Sustainability and strategic management accounting: evidence of green manufacturing in Thailand

Figures & data

Table 1. Profiles of sample green manufacturing companies (n = 187).

Categories	Frequency	Percentage
Industry Type
Supporting	58	31.02
Automotive and machinery	55	29.41
Food and Pharmaceuticals	25	13.37
Electrical and Electronics	24	12.83
Construction and electrical appliances	13	6.95
Energy	12	6.42
Firm size by Revenue
Large industry	140	74.86
Medium industry	33	17.65
Others	14	7.49

Table 2. Frequency distribution in SMA applications.

SMA Techniques		Non adoption		Low adoption		High adoption		Mean	SD
		1		2/3		4/5
		N	%	N	%	N	%
Costing (cost)
1	Value-chain costing	14	7.49	33	17.65	140	74.86	4.02	1.187
2	Target costing	19	10.16	49	26.20	119	63.64	3.77	1.321
3	Attribute costing	19	10.16	57	30.48	111	59.36	3.72	1.347
Planning, control and performance measurement (pcpm)
1	Integrated performance measurement	7	3.74	45	24.06	135	72.20	3.98	1.032
2	Benchmarking	10	5.35	58	31.01	119	63.64	3.81	1.115
3	Environmental management accounting	25	13.37	60	32.09	102	54.54	3.49	1.320
Strategic decision-making (stdm)
1	Strategic cost management	1	0.53	29	15.51	157	83.96	4.28	0.841
2	Strategic pricing	5	2.67	33	17.64	149	79.69	4.14	0.996
3	Brand valuation	39	20.86	34	18.18	114	60.96	3.49	1.515
Competitor accounting (comp)
1	Competitive position monitoring	10	5.35	43	23.00	134	71.65	3.96	1.092
2	Competitor performance appraisal	13	6.95	50	26.73	124	66.32	3.84	1.153
3	Competitor cost assessment	22	11.76	49	26.20	116	62.04	3.66	1.282
Customer accounting (cust)
1	Customer profitability analysis	11	5.88	43	23.00	133	71.12	4.01	1.145
2	Lifetime customer profitability analysis	23	12.30	57	30.48	107	57.22	3.59	1.330
3	Valuation of customers as assets	30	16.04	57	30.48	100	53.48	3.44	1.395
Over all mean								3.81

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

Variable	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Cost	1.00	5.00	3.838	1.060	−0.757	0.040
Pcpm	1.00	5.00	3.757	0.976	−0.550	−0.051
Stdm	1.33	5.00	3.968	0.894	−0.511	−0.518
Comp	1.00	5.00	3.820	1.079	−0.909	0.416
Cust	1.00	5.00	3.680	1.144	−0.656	−0.308
socp1	1.00	5.00	4.075	0.714	−0.557	0.957
socp2	2.00	5.00	4.278	0.646	−0.458	−0.104
socp3	2.00	5.00	4.182	0.655	−0.322	−0.212
envp1	2.00	5.00	4.225	0.713	−0.537	−0.233
envp2	2.00	5.00	4.348	0.641	−0.589	−0.004
envp3	2.00	5.00	4.401	0.643	−0.728	0.102
ecop1	2.00	5.00	4.198	0.725	−0.834	0.978
ecop2	1.00	5.00	4.032	0.768	−0.630	0.712
ecop3	1.00	5.00	3.957	0.768	−0.575	0.667
Sma	1.40	5.00	3.812	0.850	−0.482	−0.240
Socp	1.67	5.00	4.178	0.620	−0.396	0.503
Envp	2.00	5.00	4.324	0.610	−0.540	−0.035
Ecop	2.33	5.00	4.062	0.638	−0.392	0.032

Table 4. Pearson’s parametric correlation coefficients.

Variable	Sma	Socp	Envp	Ecop
Sma	1	–	–	–
Socp	.314**	1	–	–
Envp	.348**	.706**	1	–
Ecop	.426**	.543**	.524**	1

Note: Significance ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Table 5. Scale items and latent variable evaluation.

Variable	Factor loading	Z	CR	AVE	Cronbach’s Alpha
SMA techniques (sma)			0.883	0.603	0.925
Costing (cost)	0.686	15.557***
Planning, control and performance measurement (pcpm)	0.818	26.201***
Strategic decision-making (stdm)	0.778	22.434***
Competitor accounting (comp)	0.791	23.600***
Customer accounting (cust)	0.804	24.833***
Social performance (socp)			0.913	0.779	0.911
The level of employee satisfaction inside the organization has increased. (socp1)	0.871	38.915***
The organisation’s employees have good health and safety. (socp2)	0.859	36.571***
The organisation’s employees have increased knowledge and skills. (socp3)	0.916	51.169***
Environmental performance (envp)			0.876	0.702	0.903
Organizations have the ability to consistently decrease their energy and resource use. (envp1)	0.888	31.973***
Organizations have the capacity to consistently mitigate air pollution and industrial waste. (envp2)	0.823	25.391***
Organizations have the capacity to consistently mitigate industrial wastewater.  (envp3)	0.799	22.536***
Economic performance (ecop)			0.812	0.594	0.801
The rate of profit growth has shown an increase in alignment with the established aim. (ecop1)	0.787	21.117***
The organization has the ability to effectively decrease the overall cost in alignment with the predetermined objective. (ecop2)	0.866	26.097***
The organization has the potential to consistently expand its market share. (ecop3)	0.642	12.312***

Notes: Significance ***p < 0.001.

Table 6. Measurement model validity.

Lconstructs	Sma	Socp	Envp	Ecop	VIF	Tolerance
Sma	0.603	–	–	–	1.236	0.809
Socp	0.121	0.779	–	–	1.581	0.632
Envp	0.157	0.637	0.702	–	1.436	0.697
Ecop	0.218	0.368	0.415	0.594	–	–

Note: The off-diagonal values are the latent correlation coefficients, and the diagonal values are the AVEs., Dependent variable = Ecop.

Figure 1. Results for the structural equation model.

Table 7. Descriptive measures of overall model fit.

Fit measure	Acceptable Fit^a	Before-MOD	After-MOD
1. χ^2 /df	0 < = χ^2/df < = 3	2.175	1.917
2. CFI	0.95 < = CFI < 0.97	0.952	0.963
3. TLI	0.95 < = TLI < 0.97	0.938	0.952
4. RMSEA	0.05 < RMSEA < = 0.08	0.079	0.070
5. SRMR	0.05 < SRMR < =0.10	0.061	0.056

Notes: MOD = modification.

^aSchermelleh-Engel et al. (2003).

Table 8. Hypothesis testing results from structural equation modeling.

Hypothesis	Path	Est	SE	Z	p-value	Results
H1	sma→ecop	0.243	0.074	3.307***	0.0005	Supported
H2	sma→socp	0.348	0.073	4.779***	0.0000	Supported
H3	sma→envp	0.135	0.063	2.131*	0.0165	Supported
H4	socp→ecop	0.235	0.130	1.806*	0.0355	Supported
H5	envp→ecop	0.360	0.135	2.671**	0.0040	Supported
H6	socp→envp	0.751	0.047	16.115***	0.0000	Supported
H7	sma→socp→ecop	0.082(IE)	0.048	1.701*	0.0445	Supported
H8	sma→envp→ecop	0.048(IE)	0.029	1.691*	0.0455	Supported
H9	sma→socp→ envp→ecop	0.094(IE)	0.041	2.288*	0.0110	Supported

Notes: IE = indirect effects, significance ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 (1-tailed).

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.

 Google Scholar