Vilmar Antonio Gonçalves Tondolo, Marina D'Agostini, Maria Emília Camargo, Rosana da Rosa Portella Tondolo, Josefer de Lima Souza and André Andrade Longaray
The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationships among four types of sustainable operations practices and sustainable performance in the environmental, economic and…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationships among four types of sustainable operations practices and sustainable performance in the environmental, economic and social dimensions and identifies significant moderators.
Design/methodology/approach
In order to achieve the proposed goal, this study was developed through a systematic review of the literature followed by a meta-analysis of the correlations and by a meta-regression. The sampling criteria were quantitative operations management articles published through 2019.
Findings
The results suggest that all 13 analyzed relationships are positive and are affected by moderators.
Research limitations/implications
In theoretical terms, this study reinforces the positive relationship between sustainable operations practices and performance and, more importantly, detects moderating effects. One of the study limitations is the composition of the sample, focusing exclusively on quantitative correlational articles published in journals.
Practical implications
In practice, the findings of this study imply that managers should be vigilant in implementing sustainable operations practices, observing the conditions in which more of these practices can be implemented into performance.
Originality/value
This study differs from others because it includes the social dimension of sustainable performance and the identification of moderators.
Details
Keywords
Marina D’Agostini, Vilmar Antonio Gonçalves Tondolo, Maria Emília Camargo, Angela Isabel dos Santos Dullius, Rosana da Rosa Portella Tondolo and Suzana Leitão Russo
The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between sustainable operations practices (SOP) and performance.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between sustainable operations practices (SOP) and performance.
Design/methodology/approach
This study was conducted through a systematic literature review followed by a meta-analysis of correlations.
Findings
In the results, 14 of the relationships examined showed a positive relationship and 12 the presence of moderators. The study findings indicate that contingency affects the relationship between SOPs and performance.
Research limitations/implications
The research presented in this paper is mainly limited to databases that were searched. Among the quantitative articles selected from the databases, many did not have the data needed to conduct the meta-analysis, which may have limited the results of this study.
Practical implications
Using the results of this study, practitioners can become aware of to the occurrence of moderating factors in the relationships, which can range from interference from other practices and variables to characteristics of the organization itself or the market in which organizations operate.
Originality/value
This study uses a multidimensional approach for both SOP and performance. This approach allowed a more complete and comprehensive result, showing how these SOPs influence the different categories of performance, expanding the understanding of the relationship between practices and performance.
Details
Keywords
Nusrate Aziz and M. Niaz Asadullah
While the relationship between military expenditure and economic growth during the Cold War period is well-researched, relatively less is known on the issue for the post-Cold War…
Abstract
Purpose
While the relationship between military expenditure and economic growth during the Cold War period is well-researched, relatively less is known on the issue for the post-Cold War era. Equally how the relationship varies with respect to exposure to conflict is also not fully examined. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the causal impact of military expenditure on growth in the presence of internal and external threats for the period 1990-2013 using data from 70 developing countries.
Design/methodology/approach
The main estimates are based on the generalized method of moments (GMM) regression model. But for comparison purposes, the authors also report estimates using fixed and random effects as well as pooled cross-section regressions. The regression specification accounts for non-linear effect of military expenditure allowing for interaction with conflict variable (where distinction is made between external and internal conflict).
Findings
The analysis indicates that methods as well as model specification matter in studying the effect of military spending on growth. Full sample estimates based on GMM, fixed, and random effects models suggest a negative and statistically significant effect of military expenditure. However, fixed effects estimate becomes insignificant for low-income countries. The effect of military spending is also insignificant in the cross-sectional OLS model if conflict is not considered. When the regression model additionally controls for conflict, the effect of military spending conditional upon (internal) conflict exposure is significant and positive. No such effect is present conditional upon external threat.
Research limitations/implications
One important limitation of the analysis is the small sample size – the authors had to restrict analysis to 70 low and middle-income countries for which the authors could construct post-Cold War panel data on military expenditure along with information on armed conflict exposure (the later from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2015).
Originality/value
To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first paper to examine the joint impact of military expenditure and conflict on economic growth in post-Cold War period in a sample of developing countries. Moreover, an attempt is made to review and revisit the large Cold War literature where studies vary considerably in terms findings. A key reason for this is the somewhat ad hoc choice of econometric methods – most rely on cross-section data and rarely conduct sensitivity analysis. The authors instead rely on panel data estimates but also report results based on naïve models for comparison purposes.