Cited by 56Public Procurement and PolicySustainable Supply Chain ManagementEnvironmental Sustainability in Business

How external stakeholders drive the green public procurement practice? An organizational learning perspective

Liu, Junqi, Ma, Yanlin, Appolloni, Andrea, Cheng, Wenjuan·2021·Journal of Public Procurement

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to uncover the black box of the influence mechanism between external stakeholder drivers and green public procurement practice, and meanwhile to explore the moderating role of administrative level in this process. Green public procurement (GPP) has been widely implemented. Existing literature has found that external stakeholder drivers can affect public sectors' GPP practice, however, the definition of its connotation is still unclear, and how external stakeholders affect GPP practice has remained a black box. Design/methodology/approach: After defining the major external stakeholders, this study develops a multiple mediation theoretical model using survey data from 142 Chinese local public sectors. It aims to uncover the black box of the influence mechanism between external stakeholder drivers and GPP practice and meanwhile explore the moderating effect of administrative levels in this process. Findings: The results show that external stakeholder drivers have a positive relationship with GPP practices. The knowledge of GPP implementation policies and the knowledge of GPP benefits can both mediate this relationship. This study also finds that the administrative level of public sectors can positively moderate the mediating effect produced by the knowledge of GPP implementation policies and negatively moderate the mediation effect produced by the knowledge of GPP benefits. Social implications: Local governments need to better encourage public sectors to implement GPP. Managers of public sectors need to pay attention to organizational learning to acquire relevant knowledge on GPP. Originality/value: This study makes a theoretical contribution to a better understanding of the influence mechanism for GPP practice. This study also provides comparisons of GPP implementation policies between China and European Union.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jopp-04-2020-0035

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, J., Ma, Y., Appolloni, A., & Cheng, W.
Affiliations
  • Southwest Jiaotong University (CN)
  • University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
Venue
Journal of Public Procurement
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2021-06-16
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
138-166
ISSN
  • 1535-0118 (ISSN-L)
  • 2150-6930
OpenAlex
W3170250763
Cited by
56
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 7
FWCI
9.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Public Procurement (publishedVersion)
  • Cineca Institutional Research Information System (Tor Vergata University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
Keywords
green public procurement, organizational learning, administrative levels, local government, multiple mediation, moderating effect, China

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review