4.7 Article

What influences the effectiveness of green logistics policies? A grounded theory analysis

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 714, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136731

Keywords

Green logistics policies; Effectiveness; Influencing factors; Grounded theory; Model

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71804056, 71672111, 71932004, 71974125, 71573166, 71661137004]
  2. Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of theMinistry of Education of China [18YJC630250]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018M642033]
  4. Hubei Provincial Technical Innovation Project (soft science research) [2018ADC052]
  5. Special Project of Shandong Province Social Science Planning Social Science Popularization Application Research [19CKPJ07]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Green logistics policies (GLP) are essential to the progress of green logistics, the promotion of green growth, and the fulfillment of sustainable development. However, as the uncertainty and ambiguity of factors that influence the implementation of GLP, it is urgent to explore and reveal the antecedents and functional mechanism of the effectiveness of GLP. This study adopts grounded theory method to conduct in-depth interviews, and concludes that five major factors, such as the perfection of GLP system, the green governance capacity of government, the level of perception of logistics enterprises on GLP, the level of social supervision, and the development level of logistics industry, which influence the effectiveness of GLP. And then presents the integrated model of antecedents of the effectiveness of GLP, revealing the influence path and internal mechanism of these influencing factors. It is of great significance to enhancing the effectiveness of GLP, upgrading green logistics, and achieving the green development. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available