologies contribute to CO2 emissions reduction in China rather than environmental deterioration. Dasgupta et al. (1999, 2001) and Dean et al. (2004) revealed that developing countries depend on sophisticated technology transfer through FDI inflows from developed countries as their primary source of acquiring technology. Hence, clean and upgrading from vintage to modern technologies help in the reduction of emission levels.

1- Introduction

2- Review of related literature

3- Methodology

4- Data analysis

5- Discussion, conclusion and recommendations

References

Abstract

Plastic consumption has been increasing globally, creating large amount of litter and posing threat to the environment. The recycling of the plastic waste can help in reducing it and its environmental threat. The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors that influence the consumer’s return/recycling intention regarding plastic waste. Moreover, recycling behavior of consumer was explored in detail. The theory of planned behavior was adapted and extended to measure the determinants of recycling behavior. Survey research design was employed whereas data includes valid 243 households, collected through survey questionnaire, by employing purposive sampling. PLS-SEM was applied on the collected data for hypotheses testing. The finding of this study indicates that subjective norms, awareness consequences and convenience are major predictors of return/recycling intention. Whereas, hypothesis for the attitude, perceived behavioral control and moral norms were rejected and they all have insignificant impact on return/recycling intention. Moreover, return intention have positive significant impact on resell, reuse, dispose and donate. Reuse was the most predicted by the return intention. This study enriches the literature of reverse logistics helping to understand the consumers’ perspective. Provides the insights that will help government and organizations to understand consumers’ return/recycling intention and formulate such strategies that will increase the involvement of consumers in recycling activities.

Introduction

In this technologically advancing era, products with the environmental friendly features are rapidly emerging but plastic waste poses challenges to the societies regardless of this advancement (Huysman et al., 2017). Along with the changing lifestyle of consumers, the consumption of plastic have been increasing due to its convenient usage (Alam et al., 2018). Number of products in our daily life are made of plastic. The plastic waste includes most common single use plastic that includes: plastic bags, plastic bottles, disposal coffee/juice cups and lids, straws, plastic cutlery and food packaging (Johnston, 2017). Over the past 65 years, the 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic has been produced. By end of 2015, the consumption of plastic has reached 297.5 million tons globally (http://plastic-pollution.org). If this trend continue then it is expected that by 2025, 12 billion tonnes (https:// cosmosmagazine.com) of plastic will be dumped in landfills and causing the environmental pollution. Moreover it has been pointed out that plastic contain the toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), nonylphenol (NP), organic pesticides, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and bisphenol A (BPA) (Webb et al., 2012) that cannot be simply dumped in soil. Nevertheless, plastic contain toxic and hazardous chemical that are released in environment if handled carelessly. In the past few years, the plastic pollution has been the alarming issue. United Nation stated that plastic is one of the substantial environmental threat faced by the world (Gabbatiss, 2018). Natural ecosystem has been negatively influence by plastic, initiating the complications for the human population and wildlife such as harming the plants life and posing danger to animals (Talpur, 2018). Moreover, air and soil are contaminated by toxic chemical that are released when plastic is burnt or buried in soil (Ilyas, 2018). Across the world, impact of plastic pollution in oceans is the developing issue (Laville and Taylor, 2017). Along the Pakistan coast, the plastic pollution is the growing concern and is getting worse due improper waste disposal system (Guriro, 2017). Faced with this grim situation, a proper waste management is required which can be better implemented by the help of reverse logistics. For proper waste management, most of the researchers have focused on recycling of the waste products.

1- Introduction

2- KART countries: natural resource abundance and the World Bank Lending

3- Literature review

4- Model specification

5- Data and methodology

6- Results and discussion

7- Conclusion

References

Abstract

This study investigates the roles of the World Bank lending and abundance of natural resources in fostering the financial development of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkmenistan during the period from 1992 to 2017. Empirical findings confirm co-integration between the variables being investigated. The results of the dynamic ordinary least squares test indicate that in the long-run the World Bank lending and an abundance of natural resources positively affects financial development. We also confirm that excessive borrowing from the World Bank and faulty management of loans and credits from the bank negatively affect financial development. Empirical findings show that institutional quality has an impact on how effectively natural resources are managed. We discuss the policy implications of our study in detail in the conclusion section.

Introduction

Financial development constitutes an integral part of the World Bank’s strategy to contribute towards the long-term economic growth and poverty reduction in developing countries. The World Bank’s loans/ credits are one of the most essential instruments towards realizing this strategy (Bayer, 2004). These loans/credits1 to the member states are directed mainly towards improving financial and private sector, public sector governance, rural and human development (e.g., World Bank, 2016; World Bank, 2017). Some of the World Bank member states are natural resource abundant countries (e.g., Nigeria, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkmenistan) borrowing towards enhancing the natural resource management and environment, and improving resource mobilization (e.g., World Bank, 2016; World Bank, 2017). The concern is whether these loans/credits are managed efficiently. The natural resource abundant member states have weak macroeconomic developments and may endure rent-seeking activities resulting in diminishing not only economic growth (see e.g., Auty, 1994; Sachs and Warner, 1995; Gylfason et al., 1999; Ross, 2001; Torvik, 2002; Watts, 2004; Rustamov and Adaoglu, 2018), but also impacting negatively the financial development (Auty, 2001; Gylfason, 2001). This phenomenon is known as the resource curse hypothesis (Auty, 1993). Collier (2006) compares loans/credits to natural resources and considers both as “rents.” Hence, the same negative consequences arising from the abundance of natural resources because of rent-seeking activities can also be stemming from the borrowed loans/credits from multilateral institutions (Morrison, 2007; Svensson, 2000; Smith, 2008; Collier, 2006).

Introduction

Promoting women entrepreneurship contributes to socio-economic development of countries (Jamali, 2009; Verheul et al., 2006). The rate of increase of women entrepreneurship, especially in developing countries, has created a positive impact on overall household welfare and consumption (Minniti and Naudé, 2010). Women’s unique role in the household creates a network effect resulting in increased entrepreneurial activities (Datta and Gailey, 2012; Minniti, 2010). Entrepreneurship offers economic security to women (Itani et al., 2011), provides them a platform for self-expression and fulfilment (Eddleston and Powell, 2008) and empowers them as individuals (Jamali, 2009). There exist variations between the number of men and women entrepreneurs, and the rate of women entrepreneurship varies across countries due to heterogeneity in their structural characteristics (Baughn et al., 2006). While the absolute number of women entrepreneurs has increased worldwide, their number is considerably less than that of their male counterparts (De Bruin et al., 2006; Verheul et al., 2006). Women entrepreneurship is especially challenging in developing countries because such women lack opportunities, are resource-constrained and face unique challenges (Panda and Dash, 2014, 2016; Verheul et al., 2006). Balancing work and family life, handling patriarchal societies and gender discrimination are just some of the unique challenges facing women. Country-specific research in developing economies has offered an in-depth, microscopic view of the socio-cultural, economic and political challenges faced by women entrepreneurs. But, such research offers only a geographically concentrated view of the challenges faced; there is a lack of understanding about macroscopic factors that constrain women entrepreneurship in the developing world, especially factors that aggravate their situations compared to male entrepreneurs. This study addresses the gap in two respects. First, it identifies seven key constraints faced by women entrepreneurs in developing countries and ranks them. Second, it offers a framework to highlight factors that make women entrepreneurship relatively difficult compared to men. The study makes two important contributions to entrepreneurship theory and practice: it extends the entrepreneurship literature by highlighting key difficulties for women who engage in entrepreneurship, and it outlines interrelationships between multiple constraints resulting in hostile environments for women entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the framework offered to rank the constraints is intended to aid donor agencies and policy makers in making effective decisions related to planning and resource allocation, as there have been criticisms about the need for and efficacy of funded entrepreneurship programs which do not prioritize women (Minniti and Naudé, 2010). This is especially important because financing for women entrepreneurs is increasing in developing countries (Kevane and Wydick, 2001). The paper proceeds as follows: the next section outlines the research methodology. This is followed by a section that includes a review of the constraints faced by women entrepreneurs across developing countries. There then follows a section that ranks these constraints and highlights differences between constraints faced by male and female entrepreneurs, and in the final section, we draw conclusions.

Industry 4.0 is considered a new industrial stage in which vertical and horizontal manufacturing processes integration and product connectivity can help companies to achieve higher industrial performance. However, little is known about how industries see the potential contribution of the Industry 4.0 related technologies for industrial performance, especially in emerging countries. Based on the use of secondary data from a large-scale survey of 27 industrial sectors representing 2225 companies of the Brazilian industry, we studied how the adoption of different Industry 4.0 technologies is associated with expected benefits for product, operations and side-effects aspects. Using regression analysis, we show that some of the Industry 4.0 technologies are seen as promising for industrial performance while some of the emerging technologies are not, which contraries the conventional wisdom. We discuss the contextual conditions of the Brazilian industry that may require a partial implementation of the Industry 4.0 concepts created in developed countries. We summarize our findings in a framework, that shows the perception of Brazilian industries of Industry 4.0 technologies and their relations with the expected benefits. Thus, this work contributes by discussing the real expectations on the future performance of the industry when implementing new technologies, providing a background to advance in the research on real benefits of the Industry 4.0.

Introduction

Industry 4.0 is understood as a new industrial stage in which there is an integration between manufacturing operations systems and information and communication technologies (ICT) – especially the Internet of Things (IoT) – forming the so-called Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) (Wang et al., 2015; Jeschke et al., 2017). This new industrial stage is affecting competition rules, the structure of industry and customers’ demands (Gilchrist, 2016; Bartodziej, 2017). It is changing competition rules because companies business models are being reframed by the adoption of IoT concepts and digitization of factories (Dregger et al., 2016; Lasi et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2015). From the market point of view, digital technologies allow companies to offer new digital solutions for customers, such as internet-based services embedded in products (Ayala et al., 2017; Coreynen et al., 2017). From the operational perspective, digital technologies, such as CPS, are proposed to reduce set-up times, labor and material costs and processing times, resulting in higher productivity of production processes (Brettel et al., 2014; Jeschke et al., 2017). Several countries have recently created local programs to enhance the development and adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies. In Germany – where this concept was born – this program was called “High-Tech Strategy 2020”, in the United States was established the “Advanced Manufacturing Partnership”, in China the “Made in China 2025” and in France the “La Nouvelle France Industrielle” (Kagermann et al., 2013; Rafael et al., 2014; Wahlster, 2013; Zhou, 2017; CNI, 2013; Liao et al., 2017). In Brazil, the program called “Towards Industry 4.0” (Rumo à Indústria 4.0) was created by the Brazilian Agency for Industrial Development (ABDI – Agência Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Industrial) together with other initiatives of the Ministry of Industry, Foreign Trade and Services (MDIC – Ministério da Indústria, Comércio Exterior e Serviços) (ABDI, 2017). All these programs, in both developed and emerging countries aim to disseminate the Industry 4.0 concepts and technologies in local firms.

Using panel data set from banks in Nigeria, a developing country, this paper examines the effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) investment and disclosure on corporate financial performance. The results from the Wallace and Hussain estimator of component variances (a twoway random and fixed effects panel) suggest that CSR investment without due disclosure would have little or no contribution to corporate financial performance. This paper supports the argument that firms could benefit both financially and non-financially from a strategic CSR agenda.

Introduction

Hitherto, investment in corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a global phenomenon has remained a thriving corporate governance concept and management strategy in most multinationals (Peng & Yang, 2014; Amin-Chaudhry, 2016). It keeps attracting the interest of a vast number of scholars, economists, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and the public as a result of industrial growth and economic prosperity of many nations (Abiodun, 2012; Adeyemi & Ayanlola, 2014; Harpreet, 2009; Uadiale & Fagbemi, 2012; Uwuigbe & Uadiale, 2016). Documented evidence has shown that investments in CSR have the potentials of making positive contributions to the development of society and businesses (Harpreet, 2009; Helg, 2007; Wahba & Elsayed, 2015; Hategan & Curea-Pitorac, 2017). In effect, more organizations are beginning to see the benefits from setting up strategic CSR agenda (Chaudhary, 2017; Famiyeh, 2017). Historically, the concept of CSR became pervasive in the 1960s. Since then, it has been narrowly construed, and used indiscriminately to cover legal and moral responsibilities (Uadiale & Fagbemi, 2012). In corporate sense, engaging in CSR activities is a way of firms making restitutions to the society in respect of social and environmental degradation caused by their business operations. It is also an act of appreciation to the host community. In reality, corporate entities are social creations, and they depend largely on the support of the society for survival (Reich, 1998). Arguably, while firms may engage in CSR activities to earn the continuous support of the society, the stalemate here is whether investment in CSR has any financial returns, or it is a mere drain of corporate resources (Galant & Cadez, 2017; Peng & Yang, 2014; Testa & D’Amato, 2017). In the literature, there has been a deal of ambiguity and uncertainty about what CSR really means to a firm as well as the motivation behind a firm’s engagement in CSR (Abiodun, 2012; Wahba & Elsayed, 2015; Galant & Cadez, 2017; Hategan & CureaPitorac, 2017). Business scholars and economic strategists have committed much research efforts to provide empirical evidence on whether a proactive stance towards CSR is just a mere drain of a firm’s profit, or it is a source for sustainable success and competitive advantage (Hockerts, 2007; Famiyeh, 2017; Galant & Cadez, 2017).

In this paper I take a ‘political settlements’ approach to examining the political effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in developing countries. The political settlements approach uses an integrated understanding of politics, power and institutional forms to explain how, given different political processes and incentives, the same institutional forms can produce different economic and developmental outcomes. I apply this lens to the CSR practices of large mining companies in developing countries, examining their impacts on local and national political settlements using the Zambian metals mining sector as a case study. Directly, CSR features little in the national debate on natural resource governance in Zambia but local CSR activity is considerable. I find that the CSR practices of large metals mining companies influence the governance of extraction and the possibility of inclusive development with notable consequences for institutions of traditional leadership. The resulting pattern of inclusion and development is argued to result from the interaction of two processes – elite bargaining and coalitions within exclusionary political settlements on the one hand, and CSR practices shaped by risk management on the other. I conclude by arguing that political settlements literature offers a rich seam for future research in the extractive sector if its limitations are addressed.

Introduction

The local development impacts of large scale mining have been long argued to be poor. One strategy to improve local development outcomes has been to adopt corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes for community development by mining companies. The literature on these is ambivalent about their development impacts (Campbell, 2009; Gardner, 2016; Hilson, 2012; McEwan et al., 2017; Rajak, 2011; Sharp, 2006; Slack, 2012; Van Teijlingen, 2016). One under-explored aspect of this is the political impacts of CSR programmes; the effect they have on local and national political configurations. This has been a growing concern in critical social sciences, particularly anthropology (Banks et al., 2013; Gardner, 2016; Rajak, 2011). While in management and business studies there have been recent high-profile moves to examine ‘political CSR’ (Frynas and Stephens, 2014), little of this is based on empirical work and, I would argue, often retains an anaemic understanding of politics centred on institutions rather than power relations and struggle. In this paper I take a different approach to explore the politics of corporate social responsibility in the mining sector in Zambia, drawing on literature on ‘political settlements’. A series of high-profile books by respected authors in politics and economics on the political settlements approach, has brought ideas of the politics of development in the longue-durée to the forefront of contemporary development thinking (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012; Fukuyama, 2011; North et al., 2013). These books, each with their own lexicon and specificities of argument, all share “one common proposition: that politics and institutions are the crucial determinants of developmental outcomes” (Laws and Leftwich, 2012, p. 20). They argue that development outcomes are not a function of institutional performance per se, but of the deeper political struggles and configurations which shape how institutions perform. In this paper I use ideas from this recent literature to examine the role of corporate social responsibility in the extractive industry in promoting inclusive development in Zambia. I address two main questions: (1) How do the CSR practices of large metals mining companies affect local and national political settlements? And, (2) How do political settlements help us understand the politics of CSR? This includes exploring how CSR initiatives affect the discursive framing of political settlements in the extractive sector and how CSR initiatives shape local political settlements with important institutional and development consequences. In the Zambian case, I show that the CSR practices of large metals mining companies impacted the governance of extraction; while they have limited national impact, they do have important local impacts.

The dynamism of the business environment is putting firms under pressure to improve quality, delivery performance, and responsiveness while simultaneously reducing costs. In response, firms are increasingly exploring ways to leverage their supply chains, and in particular to systematically evaluate the role of suppliers in their activities (Kannan and Tan 2006). It is important for managers to realize the long-term impact of their sourcing strategies on the profits and the efficient functioning of the organization. At the operational level, buyers have the ability to benefit from developing close relationships with key suppliers in the form of improved quality, delivery, reduced cost, or some combination thereof. At a strategic level, a close relationship with key suppliers is expected to lead to sustainable improvements in product quality and innovation, enhanced competitiveness, and increased market share. It is however expected that all these relationships should, in turn, be reflected by improvements in financial performance (Kannan and Tan 2006). It is important to indicate that currently, the purchasing function is considered as a crucial activity that affects the performance of any firm (Kar and Pani, 2014). Currently, the choice of suppliers has become a strategic problem for firms (Li and Zabinsky, 2011). This means selecting the right suppliers do not only bring substantial benefits to companies but also increases customer satisfaction (Lin et al., 2011). The profitability of a business nowadays critically depends on their supplier’s ability to reduce costs, improve quality, and develop new processes, products, and services faster than their rivals’ vendors can. This dependence has made the supplier selection process one of the most important sections of any business (Liker et al, 2004). Jazemi et al, (2011), indicates that one of the most important processes in optimizing or enhancing the supply chain performance of the firm is by paying much attention to the supplier selection process. The supplier’s selection decisions are primarily based on material prices, the proposed delivery times, the location of the supplier and opinion on the market, taking into account the supply costs, the quality of materials and the condition of payment (Chai et al, 2013). Fu-jiang et al, 2006, demonstrated empirically that, there exist a positive significant relationship between customer satisfaction, business performance, and supplier selection. The industrial purchasing function especially plays a considerable role in ensuring the long-term viability of a firm with its impact on business competitiveness (Cheraghi et al., 2004; Tchokogue et al., 2016) Choosing the right suppliers, therefore, involves much more than scanning a series of price lists, choices, therefore, will depend on a wide range of issues (Ho et al., 2010). Such factors include the price offered by the supplier, lead time, quality of items, the capacity of the supplier to respond flexibly to the company’s requests and the supplier’s geographical location (Ekici, 2013). They also include warranties, production capability, technical capability, management capability, vendor reputation, financial position, labor relations and post-sales services (Kar and Pani, 2014a). According to Monczka et al. (2010), the objective of supplier selection is to choose the best supplier for a particular item, one which is reliable, with fair terms, low risks and has maximum value for the client.

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is defined by Seuring and Müller (2008: 1700) as “the management of material, information and capital flows as well as cooperation among companies along the supply chain while taking goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e., economic, environmental and social, into account which are derived from customer and stakeholder requirements”. Different authors emphasize different dimensions of sustainability. When dealing with environmental issues, companies and academics refer to green supply chain management or environmental management programmes that aim to reduce harmful effects to the environment (Brik et al., 2013; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2015; Zhu and Sarkis, 2004). Environmental initiatives include moves towards green purchasing, resource efficiency, product design for the environment, waste management, ecoefficiency in operations and reverse logistics (Hsu et al., 2016; Sen, 2009). When seeking the integration of environmental concerns into supply chain management, coordination among actors in the supply chain has been found to be the key (Zhu et al., 2010). Social sustainability is associated primarily with labour conditions, well-being, quality of life, equality, diversity and connectedness, both within and outside the community (Mani et al., 2016), with an emerging research area on integration of the local community into supply chain activities (Bendul et al., 2016). Finally, the economic dimension is usually measured in terms of sales, market share, operational efficiency, and upgrading (Gimenez and Tachizawa, 2012; Marchi et al., 2013). SSCM is a research area that has received increasing attention in the last decade. A number of reviews of the literature have been published with different foci, such as the definition and measurement of SSCM (Miemczyk et al., 2012; Seuring and Müller, 2008), their environmental impacts, green supply chain management (Fahimnia et al., 2015), and green purchasing (Appolloni et al., 2014); while others are focused on the social impacts of SSCM (Yawar and Seuring, 2015; Zorzini et al., 2015). Finally, some articles discuss both environmental and social effects (Ashby et al., 2012).

The role of energy is vital to human well-being and it is also crucial for economic development and energy fosters economic growth. Access to sufficient energy resources is a serious global concern, particularly in developing countries that do not have access to a secure supply of energy [1–3]. Worldwide primary energy demand is expected to rise by approximately 1.5–3 times by 2050 because of increasing energy demand in various regions of the world [6]. Demand for energy is increasing sharply in the developing countries as a result of rapid population growth, particularly in the continents of Africa and Asia and rapid economic development, particularly in China and India [3–7]. Population growth and rising the living standard of people are the key drivers behind increasing demand for energy [3,8]. It is estimated that global population will continue to increase by more than one billion persons and reach to 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050 and also increase to approximately 11.2 billion persons by 2100. World’s population is rising by 1.18% annually or almost an extra 83 million persons every year. The highest growth rates of population belong to Africa, with 2.55% [9], while all these communities require modern energy services in order to meet their basic needs such as lighting, cooking, space comfort, mobility, communication and to assist productive processes. Currently, conventional energy sources constitute more than 80% of worldwide energy consumption [10–13]. Most current types of energy production and utilization cause environmental issues at local, regional and global scales, reducing the quality of life and endangering the human health as well as the wellbeing of present and future generations of humankind. The energy production and utilization are responsible for 80% of carbon dioxide and two-thirds of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide [14]. In 2016, the annual mean atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration reached to 400 ppm (ppm), which is 40% higher than the pre-industrial time’s carbon dioxide level (280 ppm), while half of the global CO2 emissions have risen since the 1980s [15,16]. Historically, developed countries have produced the large majority of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while in recent years, the share of GHG emissions from developing countries have surpassed those of developed countries, and these shares have kept rising very rapidly [14,17]. For the first time in history, the aggregate energy-related CO2 emissions of developing countries surpassed those of developed and transition countries in 2008 [18]. CO2 emissions from China and India are rising rapidly, where energy production and consumption have increased significantly [1,19]. In recent years, developing countries have generally experienced a constant growth of CO2 emissions compared to developed countries of the world. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in Asia, Middle East, Africa and Pacific region increased very rapidly in recent years, as indicated in Fig. 1 [20].

It is widely accepted that the construction industry has harmful impacts on the environment, economy, and society. The construction industry consumes up to 40% of the total energy and 39 accounts for up to 30% of the total annual greenhouse gas emissions at the global level (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2011). The construction industry is also considered a resource-intensive industry that consumes about 70% of the cement products and 25% of the steel products in many countries (Wang and Zhang, 2008). Due to a growing public concern about these impacts nowadays, much attention has been paid to implementing sustainability or sustainable development within the construction industry. According to the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), “sustainable development is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Sustainable development has three dimensions, i.e., environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Green building has been well received by governments around the world as a strategy for improving the sustainability of the construction industry (Shen et al., 2017a). Green building is considered “the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s lifecycle” (US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016). It has been viewed as an effective alternative to traditional building, which has a significant role in reducing or eliminating the negative impacts of construction activities on the environment and climate change (Hwang et al., 2016; World Green Building Council (WorldGBC), 2017a). However, green building is not achievable without the adoption of green building technologies (GBTs). In this study, GBTs are defined as technologies that are incorporated into building design and construction to make the end product sustainable (Ahmad et al., 2016). Several GBTs, such as green roof technology, solar technology, and prefabricated concrete technology, have been introduced for developing green projects. Adopting these GBTs offers a range of significant sustainability benefits that are not likely to be derived from adopting traditional building technologies. It was reported by the UNEP (2009) that with the adoption of appropriate GBTs, a 30-80% cut in building energy consumption is attainable. Moreover, numerous researchers and organizations have indicated that GBTs adoption provides several other environmental, economic, and social benefits, such as increased water efficiency, improved productivity, enhanced human health and wellbeing, improved indoor environmental quality, and higher property value (WorldGBC, 2017b; Darko et al., 2017a, b).

Through its consumption of large amounts of energy and natural resources, the construction industry exerts significant impacts on the climate and environment. Consuming various forms of energy plays a key role in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which are also the leading cause of global warming and climate change (Karunathilake et al., 2017). In line 38 with this, because the construction industry consumes more than 40% of the total global energy, it also accounts for more than 40% of the total global GHG emissions (International 40 Energy Agency (IEA), 2013a, b). Besides, the construction industry has been tagged as a “resource-intensive industry” (Shi et al., 2017, p. 615) responsible for consuming 40% of the raw materials (stone, sand, and gravel), 16% of the water, and 25% of the timber in the world annually (Arena and De Rosa, 2003). With regard to impact on human health, construction activities produce considerable quantities of dust, noise, solid waste, smoke, and wastewater (Shen et al., 2017a). In the current situation, it has been predicted that, unless cost-effective technologies and best practices – in addition to radical lifestyle and behavioral changes – are promoted and accepted worldwide, the global energy demand of the construction industry and the associated emissions of GHGs will be more than double by 2050 (IEA, 2014; Berardi, 2017). As such, green building has been well received by many governments and promoted as a strategy for reducing the negative effects of the construction industry on the environment (Shen et al., 2017b). Green building is the practice of developing buildings in a resource efficient and environmentally friendly manner (US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016). According to the World Green Building Council (WorldGBC) (2017), “a green building is a building that, in its design, construction or operation, reduces or eliminates negative impacts, and can create positive impacts, on our climate and natural environment”. Moreover, not only do green buildings preserve precious natural resources, but they also improve human quality of life (WorldGBC, 2017). Green building technologies (GBTs) have an essential role in the development of green buildings. They are those 60 technologies, such as passive solar technology, green roof technology, and energy-efficient HVAC systems, employed in building design and construction to improve overall sustainability performance (Zhang et al., 2011a; Ahmad et al., 2016).