# The Influence of Sustainable Supplier Management Practices on Organizational Performance: A Case of Dodoma Quality Furniture in Tanzania

Magreth Felician Felix, Ismail Abdi Changalima, Goodluck Goldian Ntangeki

► To cite this version:

Magreth Felician Felix, Ismail Abdi Changalima, Goodluck Goldian Ntangeki. The Influence of Sustainable Supplier Management Practices on Organizational Performance: A Case of Dodoma Quality Furniture in Tanzania. International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 2025, 12 (6), pp.842-864. 10.5281/zenodo.15824516. hal-05153497

HAL Id: hal-05153497

https://hal.science/hal-05153497v1

Submitted on 9 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Original Research

# The Influence of Sustainable Supplier Management Practices on Organizational Performance: A Case of Dodoma Quality Furniture in Tanzania

Magreth Felician Felix

Procurement Management Department, Tanzania Revenue Authority, Tanzania

Ismail Abdi Changalima<fnref n="1" />

Department of Business Administration and Management, The University of Dodoma, Dodoma City, Tanzania

Goodluck Goldian Ntangeki

Department of Procurement and Supply Management, College of Business Education-Dodoma, Tanzania

Received 20 December 2024

Revised 14 January 2025

Accepted 24 February 2025

## Abstract

Despite the growing attention to sustainability in supply chain management, empirical evidence on how sustainable supply chain practices directly influence organizational performance, particularly from the perspective of developing countries, remains limited. To fill this gap, the study examines the influence of sustainable supplier management practices on organizational performance. The study relied on the data obtained through structured questionnaires from randomly selected 80 respondents from Dodoma quality furniture located in Dodoma city, Tanzania. The collected data were analyzed by using descriptive and multiple linear regression analysis in IBM SPSS version 25. The findings reveal that sustainable supplier management practices, including sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supplier integration, and sustainable supplier monitoring, are perceived as relevant in a manufacturing firm. Furthermore, the findings indicate that sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supplier integration, and sustainable supplier monitoring are positively and significantly related to organizational performance. These findings confirm that sustainable supplier management practices are critical determinants of organizational performance in the context of a manufacturing firm. The study emphasizes prioritizing sustainability in supply chain management to enhance long-term performance and gain a competitive edge in environmentally conscious markets. The positive role of sustainable supplier management practices on organizational performance urges policymakers to develop comprehensive policies supporting sustainable supplier practices, enabling organizations to achieve economic, environmental, and societal benefits while navigating competitive challenges.

**Keywords:** Performance, sustainable supplier integration, sustainable supplier monitoring, sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supply chain management.

<footnote n="1">¹ Corresponding author's Email: changalima@gmail.com</footnote>
Introduction

Globally, sustainable supply chain management has emerged as a critical aspect of achieving long-term organizational performance (Baah & Jin, 2019; Feng et al., 2024), driven by the growing recognition of the strategic importance of procurement and supply activities in a green economy. This cutting-edge in sustainable supply chain management thinking is reflected in the increasing efforts of firms to align their operations with sustainability objectives (Gonçalves et al., 2024; Wiredu et al., 2024). Organizations worldwide are becoming more aware of the significance of sustainability in addressing environmental, societal, and economic challenges, which collectively form the main pillars of sustainability (Changalima, 2024b; Delphinus & Mwita, 2024; Kimario et al., 2023). However, significant gaps remain in understanding how these pillars can be effectively integrated into supply chain practices, particularly in sub-Saharan regions facing unique sustainability challenges (Ismail et al., 2023; Omisore, 2018).

Supply chains are pivotal in influencing economic performance, environmental health, and social well-being (Changalima, 2025; Zangara et al., 2024). Recent global supply shortages have disrupted key industries, highlighting vulnerabilities and the urgent need for sustainable practices (Mchopa et al., 2020). Concurrently, the transition toward a green economy necessitates restructuring global production systems to mitigate environmental degradation. This is crucial in achieving sustainable development goals (SGDs), especially, SDG 12. Environmental (green) supply chain management, as a subset of sustainable supply chain management, has demonstrated potential in promoting sustainability through eco-efficient practices, improved environmental management, and enhanced customer satisfaction (Abdallah & Al-Ghwayeen, 2020; Karim et al., 2024; Lusiantoro & Yates, 2021). Despite these advancements, there is limited research on how organizations, particularly in developing countries, can effectively adopt and scale such practices to address performance-related outcomes within their supply chains.

The United Nations through SDGs emphasizes the importance of sustainable practices, advocating for collaborative efforts between manufacturers and suppliers to address pollution, reduce waste, and integrate eco-efficient technologies (Martínez-Falcó et al., 2024; Oloruntobi et al., 2023). This approach aligns with the triple-bottom-line framework, which emphasizes the interconnection of social, environmental, and economic sustainability (Benjamin et al., 2023; Ismail, 2022, 2023; Jum'a et al., 2022). While the global demand for environmentally friendly products continues to grow (Amani, 2024; Mambali et al., 2024), significant challenges persist in integrating sustainability and supplier management practices, particularly in manufacturing sector that face pressures from evolving regulations and trade barriers. The existence of disasters and other uncertainties further underscore the vulnerabilities of supply chains (Mchopa et al., 2020), with disruptions caused by interrupted material flows severely impacting manufacturing industries. These challenges have highlighted the need for resilient and sustainable supply chain practices to mitigate risks and ensure continuity. One among the crucial strategies on the same is the emphasis on sustainable supplier management practices (Subramaniam et al., 2020; Yang & Zhang, 2017). These may include sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supplier monitoring, and sustainable supplier integration, and have proven to be effective in addressing disruptions and performance
outcomes by nurturing collaboration, enhancing distribution networks, and building
strong supplier relationships (Yang & Zhang, 2017; Zimmer et al., 2016).

In the context of Tanzania, significant progress is needed to align with global sustainability standards. Existing studies indicate that enterprises in Tanzania are oriented towards sustainable practices, highlighting the need for more robust sustainability initiatives (Changalima, 2024b; Elias & Changalima, 2024; Ismail, 2023). Therefore, common challenges, such as supply chain disruptions and inadequate adoption of green practices, necessitate focused efforts to enhance sustainable supplier management practices so as to enhance performance in the manufacturing sector. Addressing these issues requires clear approach that combines several practices that consider sustainable supplier management aspects. However, evidence on the role of these practices in organizational performance in Tanzanian context is lacking. This study aims to bridge these gaps by investigating the influence of sustainable supplier management practices in the manufacturing industry, with a focus on enhancing organizational performance. Therefore, this study seeks to provide insights into the influence of sustainable supplier management practices on organizational performance, particularly in the Tanzanian context, where unique challenges and opportunities exist. By addressing this, the research contributes to the broader discourse on sustainable supplier management practices and the role in achieving sustainable development goals.

**Theoretical underpinnings and hypotheses**

*The resource-based view*

The resource-based view explains how firms can achieve competitive advantage and performance by effectively controlling and leveraging their resources (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). This theory provides a framework for understanding the relationship between sustainable supplier management practices and other relevant resources, both of which contribute to enhanced organizational performance. The resource-based view emphasizes the importance of resources as a foundation for organizational performance, asserting that organizations can outperform competitors if they possess unique resources that are not available to other firms (Changalima et al., 2025; Hieu & Nwachukwu, 2020; Ringo et al., 2024). The resources are vital for firms, especially in manufacturing industries, as they enable the production of goods or delivery of services to the market. In the context of procurement and supply chain management, suppliers are relevant in providing raw materials that serve as production inputs. Similarly, supplier management practices are crucial resources for enhancing organizational performance (Changalima, 2024a; Prajogo et al., 2012). Furthermore, selecting the right supplier using appropriate selection and evaluation criteria, integrating and monitoring supplier become critical for enhancing performance. In this regard, the resource-based view is considered relevant in explaining the link between sustainable supplier management practices (resources) and organizational performance.

*Sustainable supplier management practices and organizational performance*

This section of the study outlines three key sustainable supplier management practices: sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supplier integration, and sustainable supplier
monitoring. These practices are relevant in aspects of SDGs and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations (Cammarano et al., 2022; Leal Filho et al., 2025; Raman et al., 2023; Zimon et al., 2020). For example, in sustainable supplier selection, choosing suppliers based on environmental, social, and governance criteria aligns with SDG 12 by ensuring that suppliers follow responsible production practices and contribute to more sustainable consumption patterns. Similarly, sustainable supplier integration ensures that incorporating suppliers into a company's broader sustainability strategy, including ESG principles, promotes collaboration toward achieving SDG 12's goal of sustainable production. This approach ensures that suppliers not only meet the immediate needs of the company but also foster long-term, environmentally friendly practices. Furthermore, sustainable supplier monitoring strengthens the assessment of ongoing compliance with sustainability standards and ESG factors. This practice holds suppliers accountable for their environmental and social impacts, supporting SDG 12's targets for reducing waste and emissions while improving sustainability in supply chains.

## Sustainable supplier selection and organizational performance

Adhering to evaluation criteria in supplier selection is crucial for avoiding biases, such as selecting based on relationships or corruption, and for ensuring the procurement of reliable suppliers who can deliver original raw materials within short lead times (Changalima et al., 2024; Song et al., 2017). Such practices directly impact organizational performance by enabling uninterrupted production, which in turn supports the creation of high-quality products that meet customer expectations, strengthen brand reputation, and enhance market competitiveness (Akamp & Müller, 2013; Kimario et al., 2023). This is the reason for existing studies to show the positive role of sustainable supplier selection on organizational performance (Changalima et al., 2024; Ojijo, 2023). However, despite the evident importance of sustainable supplier selection in improving organizational outcomes, existing research often overlooks comprehensive frameworks that guide manufacturing enterprises in the Tanzanian context, highlighting a critical gap that necessitates further investigation to address this effectively. Therefore, the current study hypothesizes that:

**H1:** Sustainable supplier selection positively and significantly influences organizational performance.

## Sustainable supplier integration and organizational performance

This is relevant in the context of sustainable supplier management. It entails the process of fostering collaboration among suppliers within a supply chain, where the manufacturing firm acts as the purchaser of inputs and raw materials, emphasizes the importance of supplier-supplier and buyer-supplier integration (Kanyoma et al., 2018; Kimario & Kira, 2024). This collaboration enables the sharing of strategic information, which becomes a critical source of organizational performance (Kimario & Mwagike, 2024; Mushi et al., 2021). The concept of early supplier involvement further highlights this integration by involving suppliers at the initial stages of new product development. This approach not only enhances innovation but also allows manufacturers to gain insights into competitors' strategies and weaknesses, which can be leveraged for competitive advantage (Junaid et al., 2022; Lysons & Farrington, 2020). Despite these
benefits, existing research often inadequately addresses the role of supplier integration in the context of sustainability and long-term competitiveness in enhancing organizational performance, pointing to a significant research gap that warrants further exploration. The following is hypothesized:

**H2:** Sustainable supplier integration positively and significantly influences organizational performance.

*Sustainable supplier monitoring and organizational performance*

The role of sustainable supplier monitoring in organizational performance is critical, as it ensures that suppliers adhere to established policies and guidelines, enabling the successful execution of supplier activities (Zimmer et al., 2016). Effective monitoring keeps suppliers accountable for fulfilling their obligations by enforcing compliance with stated controls (Changalima, 2024a). Organizations can achieve this by evaluating key performance metrics, such as product or service quality, delivery timelines, and order accuracy (Maestrini et al., 2018). Despite its importance, the integration of sustainability considerations into supplier monitoring practices remains underexplored in the Tanzanian context, especially in the manufacturing industry, highlighting a research gap in understanding the way sustainable supplier monitoring can drive organizational success. To add to the existing studies, the study hypothesizes the following:

**H3:** Sustainable supplier monitoring positively and significantly influences organizational performance.

*The conceptual model*

Drawing on the reviewed literature, this research aims to conduct an empirical evaluation of the proposed conceptual model, as shown in Figure 1. The model posits that sustainable supplier management practices, specifically focusing on sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supplier integration, and sustainable supplier monitoring influence organizational performance.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. The conceptual model</figcaption></figure>

Methodology

Research design and study area

This study employs a descriptive research design by using cross-sectional survey to investigate the linkage between sustainable supplier management practices and organizational performance. The approach is chosen to allow for exploration of the specific organizational dynamics within the selected organization (Saunders et al., 2019), providing a detailed understanding of the relationship between sustainable supplier management practices on organizational performance. The research adopted a quantitative approach that utilized primary data collected from respondents. The study was conducted in Dodoma quality furniture, an enterprise which is specialized in manufacturing furniture. This private organization was selected due to its established performance measurement and recognized commitment to applying sustainable supplier management practices. The case was relevant as the study focused on understanding the role of sustainable supplier management practices on organizational performance.
Sample, sampling and data collection

The study employed a Yamane's formula for obtaining a final sample size (Yamane, 1967). With the target population of 100 people, the study relied on the margin of error of 0.05, and hence, the final sample size was 80 respondents. Therefore, the study's sample size included 80 respondents from the company whereby administrators and subordinates were both included. The respondents were selected based on the application of simple random sampling from which all respondents had equal chance of being selected (Hair et al., 2020; Saunders et al., 2019). Data was collected through a structured questionnaire which was physically distributed to the selected respondents. Questionnaires are considered to be reliable and usefully for obtained relevant data in studies that aim to test the relationship between variables. The questions were close-ended because they provide restrictions on how to answer by relying on categories or quantitative variables (Saunders et al., 2019).

Questionnaire development and measurements

The questionnaire was structured into two primary sections. The first section was designed to collect demographic information from the respondents, including variables such as age, gender, education level, and professional experience. These demographic details provided a contextual background for the analysis and interpretation of the data. The second section contained a series of carefully formulated statements aimed at measuring the key variables of the study. These variables were selected based on their relevance to the theoretical framework, ensuring that they accurately captured the dimensions being investigated. Prior to the full-scale data collection, the questionnaire underwent a rigorous pre-testing phase to evaluate its effectiveness and clarity (Hair et al., 2020). A total of six individuals participated in this pre-test: three procurement professionals with extensive industry experience and three independent academicians with expertise in survey design and methodology in procurement and supply chain management research. Their feedback was sought to provide both practical insights and academic rigor in refining the questionnaire. The qualitative assessment focused on evaluating the clarity of the wording, the relevance of the statements, and the overall structure of the instrument. Based on their feedback, refinements were made to improve the consistency of language, eliminate any ambiguities, and enhance the overall clarity of the questionnaire.

The provided recommendations ensured that the final instrument was both reliable and valid, ultimately contributing to the quality of the data collected during the full-scale study. In this study, all variables were measured using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated strongly disagree and 5 indicated strongly agree. The independent variables (sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supplier integration, and sustainable supplier monitoring) were measured through previously validated items, ensuring the reliability and validity of the measurements. Sustainable supplier selection was measured by using 3 items as adopted from Yang and Zhang (2017). Sustainable supplier integration was measured by using 4 items adapted from Espino-Rodríguez and Taha (2022). Sustainable supplier monitoring was measured by using 3 items as employed by Maestrini et al. (2018). The measures which were not focused on sustainable aspects were modified to fit the current study's purpose. The dependent variable, organizational performance, was
measured by using established metrics adapted from Changalima and Elias (2024). Employing these previously validated items enhanced the study's reliability and ensured consistency with existing studies.

## Data analysis

The data collected for this study were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research variables and their relationships. The IBM SPSS software version 25 was employed for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were presented in terms of frequencies and percentages. On the other hand, to examine the relationships between sustainable supplier management practices and organizational performance, multiple linear regression analysis was conducted after data transformation. This analysis is relevant as it identified the strength and direction of associations between predictors and the outcome variable, with coefficients, p-values, and R-squared values providing insight into the significance of the model (Saunders et al., 2019). Initially, the analysis ensured the validity of the results by checking for the assumptions of linear regression, such as linearity, independence, homoscedasticity, and normality. The prior-analysis indicated that the basic assumptions of the linear regression analysis were met which allowed for the final model assessment (Pallant, 2020).

## Results and discussion

This part presents the findings and discussion of the main results. The section begins with the demographic characteristics of respondents and the main results from the descriptive analysis and the multiple linear regression analysis.

### Demographic characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. A majority of respondents were male (72.5%) compared to female respondents (27.5%). In terms of age, most respondents fell within the 31–41 years category (72.5%), with fewer respondents in the 20–30 years (15%) and 42–52 years (12.5%) age groups. Regarding educational qualifications, the majority of respondents held a certificate (55%), followed by those with an ordinary diploma (37.5%) and a bachelor’s degree (7.5%). Finally, the distribution of working experience revealed that 41.3% of respondents had between 5 and 9 years of experience, 32.5% had between 10 and 14 years, 22.5% had less than 4 years, and only 3.8% had 15 years or more of experience. These findings suggest a predominantly male, middle-aged group of respondents with varied educational backgrounds and a range of professional experience levels.

<table><caption>Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents</caption><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Percent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Gender of Respondents</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>58</td><td>72.5</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>22</td><td>27.5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>80</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Age of Respondents</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Percent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>20-30 years</td><td>12</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>31-41 years</td><td>58</td><td>72.5</td></tr><tr><td>42-52 years</td><td>10</td><td>12.5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>80</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Education Level</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Certificate</td><td>44</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Ordinary diploma</td><td>30</td><td>37.5</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor degree</td><td>6</td><td>7.5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>80</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Working Experience</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Less than 4 years</td><td>18</td><td>22.5</td></tr><tr><td>5-9 years</td><td>33</td><td>41.3</td></tr><tr><td>10-14 years</td><td>26</td><td>32.5</td></tr><tr><td>15 years and above</td><td>3</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>80</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Descriptive results on the main variables

### Sustainable supplier selection

The findings on sustainable supplier selection indicate varying levels of agreement among respondents (see Table 2). In the first statement, which addresses whether the organization checks if candidate suppliers meet predetermined product-based criteria, a large majority of respondents (66.3%) either agreed (33.8%) or strongly agreed (32.5%). However, a small portion of respondents (16.3%) disagreed or strongly disagreed, indicating a generally favorable attitude toward product-based criteria in supplier selection. The second statement, concerning whether the organization checks if candidate suppliers meet predetermined environmental criteria, shows a similarly positive trend. A majority of respondents (63.8%) agreed or strongly agreed (36.3% agree, 27.5% strongly agree). However, a notable portion (17.6%) either disagreed or strongly disagreed, suggesting that environmental criteria may not always be consistently applied in supplier selection processes. For the third statement on the organization checking whether suppliers meet predetermined least-cost criteria, there was a wider spread of responses. While 52.5% of respondents agreed (27.5%) or strongly agreed (25%), a significant portion (32.5%) disagreed or strongly disagreed. This suggests that cost-based criteria might not be as strongly emphasized or prioritized as other criteria in the supplier selection process. These findings indicate that the organization places considerable emphasis on product-based and environmental criteria when selecting suppliers, though the least-cost criteria seem to be less uniformly prioritized.
<table><caption>Table 2. Descriptive statistics on sustainable supplier selection (n=80)</caption><thead><tr><th>S/N</th><th>Sustainable supplier selection</th><th>Strongly disagree</th><th>Disagree</th><th>Neutral</th><th>Agree</th><th>Strongly agree</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>The organization checks whether the candidate suppliers meet our predetermined product-based criteria.</td><td>5 (6.3%)</td><td>8 (10.0%)</td><td>14 (17.5%)</td><td>27 (33.8%)</td><td>26 (32.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>The organization checks whether the candidate suppliers meet our predetermined environmental based criteria.</td><td>7 (8.8%)</td><td>7 (8.8%)</td><td>15 (18.8%)</td><td>29 (36.3%)</td><td>22 (27.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The organization checks whether the candidate suppliers meet our predetermined least-cost criteria.</td><td>18 (22.5%)</td><td>8 (10.0%)</td><td>12 (15.0%)</td><td>22 (27.5%)</td><td>20 (25.0%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Sustainable supplier integration

Regarding the “sustainable supplier integration”, findings in Table 3 reveal that respondents generally perceive positive practices within the organization regarding supplier relationships and integration. For the first statement, the majority of respondents (68.8%) either agreed (38.8%) or strongly agreed (30%) that the company engages suppliers early in the process. Only 8.8% disagreed, indicating that early involvement of suppliers is a well-established practice within the organization. The second statement also showed a positive trend, with 66.3% of respondents either agreeing (33.8%) or strongly agreeing (32.5%) that long-term supplier relationships exist. Similar to the first statement, 8.8% disagreed, suggesting that long-term partnerships are emphasized but might not be universally experienced by all suppliers. Regarding the third statement, 68.8% of respondents either agreed (38.8%) or strongly agreed (30%) that the company engages in recognizing suppliers. Again, there were only a small number of respondents who disagreed (7.5%), highlighting that these practices are valued and implemented. Finally, in the statement, a significant 77.5% of respondents agreed (37.5%) or strongly agreed (40%) that information sharing between suppliers and the company is prevalent. While a small portion of respondents disagreed (8.8%), the results suggest that open communication and information exchange with suppliers are key components of the company’s integration strategy. These findings imply that the organization places significant emphasis on early supplier involvement, long-term relationships, recognition, and information sharing as part of its sustainable supplier integration practices.
<table><caption>Table 3. Descriptive statistics on sustainable supplier integration (n=80)</caption><thead><tr><td>S/N</td><td>Sustainable supplier integration</td><td>Strongly disagree</td><td>Disagree</td><td>Neutral</td><td>Agree</td><td>Strongly agree</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>The company ensures that suppliers are actively involved in our new product and development process linked to sustainability aspects</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>7 (8.8%)</td><td>18 (22.5%)</td><td>31 (38.8%)</td><td>24 (30.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>There is long term and cooperative relationships between suppliers and the company in sustainability aspects.</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>7 (8.8%)</td><td>20 (25.0%)</td><td>27 (33.8%)</td><td>26 (32.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>There is supplier recognition in organizational operations in sustainability aspects.</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>6 (7.5%)</td><td>19 (23.8%)</td><td>31 (38.8%)</td><td>24 (30.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Suppliers share potential information with the manufacturing firm in sustainability aspects.</td><td>2 (2.5%)</td><td>5 (6.3%)</td><td>11 (13.8%)</td><td>30 (37.5%)</td><td>32 (40.0%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Sustainable supplier monitoring

The findings on sustainable supplier monitoring reveal a strong emphasis on tracking key performance indicators related to supplier performance within the organization (see Table 4). For the first statement, a significant 68.8% of respondents either agreed (33.8%) or strongly agreed (35%) that the organization actively monitors supplier quality. Only 7.5% disagreed, suggesting that quality monitoring is a well-established practice among major suppliers. In the second statement, 60.1% of respondents agreed (33.8%) or strongly agreed (26.3%) that delivery timelines are closely monitored. Though a smaller portion (10.1%) disagreed, the results indicate a focus on ensuring timely deliveries, although the monitoring may not be as universally stringent as quality monitoring. For the third statement, 57.5% of respondents agreed (35%) or strongly agreed (22.5%) that order accuracy is regularly tracked. While a portion (11.3%) disagreed, the data highlights that order accuracy is an important aspect of supplier monitoring within the organization. The findings imply that the organization places considerable importance on monitoring key performance factors such as product/service quality, delivery timelines, and order accuracy in its supplier relationships, with a stronger focus on quality and timelines.
<table><caption>Table 4. Descriptive statistics on sustainable supplier monitoring (n=80)</caption><thead><tr><td>S/N</td><td>Sustainable supplier monitoring</td><td>Strongly disagree</td><td>Disagree</td><td>Neutral</td><td>Agree</td><td>Strongly agree</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>The organization monitors product/service quality of our major suppliers in sustainability aspects.</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>6 (7.5%)</td><td>19 (23.8%)</td><td>27 (33.8%)</td><td>28 (35.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>The organization monitors delivery timelines of our major suppliers in sustainability aspects.</td><td>1 (1.3%)</td><td>7 (8.8%)</td><td>24 (30.0%)</td><td>27 (33.8%)</td><td>21 (26.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The organization monitors order accuracy of our major suppliers in sustainability aspects.</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>9 (11.3%)</td><td>25 (31.3%)</td><td>28 (35.0%)</td><td>18 (22.5%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Organizational performance

As presented in Table 5, the results regarding organizational performance show generally positive perceptions of the company's progress across key performance indicators. For the first statement, 75% of respondents agreed (37.5%) or strongly agreed (37.5%) that profitability is on the rise. A small portion (8.8%) disagreed, indicating a widespread belief that the organization's profitability is growing. Similarly, for the second statement, 70% of respondents agreed (35%) or strongly agreed (35%) that the company's market share is expanding. Only 11.3% disagreed, suggesting that the organization is perceived as successfully increasing its presence in the market. Regarding sales volume, the third statement, received even more positive feedback, with 83.8% of respondents agreeing (41.3%) or strongly agreeing (42.5%) that sales volume is a key achievement for the company. Only 3.8% disagreed, indicating that sales volume is a significant strength of the organization. These findings suggest that the organization is viewed positively in terms of profitability, market share, and sales volume, with most respondents perceiving continued growth and success across these areas.
<table><caption>Table 5. Descriptive statistics on organizational performance (n=80)</caption><thead><tr><th>S/N</th><th>Organizational performance</th><th>Strongly disagree</th><th>Disagree</th><th>Neutral</th><th>Agree</th><th>Strongly agree</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Profitability of the organization has increased over the past years.</td><td>1 (1.3%)</td><td>6 (7.5%)</td><td>13 (16.3%)</td><td>30 (37.5%)</td><td>30 (37.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Market share of the organization has increased over the past years.</td><td>2 (2.5%)</td><td>7 (8.8%)</td><td>15 (18.8%)</td><td>28 (35.0%)</td><td>28 (35.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Sales volume of the organization has increased over the past years.</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>3 (3.8%)</td><td>10 (12.5%)</td><td>33 (41.3%)</td><td>34 (42.5%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

*The influence of sustainable supplier management practices on organizational performance*

The model summary as presented in Table 6 indicates that the predictor variables (sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supplier integration, and sustainable supplier monitoring) are strong predictors of the dependent variable, with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.864. This suggests a strong positive relationship between the predictors and the outcome. The coefficient of determination (R²) is 0.746, which means that approximately 74.6% of the variance in the organizational performance can be explained by these predictors. The standard error of the estimate (0.36664) provides an estimate of the average distance between the observed values and the values predicted by the model, indicating a relatively small prediction error. Generally, the study's findings imply that the model is a good fit for the data, with the predictors having a significant impact on the dependent variable (organizational performance) (Pallant, 2020).

<table><caption>Table 6. Model summary</caption><caption>Model Summary<sup>a</sup></caption><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th>R</th><th>R Square</th><th>Adjusted R Square</th><th>Std. Error of the Estimate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>0.864<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.746</td><td>0.736</td><td>0.36664</td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Predictors: (Constant), Sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supplier integration, sustainable supplier monitoring

The findings in Table 7 presents the findings from the ANOVA that provide insight into the overall significance of the regression model. The regression sum of squares (30.066) indicates the variability in the dependent variable (organizational performance) explained by the predictors. With three predictors (sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supplier integration, and sustainable supplier monitoring), the mean square for regression is 10.022. The F-statistic is 74.556, and the corresponding p-value is 0.000, which is less than the commonly used significance level of 0.05 (Pallant, 2020). This
suggests that the model as a whole is statistically significant, meaning that the predictors have a significant impact on the organizational performance. The residual sum of squares (10.216) represents the unexplained variability, and the mean square for residuals (0.134) indicates the average error between the observed and predicted values. The total sum of squares (40.282) represents the total variability in the dependent variable. These findings support the conclusion that the model significantly explains the variation in the dependent variable (organizational performance).

<table><caption>Table 7. Analysis of Variance</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="7">ANOVA<sup>a</sup></th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Model</th><th>Sum of Squares</th><th>df</th><th>Mean Square</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">1</td><td>Regression</td><td>30.066</td><td>3</td><td>10.022</td><td>74.556</td><td>0.000b</td></tr><tr><td>Residual</td><td>10.216</td><td>76</td><td>0.134</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>40.282</td><td>79</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="7">a. Dependent Variable: Organizational performance</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">b. Predictors: (Constant), Sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supplier integration, sustainable supplier monitoring</td></tr></tfoot></table>

Table 8 provides detailed insights into the regression analysis results, highlighting the relationship between sustainable supplier management practices and organizational performance. A key methodological consideration in regression analysis is addressing multicollinearity, which could undermine the model's results. In this analysis, the collinearity statistics verify that multicollinearity is not an issue. Specifically, all predictors exhibit tolerance values exceeding the threshold of 0.2 and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values well below the critical limit of 5 (Alin, 2010; Pallant, 2020). The regression outcomes underscore the role of sustainable supplier management practices in enhancing organizational performance. The findings indicate statistically significant contributions from these practices, suggesting that organizations prioritizing sustainability in their supplier management processes can achieve improved performance outcomes.

Specifically, for H1, the findings confirm it with the positive effect of sustainable supplier selection on organizational performance ($\beta$ = 0.343, t = 4.675, p < 0.001). The plausible explanation for the positive link between sustainable supplier selection on organizational performance lies in the long-term benefits that sustainable practices bring to both the organization and its suppliers. This is relevant as sustainable suppliers often provide higher-quality products, reduce waste, and contribute to cost savings over time. These aspects bring about the organizational performance. The current study's findings are supported by (Changalima, 2024b; Otieno & Odero, 2023). Therefore, the contribution of sustainable supplier selection underlines the importance of incorporating sustainability criteria during initial process of selecting and evaluating potential suppliers.

Moreover, the study's findings support H2 as the relationship between sustainable supplier integration and organizational performance is positive and significant ($\beta$ = 0.505, t = 6.565, p < 0.001). The study confirms the positive role of sustainable supplier integration on organizational performance which could be attributed to practices such as early supplier involvement, and long-term supplier relationships. This is relevant as
through engaging suppliers early in the product development process, organizations can ensure alignment on sustainability goals, fostering more efficient and innovative solutions. On the other hand, long-term relationships with suppliers enable better trust, collaboration, and consistency, which are crucial for sustainable practices to be successfully integrated across the supply chain. A number of studies such as (Junaid et al., 2022) support the contribution of sustainable supplier integration on performance. Several practices such as early supplier involvement and supplier development are relevant for performance. These practices are relevant in the domain of sustainable supplier management practices which in turn drives better organizational performance.

Lastly, H3 is supported as the effect of sustainable supplier monitoring on organizational performance is positive and significant (β = 0.205, t = 3.255, p = 0.002). These findings highlight the value of ongoing oversight to ensure sustainability compliance. The positive relationship between these variables is attributed by existing efforts that organizations have regarding a rigorous oversight of key supplier metrics, including product/service quality, delivery timelines, and order accuracy. The findings are supported by studies such as Changalima et al. (2024) and Maestrini et al. (2018) which emphasize that through monitoring these aspects, the organizations ensure that suppliers consistently meet sustainability standards and operational expectations. This proactive approach not only enhances the reliability and efficiency of the supply chain but also supports the organization in optimizing resources and enhancing satisfaction. These outcomes are crucial for meeting the desired organizational performance.

<table><caption>Table 8. Regression coefficients</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Unstandardized Coefficients</th><th>Standardized Coefficients</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">Sig.</th><th colspan="2">Collinearity Statistics</th></tr><tr><th>B</th><th>Std. Error</th><th>Beta</th><th>Tolerance</th><th>VIF</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(Constant)</td><td>3.167</td><td>0.086</td><td></td><td>36.628</td><td>0.000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable supplier selection</td><td>0.284</td><td>0.061</td><td>0.343</td><td>4.675</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.621</td><td>1.612</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable supplier integration</td><td>0.439</td><td>0.067</td><td>0.505</td><td>6.565</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.564</td><td>1.772</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable supplier monitoring</td><td>0.164</td><td>0.050</td><td>0.205</td><td>3.255</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.843</td><td>1.186</td></tr></tbody></table>

Dependent Variable: Organizational performance

## Conclusion

This study investigates the impact of sustainable supplier management practices—specifically sustainable supplier selection, integration, and monitoring—on organizational performance, with empirical evidence drawn from Tanzania. The rationale for this study stems from the growing importance of sustainability in modern supply chains and its potential to drive improvements in organizational performance. The findings highlight that sustainable supplier management practices significantly contribute
to key performance metrics, including profitability, market share, and sales volume. Among the practices examined, supplier integration emerged as the most influential, underscoring its critical role in enhancing organizational performance. Sustainable supplier integration is crucial for achieving sustainability objectives and enhancing overall organizational performance. This practices not only strengthen partnerships but also drive long-term value creation, which is crucial for sustained success. Additionally, sustainable supplier selection contributes to performance by promoting product quality, cost savings, and environmental compliance—factors that lead to enhanced competitiveness and operational efficiency. Supplier monitoring, which ensures alignment with organizational goals through oversight of product quality, delivery timelines, and order accuracy, is also essential for maintaining supply chain reliability and optimizing performance. Eventually, this study demonstrates the integral role of sustainable supplier management practices in improving supply chain operations and achieving organizational outcomes. These insights have significant theoretical and practical implications for organizations seeking to integrate sustainability into their supply chain strategies.

## Theoretical implications

Theoretically, this study makes a significant contribution to the growing body of knowledge regarding the impact of sustainable supplier management practices on organizational performance, aligning with the work of Ojijo, (2023), Yang and Zhang (2017), and Zimmer et al. (2016). As the body of literature expands on various sustainable supply chain management practices and their influence on organizational outcomes, this study reaffirms the critical importance of integrating sustainability criteria into supplier management processes. From the perspective of the resource-based view, this study enhances our understanding of how specific sustainable supplier management practices—such as selection, integration, and monitoring—serve as valuable resources that can drive improved organizational performance. This insight contributes to the theoretical framework of supply chain sustainability by highlighting the strategic role these practices play in leveraging organizational performance.

## Practical implications

Practically, the study underscores the importance for organizations to prioritize sustainability in their supply chain management practices as a means of achieving long-term performance improvements. In an era marked by increasing competition and heightened environmental awareness, the integration of sustainable practices into supplier management can serve as a critical differentiator and source of competitive advantage. The findings are particularly valuable for organizations seeking to enhance their market position while adhering to sustainability goals. Furthermore, the study suggests that policymakers should focus on developing robust policies that support the implementation of sustainable supplier management practices within supply chains. By creating frameworks that encourage the adoption of sustainability standards, policymakers can help organizations strike a balance between economic success, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility, ultimately fostering more resilient and sustainable supply chains.
Limitations and future research

Despite the fact that the study establishes the empirical evidence of the role of
sustainable supplier management practices on enhancing organizational outcomes. The
study acknowledges existing limitations which provides basis for future research. The
study tested the direct model of the relationship between sustainable supplier
management practices on organizational performance. Hence, the study did not consider
other factors that may explain how and when the relationship between sustainable
supplier management practices and performance. In this case, future research could build
on these insights by examining the role of external factors, such as regulatory frameworks
and market dynamics, in shaping the relationship between sustainable supplier
management practices and organizational performance. Additionally, expanding the
study to diverse industries and geographical contexts could provide a broader
understanding of the applicability and effectiveness of these practices. This is relevant as
the study solely depended on data obtained from the manufacturing firm in furniture
industry.

References

Abdallah, A. B., & Al-Ghwayeen, W. S. (2020). Green supply chain management and business performance: The mediating roles of environmental and operational performances. *Business Process Management Journal, 26*(2), 489–512.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2018-0091

Akamp, M., & Müller, M. (2013). Supplier management in developing countries. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 56*, 54–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.069

Alin, A. (2010). Multicollinearity. *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2*(3), 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.84

Amani, D. (2024). Is ethical packaging the right way to go? The impact of green packaging on consumer legitimacy in cosmetics industry. *Cogent Social Sciences, 10*(1), Article 2319375. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2319375

Baah, C., & Jin, Z. (2019). Sustainable supply chain management and organizational performance: The intermediary role of competitive advantage. *Journal of Management and Sustainability, 9*(1), 119–131.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jms.v9n1p119

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. *Journal of Management, 17*(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Benjamin, A. K., Shee, H. K., & de Vass, T. (2023). Sequential impact of green supply chain initiatives on sustainable performance: Food and beverage processing SMEs in Australia. *Operations and Supply Chain Management, 16*(2), 214–228.
https://doi.org/10.31387/oscm0530384
Cammarano, A., Perano, M., Michelino, F., Del Regno, C., & Caputo, M. (2022). SDG-oriented supply chains: Business practices for procurement and distribution. *Sustainability, 14*(3), Article 1325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031325

Changalima, I. A. (2024a). It's fine for them, but what about us? Exploring the role of supplier management practices on public buyer satisfaction. *Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9*, Article 100849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100849

Changalima, I. A. (2024b). The predicting role of sustainable supplier selection on lead-time performance in public procurement: Relational capability as a moderator. *Journal of Public Procurement, 24*(3), 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-01-2024-0003

Changalima, I. A. (2025). Halal supply chain management: A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited publications from Scopus-indexed journals. *Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11*, Article 101248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101248

Changalima, I. A., & Elias, R. (2024). Mediating effect of purchasing efficiency on the relationship between purchasing analytical skills and restaurant performance: A PLS-SEM approach. *Journal of Money and Business, 4*(2), 138–149.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMB-11-2022-0058

Changalima, I. A., Ismail, I. J., & Amani, D. (2025). Driving SME performance through technological absorptive capacity and e-business innovation. *Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 4*(1), Article 100089.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2024.100089

Changalima, I. A., Ismail, I. J., & Mchopa, A. D. (2024). Effects of supplier selection and supplier monitoring on public procurement efficiency in Tanzania: A cost-reduction perspective. *Vilakshan - XIMB Journal of Management, 21*(1), 55–65.
https://doi.org/10.1108/XJM-04-2022-0077

Delphinus, L., & Mwita, K. M. (2024). The role green human resource management practices on environmental performance: The mediating role of perceived organisational support toward the environment. *SEISENSE Journal of Management, 7*(1), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v7i1.1239

Elias, R., & Changalima, I. A. (2024). The behavioural uncertainty and environmental sustainability of restaurant businesses: The moderating role of purchasing technical knowledge. *LBS Journal of Management & Research, 22*(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LBSJMR-10-2022-0068

Espino-Rodríguez, T. F., & Taha, M. G. (2022). Supplier innovativeness in supply chain integration and sustainable performance in the hotel industry. *International Journal of Hospitality Management, 100*, Article 103103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103103
Feng, T., Qamruzzaman, M., Sharmin, S. S., & Karim, S. (2024). Bridging environmental sustainability and organizational performance: The role of green supply chain management in the manufacturing industry. *Sustainability, 16*(14), Article 5918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145918

Gonçalves, H., Magalhães, V. S. M., Ferreira, L. M. D. F., & Arantes, A. (2024). Overcoming barriers to sustainable supply chain management in small and medium-sized enterprises: A multi-criteria decision-making approach. *Sustainability, 16*(2), Article 506. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020506

Hair, J. F., Page, M., & Brunsveld, N. (2020). *Essentials of business research methods* (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203374

Hieu, V. M., & Nwachukwu, C. (2020). Human resources, financial resources and strategic performance: Organisational policy as moderator. *Quality - Access to Success, 21*(175), 18–24.

Ismail, I. J. (2022). Entrepreneurs’ competencies and sustainability of small and medium enterprises in Tanzania. A mediating effect of entrepreneurial innovations. *Cogent Business & Management, 9*(1), Article 2111036. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2111036

Ismail, I. J. (2023). I have to apply this strategy! Understanding the mediating effect of digitalization on strategic orientations and sustainable competitive advantage among small enterprises in Tanzania. *Management Matters, 20*(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/MANM-01-2022-0019

Ismail, I. J., Amani, D., & Changalima, I. A. (2023). Strategic green marketing orientation and environmental sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa: Does green absorptive capacity moderate? Evidence from Tanzania. *Heliyon, 9*(7), Article e18373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18373

Jum'a, L., Zimon, D., Ikram, M., & Madzík, P. (2022). Towards a sustainability paradigm; the nexus between lean green practices, sustainability-oriented innovation and triple bottom line. *International Journal of Production Economics, 245*, Article 108393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108393

Junaid, M., Zhang, Q., & Syed, M. W. (2022). Effects of sustainable supply chain integration on green innovation and firm performance. *Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30*, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.031

Kanyoma, K. E., Agbola, F. W., & Oloruntoba, R. (2018). An evaluation of supply chain integration across multi-tier supply chains of manufacturing-based SMEs in Malawi. *The International Journal of Logistics Management, 29*(3), 1001–1024. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-12-2017-0346

Karim, R. Al, Rabiul, M. K., & Kawser, S. (2024). Linking green supply chain management practices and behavioural intentions: The mediating role of customer
satisfaction. *Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights*, 7(2), 1148–1168.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-04-2023-0241

Kimario, H. F., Ernest, E., Festo, D. K., Nicodemus, A. M., & Shilemba, S. (2023). Green procurement nexus performance of manufacturing firms: Empirical reflections. *African Journal of Applied Research, 9*(2), 69–81.
https://doi.org/10.26437/ajar.31.10.2023.05

Kimario, H. F., & Kira, A. R. (2024). Cause–effect relationship of trust of buyer–suppliers’ integration on procurement performance in large manufacturing firms in Tanzania. *Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 17*(4), 708–729.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-12-2021-0101

Kimario, H. F., & Mwagike, L. R. (2024). Buyer–supplier collaboration’s commitment. An antecedent for procurement performance of large manufacturing entities in Tanzania. *Benchmarking: An International Journal, 31*(2), 535–557.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2022-0174

Leal Filho, W., Viera Trevisan, L., Paulino Pires Eustachio, J. H., Dibbern, T., Castillo Apraiz, J., Rampasso, I., Anholon, R., Gornati, B., Morello, M., & Lambrechts, W. (2025). Sustainable supply chain management and the UN sustainable development goals: Exploring synergies towards sustainable development. *The TQM Journal, 37*(1), 18–41.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-04-2023-0114

Lusiantoro, L., & Yates, N. (2021). Improving blood safety and availability: A collective mindfulness perspective in the supply chain. *International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41*(11), 1711–1736.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2021-0089

Lysons, K., & Farrington, B. (2020). *Procurement and supply chain management* (9th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Maestrini, V., Luzzini, D., Caniato, F., & Ronchi, S. (2018). Effects of monitoring and incentives on supplier performance: An agency theory perspective. *International Journal of Production Economics, 203*, 322–332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.008

Mambali, E. R., Kapipi, M. S., & Changalima, I. A. (2024). Entrepreneurship education and business and science students’ green entrepreneurial intentions: The role of green entrepreneurial self-efficacy and environmental awareness. *The International Journal of Management Education, 22*(2), Article 100987.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.100987

Martínez-Falcó, J., Sánchez-García, E., Marco-Lajara, B., & Lee, K. (2024). Green supply chain management and sustainable performance: Exploring the role of green ambidexterity innovation and top management environmental awareness. *Business Process Management Journal, 30*(6), 1824–1847.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2024-0012
Mchopa, A. D., William, J. M., & Kimaro, J. M. (2020). Global supply chains vulnerability and distortions amidst Covid-19 pandemic: Antecedents for building resilience in downstream logistics. *Journal of Co-operative and Business Studies, 5*(2), 74–83.

Mushi, G. O., Mwaiseje, S. S., & Changalima, I. A. (2021). Impact of buyer-supplier relationships on organisational performance: Experience from grapes processing industries in Dodoma region, Tanzania. *Journal of Co-operative and Business Studies, 6*(1), 177–187.

Ojijo, A. D. (2023). Effect of sustainable supplier selection on procurement performance of chartered public universities in Kenya. *International Journal of Management, Accounting & Economics, 10*(7), 447–467.

Oloruntobi, O., Mokhtar, K., Mohd Rozar, N., Gohari, A., Asif, S., & Chuah, L. F. (2023). Effective technologies and practices for reducing pollution in warehouses - A review. *Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 13*, Article 100622.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2023.100622

Omisore, A. G. (2018). Attaining Sustainable Development Goals in sub-Saharan Africa: The need to address environmental challenges. *Environmental Development, 25*, 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.09.002

Otieno, K., & Odero, J. A. (2023). Supplier evaluation management practice and supply chain performance of Kenyan selected county governments in Nyanza region. *African Journal of Empirical Research, 4*(2), 727–733.
https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.4.2.73

Pallant, J. (2020). *SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS* (7th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452

Prajogo, D., Chowdhury, M., Yeung, A. C. L., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2012). The relationship between supplier management and firm’s operational performance: A multi-dimensional perspective. *International Journal of Production Economics, 136*(1), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.09.022

Raman, R., Sreenivasan, A., Ma, S., Patwardhan, A., & Nedungadi, P. (2023). Green supply chain management research trends and linkages to UN Sustainable Development Goals. *Sustainability, 15*(22), Article 15848.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215848

Ringo, D. S., Kazungu, I., & Tegambwage, A. G. (2024). Effect of innovation capabilities on export performance: Evidence from manufacturing SMEs in Tanzania. *Technological Sustainability, 3*(1), 24–40.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TECHS-09-2022-0038

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). *Research methods for business students* (8th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Song, W., Xu, Z., & Liu, H. C. (2017). Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for solar air-conditioner manufacturer: An integrated approach. *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews*, 79, 1461–1471.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.081

Subramaniam, P. L., Iranmanesh, M., Kumar, K. M., & Foroughi, B. (2020). The impact of multinational corporations’ socially responsible supplier development practices on their corporate reputation and financial performance. *International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management*, 50(1), 3–25.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2019-0002

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. *Strategic Management Journal*, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207

Wiredu, J., Yang, Q., Sampene, A. K., Gyamfi, B. A., & Asongu, S. A. (2024). The effect of green supply chain management practices on corporate environmental performance: Does supply chain competitive advantage matter? *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 33(3), 2578–2599. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3606

Yamane, T. (1967). *Statistics: An introductory analysis* (2nd ed.). Harper and Row.

Yang, F., & Zhang, X. (2017). The impact of sustainable supplier management practices on buyer-supplier performance: An empirical study in China. *Review of International Business and Strategy*, 27(1), 112–132.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-08-2016-0043

Zangara, G., Corvello, V., & Filice, L. (2024). Social sustainability in production systems: An exploration along the supply chain. *Procedia CIRP*, 122, 778–782.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.01.108

Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2016). Sustainable supplier management - A review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. *International Journal of Production Research*, 54(5), 1412–1442.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340

Zimon, D., Tyan, J., & Sroufe, R. (2020). Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Practices to alignment with UN Sustainable Development Goals. *International Journal for Quality Research*, 14(1), 219–236.
https://doi.org/10.24874/IJQR14.01-14
## COPYRIGHTS

©2025 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

## HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Felix, M. Felician, Changalima, I. Abdi and Ntangeki, G. Goldian (2025). The Influence of Sustainable Supplier Management Practices on Organizational Performance: A Case of Dodoma Quality Furniture in Tanzania. *International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics*, 12(6), 842-864.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15824516

URL: https://www.ijmae.com/article_223029.html

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>