Next Article in Journal
The Research on Temporal–Spatial Distribution and Morphological Characteristics of Ancient Settlements in the Songhua River Basin
Previous Article in Journal
A Holistic Wetland Ecological Water Replenishment Scheme with Consideration of Seasonal Effect
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Barriers of Biodiesel Adoption by Transportation Companies: A Case of Malaysian Transportation Industry

1
Faculty of Business and Accountancy, University of Malaya, 50603 UM, Kuala-Lumpur, Malaysia
2
Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia
3
School of Tourism, Hanyang University, 133-791 Seoul, Korea
4
Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM, Selangor, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(3), 931; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11030931
Submission received: 9 December 2018 / Revised: 28 January 2019 / Accepted: 31 January 2019 / Published: 12 February 2019

Abstract

:
The need to develop an alternative fuel to fossil fuel is growing day by day, especially for the transportation industry, as the supply of fossil fuels is limited and is depleting at a rapid rate. One available resource that has emerged recently is biodiesel. However, the usage of biodiesel is very low among transportation companies. An investigation into the barriers of adopting biodiesel by transportation companies is the focus of the present study. A survey of 147 transportation companies in Malaysia was undertaken, and the data gathered were analyzed using partial least squares technique. Lack of government support, lack of environmental–commercial benefits, and lack of competitive pressure were found to be the barriers to biodiesel adoption. The results also indicated that differentiation strategy moderates the impact of lack of government support, lack of customer demand, lack of environmental-commercial benefits and lack of competitive pressure on biodiesel adoption. The results of this study could benefit policy makers by providing them key focus areas in which they can modify their strategies to actively and successfully promote the use of biodiesel among transportation companies in developing countries.

1. Introduction

There is now a worldwide awareness of the increasing level of greenhouse pollution that has occurred due to the use of fossil fuels. The increasing gap between the required energy of the industrialized world and the limited source of energy from such fossil fuels has caused the energy crisis. The transportation industry is widely viewed as one of the main sources of pollution among energy consumers [1]. For example, the transportation industry was the second most polluting sector in the USA in 2014 [2]. At the global level, in 2014, transportation produced 14% of the world’s total pollution and was the fourth most polluting industry [3]. The substantial contribution of large transport vehicles to air pollution and other gaseous or airborne pollutants has become an important issue due to the increase in CO2 emissions, which accelerate global warming [4]. By reducing the amount of pollution caused by the transport sector, a significant reduction in climate change and acid rain is expected [5]. Currently, fossil fuels provide around 98% of the total energy consumed in the transportation sector [6]. In this regard, the consumption and usage of alternative fuels that are environmentally friendly, such as biofuels, solar power, and fuel cells, have been proposed as a strategy for tackling the significant effect of fossil fuel consumption on the environment. Biofuel is one of the potential alternatives to gasoline that can reduce the emission level of pollutants and has attracted both researchers’ and policy makers’ attention.
Biofuel refers to solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels which are made from bio-renewable feedstocks [7]. Biodiesel and bioethanol are two liquid types of biofuel that can be used as substitutes for gasoline. Biodiesel can be produced from various food crops including sugarcane, grains, corn, potatoes, and sorghum. It can also be produced directly from vegetable oils, both edible and non-edible, recycled waste vegetable oils, and animal fat [5,6]. These sources are seen as feasible alternatives of fossil fuels based on their abundance worldwide and their low cost [8,9]. Biofuel is the most attractive and practical alternative to fossil fuels due to its similarity to fossil fuels in terms of energy and chemical structure and also due to its wide range of available feedstocks and lower emission of greenhouse gases [10]. For oil importing developing countries, biofuels promise new economic opportunities for the rural population. The advantage of indigenous resources as a basis for renewable energy sources is that they can potentially provide energy services with no or very low emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases [11]. According to Gui et al. [12], currently, edible oil is the source of more than 95% of biodiesel. In fact, with biofuel use, both demand and prices for agricultural products would increase, thus revitalizing the economy. As such, several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world have expressed harsh criticism of the use of vegetable or edible oil in the biodiesel industry at the expense of the millions of people facing hunger and starvation worldwide [13]. However, countries which adopt biofuels can reduce dependence on imported petroleum and hence lessen the associated political and economic vulnerability to the international market [10,11]. The benefits are thus far-extending to countries which opt for biofuels, including sustainability, reduction of greenhouse gases, regional development through increased use of local products, agricultural development, and finally, security of oil supply [14]. The global prominence of this issue rests on the fact that developing a clean fuel is of great importance to many countries, especially a source of energy which is easily available, healthy for the environment, and technically feasible [15,16].
Considering the air pollution and global warming issues, the significant role of the transportation industry in air pollution and consumption of limited fossil fuels, and biofuel importance as a clean and sustainable energy source, there has been considerable research from the engineering side on the production processes of biofuels [17,18]. Indeed, research shows that the obstacles to the development of the biofuel industry are not of a technical nature, but rather are due to non-technical problems [19,20] such as management issues.
Studies on biofuel from a management perspective can be categorized into two main streams. In the first stream of research, biofuel supply chain management has been studied [21,22]. The second stream of research has focused on the drivers of biofuel adoption [23,24,25]. However, these studies have investigated the drivers from the perspective of the customers and not the firm. For example, Moon et al. [23] investigated the effects of individual traits, retailer choice attributes and message framing on customers’ intentions to adopt biofuel.
Europe has planned to increase the share of biodiesel in the transport sector’s energy consumption to 10% in 2020 from 5.1% in 2012 [26]. As the adoption of biodiesel is relatively low in transportation industry and there is little or no research on adoption of biodiesel from a management point of view, the present study seeks to investigate the barriers of biodiesel adoption in transportation industry. The study can enable researchers to gain insight into the issues involved in the adoption of biodiesel in the transportation industry, as well as provide significant practical benefits to the transportation companies who might be encouraged to adopt biodiesel in future and to society in general.
There are various typologies in the strategy field to describe the ways in which firms compete in a specific industry [27]. The focus of all typologies [28,29,30] is based on two main strategies, namely cost leadership and differentiation. According to Porter [29], in order to develop a competitive advantage, firms should pursue any of these competitive strategies. Previous studies have shown that the differentiation strategy plays an important role in adopting environmental or socially-related practices [31]. Despite its importance, little or no research exists considering how a differentiation-based strategy can moderate the impact of barriers on adoption of green practices, especially biofuel. It is important to bear in mind that strategies of companies which are focused on differentiation are totally different from the ones that compete based on cost leadership [29]. In view of a rapid rise in global competition, focusing on the role of differentiation strategy may help to highlight the importance of barriers in adopting biodiesel, especially in the key transportation industry.
Considering the abovementioned gaps in the literature, this study aims to investigate the barriers to biodiesel adoption by transportation firms by considering the differentiation strategy as a moderator. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, the model will be conceptualized and hypotheses will be supported by related literature. Later, the methodology of the study will be discussed in Section 3. The validity and reliability of the variables will be evaluated in Section 4 and hypotheses will also be tested in this section. Finally, the discussion and conclusions of the study will be provided in Section 5.

2. Conceptualization and Hypotheses Development

Currently, the major obstacle to the commercialization of biodiesel is apparently the high cost factor [32,33], with raw materials the main cost [34]. More specifically, the raw material cost has been estimated by Zhang et al. [35] to be from 70–95% of the total production cost of biodiesel, and from 70%–85% by Meng et al. [36]. Calculating the actual production cost of producing vegetable oil for fuel in developing countries depends on the local cost of land and labor. For example, an annual production rate of 4–5 tons of palm oil per hectare is estimated [37], however, to compare palm oil and mineral oil production in absolute economic terms is difficult given the regional variations among countries.
The importance of palm oil as the second most traded vegetable oil crop worldwide, after soy, is noteworthy. It is crucial to the economies of Malaysia and Indonesia, with over 90% of the world’s palm oil exports being sourced from these two countries [38]. Mainly used in manufacturing food products, palm oil has recently emerged as an ingredient in biodiesel and as a fuel for generating electricity. With the prospect of these new uses for palm oil, a rise in its global demand is seen as very likely [39]. Malaysia depends heavily on palm oil as a source for biodiesel production. However, while crude petroleum oil prices are low, low crude palm oil prices are not a viable option in the free market economy. In addition, the Malaysian government continues to heavily subsidize fossil fuels [39], making it difficult to compete with petroleum-derived diesel in the near future [40]. According to Mohammadi et al. [41], the Malaysian government’s efforts to promote the usage of biofuel and expand its market both nationally and internationally have not been successful due to the high price of crude palm oil and delays in the implementation of a biodiesel blend policy. The unfavorable market conditions of biofuel, such as its price and lack of government support, have had a negative effect on customer demand [41]. According to previous studies, government support [42,43], customer demand [42,44], environmental–commercial benefits [43,45], and competitive pressure [46,47] are important factors in motivating firms to adopt environmentally friendly practices. Hence in this study, lack of government support, lack of customer demand, lack of environmental commercial benefits, and lack of competitive pressure are proposed as potential barriers of biofuel adoption. Figure 1, illustrates the conceptual framework of the study. In addition to the four mentioned barriers, we propose that differentiation strategy moderates the impact of these barriers to biodiesel adoption. The following sections provide a brief review of the literature pertaining to each barrier. In addition, research propositions suggested by the literature are offered.

2.1. Lack of Government Support

To promote the usage of biofuel, various countries have implemented legal acts to encourage its use [18]. Pukalskas et al. [48] highlighted the legal acts of the European commission as a reason for the expansion of biofuels usage in recent years. In 2006, Malaysia launched a biodiesel policy for the first time, aiming to address energy shortages and environmental issues [49]. Mandatory biodiesel blending was enforced in June 2011. Furthermore, the Malaysian government promoted an intervention plan which consisted of allocations of cash up to RM 300 million as well as various incentives to support the biodiesel program [50]. The aim of this plan was to motivate companies to use palm-based biodiesel. However, Malaysia’s biodiesel policy and intervention plan were largely ineffective due to subsidies of fossil fuels leading to uneven competition for biodiesel [51]. Abdullah et al. [43] found that a lack of government support can be a demotivating factor for companies to adopt green practices. A study conducted by Johari et al. [51] suggested that the lack of subsidies for biodiesel has a negative effect on the adoption of biodiesel. According to Huang and Wu [40], the promotion of biodiesel requires establishment of an inter-ministry coordination mechanism. Based on the above, a lack of government support is seen as playing a significant role in preventing the adoption of biodiesel in the transportation industry. Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:
H1. 
Lack of government support is a factor that discourages biodiesel adoption.

2.2. Lack of Customer Demand

Previous studies have found that customer demand is a driver of environmental practices [43,52]. The willingness of the customer to pay more for environmentally friendly services will secure the future demand of environmentally friendly services of a transportation company. Moreover, the lack of significant benefits that using biodiesel brings to the company will hinder transportation companies from using biodiesel as an alternative of fossil fuel. The lack of customers’ responsiveness to environmentally friendly services will lead to lower propensities of transportation companies to use biofuel [53]. The transportation companies believe that if the type of fuel that the trucks and lorries use is not important for customers, thus they have no incentive to use biodiesel based on cost. Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:
H2. 
Lack of customer demand is a factor that discourages biodiesel adoption.

2.3. Lack of Environmental–Commercial Benefits

Van Hemel and Cramer [54] found that without clear commercial benefits being gained from adopting certain environmental practices, a company is unlikely to adopt such practices. With palm oil plantations rapidly expanding in response to the fast growing demand for biodiesel, several critical environmental issues have surfaced. Firstly, deforestation has proceeded at a rapid rate to keep up with palm oil demand and this has led to the destruction of large tracts of peat land. Furthermore, the biodiversity of the local ecosystems in such areas is decreasing with the further invasion into forested areas [39]. The practice of clearing rainforests using fire is seen as releasing increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, indeed, more than burning fossil fuels would produce [55]. As such, transportation companies have doubts on the environmental benefits of palm oil biodiesel. Furthermore, when companies perceive that environmental practices do not bring them any benefits, it is likely that environmental initiatives will be reduced in companies [43,45]. In addition to these problems, the price ratio between the palm oil and crude oil price has increased from 2006 to 2010 by approximately 65%. This fact has led to transportation companies foreseeing that biodiesel will remain less competitive than fossil fuel, and consequently customers are less likely to pay extra for their transportation services due to using biodiesel. Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:
H3. 
Lack of environmental–commercial benefits support is a factor that discourages biodiesel adoption.

2.4. Lack of Competitive Pressure

Due to very high market uncertainty and price competition in the transportation industry, it is very difficult for the companies to keep the transportation service at a low cost and adopt biodiesel at the same time. Zailani et al. [56] found that over-competition exists in the Malaysian transportation industry and thus price plays an important role as customers have numerous alternative choices for shipping their products. Previous studies have shown a positive relationship between competitive pressure and environmental practices [46,47]. Using biodiesel instead of fossil fuel is costly and a lack of competitive pressure to adopt biodiesel can have a negative effect on its adoption. Thus, the following hypothesis was developed:
H4. 
Lack of competitive pressure is a factor that discourages biodiesel adoption.

2.5. Differentiation Strategy

There are two generic strategies used by competing firms, one is based on a differentiation strategy and the other on cost leadership [57]. A differentiation strategy in a service organization aims to create customized products and services in response to individual customer preferences and demands [58], in other words, its focus is on recognition of customer needs. A cost leadership strategy focuses on cost structure to compete with other firms or segmented targets. A differentiation strategy can generate a higher profit for a firm in comparison to the cost leadership strategy in the long term through enhancing customers’ loyalty and reducing price sensitivity [59]. As the customers of transportation firms’ services, such as manufacturers or retailers, are closer to the public eye, they should take responsibility for their partners’ environmental performance [60]. Sancha et al. [61] found that partners’ poor sustainability practices will not just damage the buying firm’s reputation but also impact the operation’s performance in the long run. As such, the customers of transportation firms’ services encourage them to operate in an environmentally friendly manner. Using biofuel as an environmental practice is one of the ways in which transportation companies can respond to their customers’ needs and consequently differentiate themselves from their competitors. A transportation company seeking to establish its uniqueness based on using biodiesel as a competitive advantage will adopt biodiesel regardless of government support, customer demand, environmental commercial benefits, and competitive pressure. Therefore, the following hypotheses were developed:
H5. 
Differentiation strategy positively moderates the impacts of (a) lack of government supports, (b) lack of customer demand, (c) lack of environmental commercial benefits, and (d) lack of competitive pressure on biodiesel adoption.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Measure of Constructs

Content validity was ensured by adapting items from prior studies which were measured by a five-point Likert scale from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. The items, lack of government support, lack of customer demand, and lack of environmental commercial benefits were adapted from Abdullah et al. [43]. The scales for lack of competitive pressure were measured using items from Zainuddin et al. [62]. The items of differentiation strategy and biodiesel adoption intention were adapted from Das and Joshi [63] and Zailani et al. [64], respectively.

3.2. Data Collection and the Sample

The population of this study consisted of all transportation companies in Malaysia. Since biodiesel adoption is the concern of this study, the target respondents should have sufficient knowledge about the barriers that their companies face for adopting biodiesel. Thus, respondents were drawn from among the top management levels including owners, CEOs, managing directors, general managers, and senior managers, and the unit of analysis was the individual firm.
The sample size of this study was calculated through G-power at 80% power and 0.15 effect size as suggested by Cohen [65]. As there were nine predictors (four barriers, one moderator, and four interactions), a minimum sample of 114 was needed for testing the model. In order to reach a wide geographical area in a short period of time and at minimal cost, mail questionnaires were used [66]. The addresses of transportation companies were obtained from the Malaysia Logistics Directory. Out of 400 questionnaires distributed, 156 were returned. However, questionnaires which were largely incomplete were excluded from the survey, leaving 147 questionnaires for the subsequent analysis; in other words, the response rate was 36.8%. Most of the companies had been established for more than a decade, and 74% had fewer than 150 employees.
In order to check for non-response rate bias due to the low response rate, procedures were followed as recommended by Armstrong and Overton [67]. It was assumed that the last one-quarter respondents would be the most similar to non-respondents based on the long time and most effort to obtain their replies. However, when the last quartile was compared to the first three quartiles, no differences could be found between the ‘early’ and ‘late’ respondents at the 5% significance level, and therefore it was concluded that non-response bias was not an issue with regard to the data collected.

3.3. Analysis

Given the exploratory nature of the study [68], the Smart PLS version 3.0 was used to test the measurement model utilizing the partial least squares (PLS) technique. In the first step, the measurement model was tested to validate the questionnaire, and in the second step, the structural model was tested to evaluate the hypotheses.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model Results

Factor loading, average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) were used to determine convergent validity [69,70,71,72] Table 1 shows that the CR of all constructs was higher than 0.7, the factor loadings were above 0.4, and the values of AVE were above 0.5. These findings indicated a satisfactory convergent validity [73].
As suggested by Henseler et al. [74], the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) was used to evaluate the discriminant validity [75]. The values of HTMT were less than 0.85 (Table 2) which confirmed the discriminant validity of all constructs [76].

4.2. Structural Model

Explained variance proportion was used to determine the accuracy of the model’s predictions [77,78,79]. In the present study, the R2 value of biodiesel adoption was 0.551. Additionally, in order to measure the predictive relevance, the Stone-Geisser Q2 (cross-validated redundancy) value was used. A model is deemed to display predictive relevance if Q2 is more than zero [80], which was achieved in the current research where Q2 was 0.407. In brief, therefore, the model achieved high predictive relevance and an acceptable fit.
In order to test the structural model, non-parametric bootstrapping was applied [81] with 2000 replications (Table 3). The results indicated that lack of government support (β = −0.276 and p < 0.001), lack of environmental commercial benefits (β = −0.371, and p < 0.001) and lack of competitive pressure (β = −0.160 and p < 0.05) have negative effects on biodiesel adoption. Thus, it was found that H1, H3 and H4 were clearly supported, leaving only H2 unsupported. In order to create an interaction construct, the product indicator approach (standardized) was used [82,83,84]. The results indicated that differentiation strategy moderates the impact of all proposed barriers on biodiesel adoption. As such, H5a to H5d were supported.
Figure 2 illustrates that lack of government support and lack of competitive pressure have no apparent negative effect on biodiesel adoption among the transportation companies that pursue differentiation strategy. Although the differentiation strategy moderates the relationships between lack of environmental commercial benefits and biodiesel adoption, it can still be considered a barrier to the adoption of biodiesel even among companies that pursue the differentiation strategy. The companies which want to differentiate their market from competitors found that a lack of market demand was a positive determinant of biodiesel adoption.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Due to the energy crisis and global air pollution, biodiesel as a feasible alternative of fossil fuel has received considerable attention in the past decade. Malaysia is a country which is very rich in palm oil as a source of biodiesel. Palm oil-based biodiesel may offer many benefits including the reduction of air pollution, the creation of new employment opportunities especially in rural area, and the reduction of a dependency on fossil fuel. Nevertheless, several barriers will have to be overcome in order to raise market penetration as well as the acceptance of biodiesel. This study sought to address this critical area by investigating the barriers to biodiesel among transportation companies. The findings show that lack of government support, lack of commercial environmental benefits, and lack of competitive pressure are the main barriers of adopting biodiesel. Furthermore, the negative impact of these barriers is less among the transportation companies that adopt a differentiation strategy in comparison to the ones that adopt a cost leadership strategy.
The results show that government support has a negative effect on the adoption of biodiesel which is consistent with the findings of Johari et al. [51]. As in other developing countries, financial support and enforcement by government officers to adopt biodiesel are crucial for promoting biodiesel. Currently in Malaysia, government incentives as well as financing mechanisms are insufficient to motivate transportation companies to adopt biodiesel [51]. Generally speaking, the most critical barrier to taking pro-environmental action is lack of financial support [85]. However, companies will accept such actions if they do not risk losing profits [86]. Therefore, the Malaysian government could do much in this regard if it provided financial incentives in different forms (subsidy, tax exemption, low interest loan, specific funds for using biodiesel, etc.) and enforce companies to use biodiesel in the interests of the environment and society.
The results also show that lack of customer demand has no significant effect on adoption of biodiesel, which is not consistent with the finding of Silva and Leitao [53] who found that lack of customer responsiveness to environmentally friendly services was a barrier to adopting biofuel in the transportation industry. The potential reason for the insignificant effect of lack of market demand is that biodiesel in Malaysia is still in the initial stage and transportation companies are not certain about the potential demand for using biodiesel. The companies believe that the price of transportation service is the main factor in determining customers’ decisions, and using biofuel can only been seen as a practice to differentiate service from competitors. As such, a lack of demand for adopting biodiesel has no effect on their decision to use biodiesel.
The result confirms that lack of environmental commercial benefits have negative effect on adoption of biodiesel which is in line with the finding of van Hemel and Cramer [54] and Woolman and Veshagah [45], who stated that few environmental commercial benefits may be reduced green practices in firms. This is because managers view environmental practices as placing limitations on profits due to burdensome regulations and other constraining factors. Given this situation among firms, the government can play an important role in reducing this negative image by establishing and enforcing rules for protecting biodiesel against of fossil biodiesel by providing subsidies and tax exemptions for using biodiesel. These and other types of protection can promote biodiesel as a competitive source of fuel.
The results indicate the significant relationship between lack of competitive pressure in using biodiesel and adoption of biodiesel. Due to competition over price in the Malaysia transportation industry, companies need to keep the price of their transportation service low. With the current unequal subsidies on petroleum-derived diesel and biodiesel, it is very difficult to use biodiesel and provide transportation within competitive prices. The negative effect of the lack of competitive pressure also highlights the role of government in protecting biodiesel.
As mentioned by Porter [57], companies’ competition strategies are different. Some companies compete on price and others try to differentiate themselves from others. Although using biodiesel as an alternative to fossil fuel can be practiced as a differentiation strategy, it is costly. Thus, this study predicted that the existence of a differentiation strategy as a moderator would reduce the negative effect of barriers to the adoption of biodiesel. The results show that a differentiation strategy moderates the relationships between all tested barriers and the adoption of biodiesel. This result implies that the transportation companies that make use of a differentiation strategy have a higher intention to use biodiesel as a practice to differentiate their service from that of competitors regardless of existing barriers. It is worthy to highlight that the lack of government support and lack of competitive pressure are not important factors for adopting biodiesel among the transportation companies which consider using biodiesel as adding value to differentiate their transportation service. Although the negative impact of a lack of environmental commercial benefits on adoption of biodiesel is significantly less among these companies, there is still a negative effect. This means if managers believe that there would be few environmental benefits by using biodiesel and customers are not willing to pay extra for using biodiesel, then they have no incentive to adopt biodiesel. It is interesting that a lack of market demand has a positive effect on adopting biodiesel among transportation companies that pursue differentiation strategies. The potential reason for this is that these companies believe that a demand for using biodiesel is growing and they foresee a large market for it in future, so they consider a lack of current demand as an opportunity to be first mover.
The findings of this study have implications for policymakers and managers as well as shareholders of transportation companies with an interest in the use of biodiesel. By diagnosing the dominant barriers for the adoption of biodiesel, the government will hopefully take a stand on doing away with inappropriate, inconsistent, and inadequate policies which favor fossil fuels over biodiesel. The results, however, reveal a current lack of government support, a lack of environmental commercial benefits, and a lack of competitive pressure which act as barriers to adopting biodiesel. On the other hand, the government can refocus its attention on eliminating these three barriers by establishing and enforcing proper rules for protecting biodiesel and by providing appropriate subsidies.
By diagnosing the main barriers for the adoption of biodiesel, the fear of adopting biodiesel can be eliminated. This also would lead to a higher usage of biodiesel in the transportation industry, which would then reap benefits such as lower dependency on fossil fuel, lower air pollution, and employment opportunities for Malaysians and other countries that have palm oil. This study also contributes to the literature by empirically testing the findings of previous studies, including that of Johari et al. [51], who studied the challenges of palm oil based biodiesel in Malaysia, and Mathiyazhagan et al. [87], who investigated the barriers of implementing green practices. The cross-sectional design of this study helps to empirically test the results of these studies and consequently generalize the results.
The main purpose of the present studied has been successfully achieved; however, in order to lay the groundwork for future studies, the limitations must also be considered. Firstly, this study was limited to a survey sample among the transportation companies in Malaysia. Therefore, future studies would do well to test the research model in other countries to compare their results with those of the current study. This would add valuable insight into how regulations and their enforcement, market demand for biodiesel, and completion level create similar or differing circumstances for the adoption of biodiesel when compared to those in the present study. Secondly, since the focus of this study was on external barriers, future studies should test the impact of internal barriers such as technical barriers and lack of top management support.

Author Contributions

S.Z. proposed the research framework and contributed to data collection; M.I. and M.H.A. analyzed the data and wrote the article; S.S.H. contributed to writing and revising article.

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by University of Malaya under the research grant GC001F-14AET.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mahmoudi, R.; Emrouznejad, A.; Shetab-Boushehri, S.-N.; Hejazi, S.R. The origins, development and future directions of Data Envelopment Analysis approach in transportation systems. Socioecon. Plan. Sci. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. SEPA States Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhousegas-inventory-report-1990-2014United (accessed on 23 December 2018).
  3. IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ (accessed on 15 December 2018).
  4. Thompson, R.G.; Taniguchi, E. City logistics and freight transport. In Handbook of Logistics and Supply-Chain Management; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mac Kinnon, M.A.; Brouwer, J.; Samuelsen, S. The role of natural gas and its infrastructure in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, improving regional air quality, and renewable resource integration. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2018, 64, 62–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Liew, W.H.; Hassim, M.H.; Ng, D.K.S. Review of evolution, technology and sustainability assessments of biofuel production. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 71, 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Demirbas, M.F. Biorefineries for biofuel upgrading: A critical review. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, S151–S161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Agarwal, A.K. Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal combustion engines. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2007, 33, 233–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Qi, D.H.; Chen, H.; Geng, L.M.; Bian, Y.Z.H.; Ren, X.C.H. Performance and combustion characteristics of biodiesel–diesel–methanol blend fuelled engine. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 1679–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Leduc, S.; Natarajan, K.; Dotzauer, E.; McCallum, I.; Obersteiner, M. Optimizing biodiesel production in India. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, S125–S131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Foo, K.Y. A vision on the opportunities, policies and coping strategies for the energy security and green energy development in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 1477–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Leung, D.Y.C.; Wu, X.; Leung, M.K.H. A review on biodiesel production using catalyzed transesterification. Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 1083–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gui, M.M.; Lee, K.T.; Bhatia, S. Feasibility of edible oil vs. non-edible oil vs. waste edible oil as biodiesel feedstock. Energy 2008, 33, 1646–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Corro, G.; Ayala, E. Bioethanol and diesel/bioethanol blends emissions abatement. Fuel 2008, 87, 3537–3542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Demirbas, A.; Demirbas, M.F. Algae Energy: Algae as a New Source of Biodiesel; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 184996050X. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bouaid, A.; Martinez, M.; Aracil, J. Production of biodiesel from bioethanol and Brassica carinata oil: Oxidation stability study. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 2234–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lee, M.-A.; Han, D.-J.; Choi, J.-H.; Choi, Y.-S.; Kim, H.-Y.; Ahn, K.-I.; Jeong, J.-Y.; Lee, C.-H.; Kim, C.-J. Physico-chemical and sensory characteristics of semi-dried sausages containing different levels of kimchi powder. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2009, 29, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mofijur, M.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A.; Rahman, S.M.A.; Mahmudul, H.M. Energy scenario and biofuel policies and targets in ASEAN countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 46, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Xie, Y.; Ben-David, Y.; Shimon, L.J.W.; Milstein, D. Highly efficient process for production of biofuel from ethanol catalyzed by ruthenium pincer complexes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 9077–9080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. McCormick, K.; Kåberger, T. Key barriers for bioenergy in Europe: Economic conditions, know-how and institutional capacity, and supply chain co-ordination. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31, 443–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yue, D.; You, F.; Snyder, S.W. Biomass-to-bioenergy and biofuel supply chain optimization: Overview, key issues and challenges. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2014, 66, 36–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chávez, M.M.M.; Sarache, W.; Costa, Y. Towards a comprehensive model of a biofuel supply chain optimization from coffee crop residues. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018, 116, 136–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moon, S.; Bergey, P.K.; Bove, L.L.; Robinson, S. Message framing and individual traits in adopting innovative, sustainable products (ISPs): Evidence from biofuel adoption. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 3553–3560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lanzini, P.; Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Factors affecting drivers’ willingness to pay for biofuels: The case of Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2684–2692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ma, Z.; Zhang, C.; Chen, C. Analyzing the factors that influence Chinese consumers’ adoption of the biodiésel: The private vehicles owner’s investigating in Beijing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Walter, K.; Don, A.; Fuß, R.; Kern, J.; Drewer, J.; Flessa, H. Direct nitrous oxide emissions from oilseed rape cropping—A meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 7, 1260–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Amoako-Gyampah, K.; Acquaah, M. Manufacturing strategy, competitive strategy and firm performance: An empirical study in a developing economy environment. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 575–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Miles, R.E.; Snow, C.C.; Meyer, A.D.; Coleman Jr, H.J. Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1978, 3, 546–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Porter, M.E. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2008; ISBN 1416590358. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hambrick, D.C. Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of Miles and Snow’s strategic types. Acad. Manag. J. 1983, 26, 5–26. [Google Scholar]
  31. Martín-de Castro, G.; Amores-Salvadó, J.; Navas-López, J.E.; Balarezo-Nuñez, R.M. Exploring the nature, antecedents and consequences of symbolic corporate environmental certification. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 664–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Demirbas, A. Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 4661–4670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pang, X.; Mu, Y.; Yuan, J.; He, H. Carbonyls emission from ethanol-blended gasoline and biodiesel-ethanol-diesel used in engines. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 1349–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Van Kasteren, J.M.N.; Nisworo, A.P. A process model to estimate the cost of industrial scale biodiesel production from waste cooking oil by supercritical transesterification. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 50, 442–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Zhang, Y.; Dube, M.A.; McLean, D.D.; Kates, M. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil: 2. Economic assessment and sensitivity analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 2003, 90, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Meng, X.; Chen, G.; Wang, Y. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil via alkali catalyst and its engine test. Fuel Process. Technol. 2008, 89, 851–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ong, H.C.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Masjuki, H.H.; Norhasyima, R.S. Comparison of palm oil, Jatropha curcas and Calophyllum inophyllum for biodiesel: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3501–3515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sumathi, S.; Chai, S.P.; Mohamed, A.R. Utilization of oil palm as a source of renewable energy in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 2404–2421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lim, S.; Teong, L.K. Recent trends, opportunities and challenges of biodiesel in Malaysia: An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 938–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Huang, Y.-H.; Wu, J.-H. Analysis of biodiesel promotion in Taiwan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 1176–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mohammadi, S.; Arshad, F.M.; Ibragimov, A. Future prospects and policy implications for biodiesel production in Malaysia: A system dynamics approach. Inst. Econ. 2017, 8, 42–57. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mathiyazhagan, K.; Datta, U.; Singla, A.; Krishnamoorthi, S. Identification and prioritization of motivational factors for the green supply chain management adoption: Case from Indian construction industries. OPSEARCH 2018, 55, 202–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Abdullah, M.; Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Jayaraman, K. Barriers to green innovation initiatives among manufacturers: The Malaysian case. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2016, 10, 683–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Agyemang, M.; Zhu, Q.; Adzanyo, M.; Antarciuc, E.; Zhao, S. Evaluating barriers to green supply chain redesign and implementation of related practices in the West Africa cashew industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Woolman, T.; Veshagh, A. Designing support for manufacturing SMEs approaching ecodesign and cleaner production—Learning from UK survey results. In Proceedings of the 13th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Leuven, Belgium, 31 May–2 June 2006. [Google Scholar]
  46. Dai, J.; Cantor, D.E.; Montabon, F.L. How environmental management competitive pressure affects a focal firm’s environmental innovation activities: A green supply chain perspective. J. Bus. Logist. 2015, 36, 242–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sharma, V.K.; Chandna, P.; Bhardwaj, A. Green supply chain management related performance indicators in agro industry: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 1194–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pukalskas, S.; Bogdanovičius, Z.; Sendžikiene, E.; Makarevičiene, V.; Janulis, P. The mixture of biobutanol and petrol for Otto engines. Transport 2009, 24, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wahab, A.G. Malaysia Biofuels Annual; Global Agricultural Information Network Reports; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  50. The Star Online. B10 mandate to address biodiesel woes? Available online: 10.07.8, http://bit.ly/1o7paMd. (accessed on 22 December 2018).
  51. Johari, A.; Nyakuma, B.B.; Nor, S.H.M.; Mat, R.; Hashim, H.; Ahmad, A.; Zakaria, Z.Y.; Abdullah, T.A.T. The challenges and prospects of palm oil based biodiesel in Malaysia. Energy 2015, 81, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liao, Z.; Xu, C.; Cheng, H.; Dong, J. What drives environmental innovation? A content analysis of listed companies in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 1567–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Silva, M.; Leitao, J. Determinant factors of innovation capability of Portuguese services firms: A logit model. In Proceedings of the XVII International RESER Conference Service Competitiveness and Cohesion-Balancing Dynamics in the Knowledge Society, Tampere Hall, Tampere, Finland, 13–15 September, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Hemel, C.; Cramer, J. Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 439–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fargione, J.; Hill, J.; Tilman, D.; Polasky, S.; Hawthorne, P. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008, 319, 1235–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Aziz, A.A.; Kanapathy, K. Halal logistics opportunities and challenges. J. Islam. Mark. 2017, 8, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Porter, M.E. Competitive Advantage; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sawhney, M.S. Leveraged high-variety strategies: From portfolio thinking to platform thinking. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1998, 26, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zehir, C.; Can, E.; Karaboga, T. Linking entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The role of differentiation strategy and innovation performance. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 210, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sancha, C.; Longoni, A.; Giménez, C. Sustainable supplier development practices: Drivers and enablers in a global context. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2015, 21, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zainuddin, Z.B.; Zailani, S.; Govindan, K.; Iranmanesh, M.; Amran, A. Determinants and outcome of a clean development mechanism in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 1979–1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Das, S.R.; Joshi, M.P. Process innovativeness in technology services organizations: Roles of differentiation strategy, operational autonomy and risk-taking propensity. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 643–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Nikbin, D.; Beng, J.K.C. Determinants of RFID adoption in Malaysia’s healthcare industry: Occupational level as a moderator. J. Med. Syst. 2015, 39, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 1119165555. [Google Scholar]
  67. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sayyah Gilani, M.; Iranmanesh, M.; Nikbin, D.; Zailani, S. EMR continuance usage intention of healthcare professionals. Inform. Heal. Soc. Care 2017, 42, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Awang, H.; Iranmanesh, M. Determinants and outcomes of environmental practices in Malaysian construction projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 156, 345–354. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zailani, S.; Shaharudin, M.R.; Razmi, K.; Iranmanesh, M. Influential factors and performance of logistics outsourcing practices: An evidence of malaysian companies. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2017, 11, 53–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Weng, G.S.; Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Hyun, S.S. Mobile taxi booking application service’s continuance usage intention by users. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 57, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hair Jr, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016; ISBN 1483377466. [Google Scholar]
  74. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zailani, S.; Ali, S.M.; Iranmanesh, M.; Moghavvemi, S.; Musa, G. Predicting Muslim medical tourists’ satisfaction with Malaysian Islamic friendly hospitals. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015; ISBN 1462523358. [Google Scholar]
  77. Soltanian, M.; Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Aziz, A.A. Motivations of SME entrepreneurs to become halalpreneurs. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2016, 7, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nikbin, D.; Hyun, S.S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Foroughi, B. Effects of perceived justice for coaches on athletes’ trust, commitment, and perceived performance: A study of futsal and volleyball players. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2014, 9, 561–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Nikbin, D.; Iranmanesh, M.; Hyun, S.S.; Baharun, R.; Kim, I. The role of airline travelers’ pre-recovery emotions during the service recovery process. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2015, 32, 677–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chin, W.W. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 655–690. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wetzels, M.; Odekerken-Schröder, G.; Van Oppen, C. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q. 2009, 33, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kurniawan, R.; Zailani, S.H.; Iranmanesh, M.; Rajagopal, P. The effects of vulnerability mitigation strategies on supply chain effectiveness: Risk culture as moderator. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2017, 22, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zailani, S.H.; Seva Subaramaniam, K.; Iranmanesh, M.; Shaharudin, M.R. The impact of supply chain security practices on security operational performance among logistics service providers in an emerging economy: Security culture as moderator. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2015, 45, 652–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Iranmanesh, M.; Zailani, S.; Moeinzadeh, S.; Nikbin, D. Effect of green innovation on job satisfaction of electronic and electrical manufacturers’ employees through job intensity: Personal innovativeness as moderator. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2017, 11, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zhang, B.; Bi, J.; Liu, B. Drivers and barriers to engage enterprises in environmental management initiatives in Suzhou Industrial Park, China. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. China 2009, 3, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Govindan, K.; Kaliyan, M.; Kannan, D.; Haq, A.N. Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 147, 555–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mathiyazhagan, K.; Govindan, K.; NoorulHaq, A.; Geng, Y. An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Sustainability 11 00931 g001
Figure 2. Interaction effect of barriers and differentiation strategies. (a) Interact with lack of government supports; (b) Interaction with lack of customer demand; (c) Interaction with lack of environmental commercial benefits; (d) Interaction with lack of competitive pressure
Figure 2. Interaction effect of barriers and differentiation strategies. (a) Interact with lack of government supports; (b) Interaction with lack of customer demand; (c) Interaction with lack of environmental commercial benefits; (d) Interaction with lack of competitive pressure
Sustainability 11 00931 g002aSustainability 11 00931 g002b
Table 1. Measurement model evaluation.
Table 1. Measurement model evaluation.
ConstructsItemsFactor LoadingCRAVE
Lack of Government Supports (LGS)Inadequate enforcement of environmental regulations by government officers for adopting biodiesel.0.8940.9260.806
Inadequate subsidies for adopting biodiesel.0.852
Inadequate tax reduction for adopting biodiesel.0.945
Lack of Customer Demand (LCD)Caring for the environment is an important consideration for our customers.0.7040.9210.700
Our customers require my firm to adopt biodiesel.0.876
Our customers encourage my firm to adopt biodiesel.0.880
Our customers would withhold a contract if my firm did not adopt biodiesel.0.888
Our customers reject our transportation services if my firm does not adopt biodiesel.0.821
Lack of Environmental Commercial Benefits (LEB)There would be little environmental benefits by using biodiesel.0.8840.9040.759
My firm has experienced that customers are not willing to pay extra for using biodiesel.0.892
My firm has perceived that green benefit is little but cost is high0.837
Lack of Competitive Pressure (LCP)In transportation industry, a large number of firms adopt biodiesel.0.7430.8610.609
In transportation industry, our competitors use biodiesel.0.752
My firm has experienced competitiveness pressure to adopt biodiesel.0.821
My firm has realized competitiveness pressure to adopt biodiesel.0.802
Differentiation Strategy (DS)My firm introduces more services than its major competitors.0.8540.8740.635
My firm focuses on building brand identification for its services0.751
My firm emphasizes being the industry leader in offering new services0.804
My firm introduces services to the market faster than the competition.0.774
Biodiesel Adoption (BA)My firm’s willingness to use biodiesel is very high.0.8880.8850.794
My firm has high intention to use biodiesel.0.894
Table 2. Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT).
Table 2. Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT).
LGSLCDLEBLCPDSBA
LGS
LCD0.568
LEB0.6840.812
LCP0.5870.7760.768
DS0.1650.2830.4300.456
BA0.6820.5850.8310.7190.576
Table 3. Path coefficient and hypothesis testing.
Table 3. Path coefficient and hypothesis testing.
HypothesesRelationshipsPath Coefficientt-valueDecision
Main Model
H1LGS -> BA−0.2763.973***Supported
H2LCD -> BA0.0930.975Not Supported
H3LEB -> BA−0.3713.403***Supported
H4LCP -> BA−0.1601.863*Supported
Moderating Effect
-DS -> BA0.2393.792-
H5aDS*LGS -> BA0.1262.440**Supported
H5bDS*LCD -> BA0.1352.150*Supported
H5cDS*LEB -> BA0.0871.859*Supported
H5dDS*LCP -> BA0.1071.902*Supported
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Sean Hyun, S.; Ali, M.H. Barriers of Biodiesel Adoption by Transportation Companies: A Case of Malaysian Transportation Industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 931. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11030931

AMA Style

Zailani S, Iranmanesh M, Sean Hyun S, Ali MH. Barriers of Biodiesel Adoption by Transportation Companies: A Case of Malaysian Transportation Industry. Sustainability. 2019; 11(3):931. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11030931

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zailani, Suhaiza, Mohammad Iranmanesh, Sunghyup Sean Hyun, and Mohd Helmi Ali. 2019. "Barriers of Biodiesel Adoption by Transportation Companies: A Case of Malaysian Transportation Industry" Sustainability 11, no. 3: 931. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11030931

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop