Green Innovation, Green Supply Chain Management, and Environmental Performance in Ghana’s Agro-Processing Sector

Abstract

Background: Agro-processing firms face growing pressure to reduce the environmental impacts associated with resource use, production, packaging, transportation, and waste generation. Green supply chain management and green innovation have emerged as important organisational approaches for improving environmental performance. However, limited empirical evidence exists on whether green innovation strengthens the relationship between green supply chain management and environmental performance, particularly within Ghana’s agro-processing sector.  Aims: The study examined the relationship between green supply chain management (GSCM) and environmental performance, assessed the relationship between green innovation (GI) and environmental performance, and examined the moderating role of GI in the relationship between GSCM and environmental performance in Ghana’s agro-processing sector. Study Design: Quantitative explanatory research design. Place and Duration of Study: Ghana’s agro-processing sector. Data were collected from employees of agro-processing firms during the study period. Methodology: Primary data were collected using a structured questionnaire. Convenience sampling was used to select respondents with knowledge or experience in supply chain management, environmental practices, or innovation. Of the 100 questionnaires administered, 96 usable responses were obtained, representing a 96% response rate. The questionnaire used a seven-point Likert  scale to measure GSCM, GI, and environmental performance, with each construct measured using eight items. Data were analysed using SPSS, descriptive statistics, ordinary least squares regression, and moderation analysis. The direct relationships of GSCM and GI with environmental performance were examined, while the moderating effect of GI was assessed using the GSCM × GI interaction term. Results: GSCM had a positive and statistically significant relationship with environmental performance (B = 0.554, p < .001, R² = .339). GI also had a positive and statistically significant relationship with environmental performance (B = 0.414, p < .001, R² = .212). The interaction between GSCM and GI was positive and statistically significant (B = 0.365, p < .001), indicating that GI strengthens the positive relationship between GSCM and environmental performance. The interaction term accounted for an additional 11.1% of the explained variance in environmental performance (ΔR² = .111). Simple-slopes analysis showed that the GSCM–environmental performance relationship was positive but not statistically significant at low levels of GI, and positive and statistically significant at the mean and high levels of GI. The findings therefore provide empirical support for all three study objectives. Conclusion: GSCM and GI are positively associated with environmental performance among firms in Ghana’s agro-processing sector. More importantly, the positive relationship between GSCM and environmental performance becomes stronger at higher levels of green innovation. The findings suggest that firms may derive greater environmental benefits from green supply chain practices when these practices are supported by strong green innovation capabilities. Integrating GSCM with green innovation may therefore provide a more effective approach to improving environmental performance in the agro-processing sector.