Dependence on Supplier, Supplier Trust and Green Supplier Integration: The Moderating Role of Contract Management Difficulty
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Hypotheses
2.1. Dependence on Supplier and Green Supplier Integration
2.2. Dependence on Supplier and Supplier Trust
2.3. The Mediating Role of Supplier Trust
2.4. The Moderating Role of Contract Management Difficulty
3. Research Methods
3.1. Sampling and Data Collection
3.2. Measures
3.3. Reliability and Validity
3.4. Evaluating Common Method Variance
4. Analysis Results
5. Discussions
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
5.2. Managerial Implications
6. Conclusions and Limitations
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Results of Non-Responding Bias
Responding and Non-Responding Firms | Responding Firms | Non-Responding Firms | t Value | p Value |
Firm size | 6.635 | 6.476 | 0.702 | 0.483 |
Firm age | 2.575 | 2.522 | 0.634 | 0.526 |
Early and Late Responses | Early Responses | Late Responses | t Value | p Value |
Firm size | 6.681 | 6.437 | 0.738 | 0.462 |
Firm age | 2.590 | 2.512 | 0.562 | 0.575 |
Longevity of relationship | 1.712 | 1.581 | 1.148 | 0.252 |
Competitive intensity | 5.429 | 5.155 | 1.185 | 0.238 |
Dependence on supplier | 5.176 | 5.680 | −1.629 | 0.114 |
Supplier trust | 5.284 | 5.600 | −1.177 | 0.241 |
Green supplier integration | 4.916 | 4.581 | 1.518 | 0.131 |
Contract management difficulty | 3.871 | 3.543 | 1.135 | 0.177 |
References
- Luo, J.; Chong, A.Y.L.; Ngai, E.W.; Liu, M.J. Reprint of “Green Supply Chain Collaboration implementation in China: The mediating role of guanxi”. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2015, 74, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, R.; Mansouri, S.A.; Aktas, E. The relationship between green supply chain management and performance: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian emerging economies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 183, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, B.; Lin, B. Regional differences of pollution emissions in China: Contributing factors and mitigation strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1454–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blome, C.; Hollos, D.; Paulraj, A. Green procurement and green supplier development: Antecedents and effects on supplier performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genovese, A.; Lenny Koh, S.C.; Bruno, G.; Esposito, E. Greener supplier selection: State of the art and some empirical evidence. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2013, 51, 2868–2886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, G.C. The influence of green supply chain integration and environmental uncertainty on green innovation in Taiwan’s IT industry. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2013, 18, 539–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Feng, Y.; Choi, S.B. The role of customer relational governance in environmental and economic performance improvement through green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 155, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akman, G. Evaluating suppliers to include green supplier development programs via fuzzy c-means and VIKOR methods. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2015, 86, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurel, O.; Acar, A.Z.; Onden, I.; Gumus, I. Determinants of the green supplier selection. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 181, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banaeian, N.; Mobli, H.; Fahimnia, B.; Nielsen, I.E.; Omid, M. Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018, 89, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D. Environmental management and manufacturing performance: The role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 111, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeung, J.H.Y.; Selen, W.; Zhang, M.; Huo, B. The effects of trust and coercive power on supplier integration. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2009, 120, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fera, M.; Fruggiero, F.; Lambiase, A.; Macchiaroli, R.; Miranda, S. The role of uncertainty in supply chains under dynamic modeling. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 2017, 8, 119–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fera, M.; Macchiaroli, R.; Fruggiero, F.; Lambiase, A. A new perspective for production process analysis using additive manufacturing—complexity vs production volume. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 95, 673–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Cai, J.; Feng, T. The influence of green supply chain integration on firm performance: A contingency and configuration perspective. Sustainability 2017, 9, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preston, D.S.; Chen, D.Q.; Swink, M.; Meade, L. Generating supplier benefits through buyer-enabled knowledge enrichment: A social capital perspective. Decis. Sci. 2017, 48, 248–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Huo, B.; Selen, W.; Yeung, J.H.Y. The impact of internal integration and relationship commitment on external integration. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Huo, B. The impact of dependence and trust on supply chain integration. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2013, 43, 544–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crook, T.R.; Combs, J.G. Sources and consequences of bargaining power in supply chains. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 546–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terpend, R.; Krause, D.R. Competition or cooperation? Promoting supplier performance with incentives under varying conditions of dependence. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2015, 51, 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnsen, R.E.; Lacoste, S. An exploration of the ‘dark side’associations of conflict, power and dependence in customer–supplier relationships. Ind. Market. Manag. 2016, 59, 76–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huo, B.; Liu, C.; Kang, M.; Zhao, X. The impact of dependence and relationship commitment on logistics outsourcing: Empirical evidence from greater China. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2015, 45, 887–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Guo, H.; Huo, B.; Zhao, X.; Huang, J. Linking supply chain quality integration with mass customization and product modularity. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, T.; Sun, L.; Sohal, A.S.; Wang, D. External involvement and firm performance: Is time-to-market of new products a missing link? Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 727–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, M.C.; Liu, Z.; Yu, Y.; Zheng, J.H. Opportunism in distribution networks: The role of network embeddedness and dependence. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2015, 24, 1657–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huo, B.; Wang, Z.; Tian, Y. The impact of justice on collaborative and opportunistic behaviors in supply chain relationships. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 177, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mizgier, K.J.; Pasia, J.M.; Talluri, S. Multiobjective capital allocation for supplier development under risk. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 5243–5258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gualandris, J.; Kalchschmidt, M. Developing environmental and social performance: The role of suppliers’ sustainability and buyer–supplier trust. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 2470–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemmert, M.; Kim, D.; Kim, J.; Cho, B. Building the supplier’s trust: Role of institutional forces and buyer firm practices. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 180, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revilla, E.; Knoppen, D. Building knowledge integration in buyer-supplier relationships: The critical role of strategic supply management and trust. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2015, 35, 1408–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, O.E. Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. J. Law Econ. 1993, 36, 453–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Q.; Zhao, X.; Yeung, H.Y.J.; Liu, Y. Improving logistics outsourcing performance through transactional and relational mechanisms under transaction uncertainties: Evidence from China. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 175, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handley, S.M.; Benton, W.C. Mediated power and outsourcing relationships. J. Oper. Manag. 2012, 30, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pires, G.D.; Dean, A.; Rehman, M. Using service logic to redefine exchange in terms of customer and supplier participation. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 925–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swink, M.; Narasimhan, R.; Wang, C. Managing beyond the factory walls: Effects of four types of strategic integration on manufacturing plant performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 148–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chae, S.; Choi, T.Y.; Hur, D. Buyer power and supplier relationship commitment: A cognitive evaluation theory perspective. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2017, 53, 39–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarter, M.W.; Northcraft, G.B. Happy together? Insights and implications of viewing managed supply chains as a social dilemma. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 498–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketchen, D.J., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M. Bridging organization theory and supply chain management: The case of best value supply chains. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 573–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atuahene-Gima, K.; Li, H. When does trust matter? Antecedents and contingent effects of supervisee trust on performance in selling new products in China and the United States. J. Market. 2002, 66, 61–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, T.; Cai, D.; Wang, D.; Zhang, X. Environmental management systems and financial performance: The joint effect of switching cost and competitive intensity. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 781–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, G.; Feng, T.; Wang, D. Is more supply chain integration always beneficial to financial performance? Ind. Market. Manag. 2015, 45, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, J. The relationship between sustainable supply chain management, stakeholder pressure and corporate sustainability performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 119, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kouvelis, P.; Zhao, W. Supply chain contract design under financial constraints and bankruptcy costs. Manag. Sci. 2015, 62, 2341–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, D.; Sharma, R.R.K.; Kumar, S.; Dubey, R. Bridging and buffering: Strategies for mitigating supply risk and improving supply chain performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 180, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, L.; Chen, B.; Chen, J.; Bruton, G.D. Dysfunctional competition & innovation strategy of new ventures as they mature. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 78, 111–118. [Google Scholar]
- Bode, C.; Wagner, S.M.; Petersen, K.J.; Ellram, L.M. Understanding responses to supply chain disruptions: Insights from information processing and resource dependence perspectives. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 833–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Luo, Y.; Liu, T. Governing buyer–supplier relationships through transactional and relational mechanisms: Evidence from China. J. Oper. Manag. 2009, 27, 294–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, W.; Jacobs, M.A.; Chavez, R.; Feng, M. The impacts of IT capability and marketing capability on supply chain integration: A resource-based perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 4196–4211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, T.; Zhao, G.; Su, K. The fit between environmental management systems and organisational learning orientation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 2901–2914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 1981, 18, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feng, T.; Wang, D. The influence of environmental management systems on financial performance: A moderated-mediation analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 135, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, K.J.; Handfield, R.B.; Lawson, B.; Cousins, P.D. Buyer dependency and relational capital formation: The mediating effects of socialization processes and supplier integration. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2008, 44, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villena, V.H.; Revilla, E.; Choi, T.Y. The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 561–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, M.M.; Lyngsie, J. Ambiguous adaptation: The effect of contract duration and investments in relational mechanisms on premature relationship termination. Long Range Plan. 2017, 50, 794–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyaga, G.N.; Whipple, J.M.; Lynch, D.F. Examining supply chain relationships: Do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ? J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, T.; Zhao, G. Top management support, inter-organizational relationships and external involvement. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2014, 114, 526–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Frequency | Percentage | |
---|---|---|
Industry | ||
Food, beverage and textile | 14 | 7.5 |
Chemical and related products | 8 | 4.3 |
Pharmaceutical and medical | 8 | 4.3 |
Rubber and plastics | 14 | 7.5 |
Non-metallic mineral products | 11 | 5.9 |
Metal products | 14 | 7.5 |
Machinery | 12 | 6.4 |
Transport equipment | 19 | 10.1 |
Electrical machinery and equipment | 30 | 16.0 |
Communication and computer-related equipment | 42 | 22.5 |
Instruments and related products | 8 | 4.3 |
Others | 7 | 3.7 |
Number of employees | ||
Less than 100 | 29 | 15.5 |
100–299 | 34 | 18.2 |
300–999 | 28 | 15.0 |
1000–1999 | 23 | 12.3 |
2000–4999 | 36 | 19.2 |
No less than 5000 | 37 | 19.8 |
Structure of ownership | ||
State-owned and collective enterprises | 69 | 36.9 |
Private enterprises | 73 | 39.0 |
Foreign-invested enterprises | 45 | 24.1 |
Construct | Item Code | Factor Loading | Cronbach α | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Competitive intensity | CI1 | 0.80 | 0.896 | 0.899 | 0.691 |
CI2 | 0.76 | ||||
CI3 | 0.96 | ||||
CI4 | 0.78 | ||||
Dependence on supplier | DS1 | 0.86 | 0.952 | 0.953 | 0.836 |
DS2 | 0.90 | ||||
DS3 | 0.96 | ||||
DS4 | 0.94 | ||||
Supplier trust | ST1 | 0.88 | 0.943 | 0.944 | 0.772 |
ST2 | 0.94 | ||||
ST3 | 0.92 | ||||
ST4 | 0.88 | ||||
ST5 | 0.76 | ||||
Green supplier integration | GSI1 | 0.90 | 0.960 | 0.960 | 0.800 |
GSI2 | 0.87 | ||||
GSI3 | 0.81 | ||||
GSI4 | 0.94 | ||||
GSI5 | 0.94 | ||||
GSI6 | 0.90 | ||||
Contract management difficulty | CMD1 | 0.78 | 0.877 | 0.879 | 0.708 |
CMD2 | 0.91 | ||||
CMD3 | 0.83 |
Constructs | Mean | S.D. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Firm size | 6.635 | 1.758 | - | ||||||||
2. Firm age | 2.575 | 0.733 | 0.427 ** | - | |||||||
3. Longevity of relationship | 1.688 | 0.609 | 0.234 ** | 0.373 *** | - | ||||||
4. Industry type | 0.369 | 0.484 | −0.063 | −0.057 | 0.082 | - | |||||
5. Competitive intensity | 5.377 | 1.235 | −0.252 *** | −0.097 | −0.083 | −0.037 | 0.831 | ||||
6. Dependence on supplier | 5.154 | 1.248 | −0.131 | −0.161 * | −0.101 | 0.075 | 0.080 | 0.914 | |||
7. Supplier trust | 5.338 | 1.110 | −0.076 | −0.008 | −0.027 | −0.067 | 0.070 | 0.503 *** | 0.879 | ||
8. Green supplier integration | 4.853 | 1.180 | −0.129 | −0.022 | 0.081 | 0.100 | 0.072 | 0.397 *** | 0.300 *** | 0.894 | |
9. Contract management difficulty | 3.809 | 1.293 | 0.073 | 0.020 | −0.039 | 0.032 | −0.013 | 0.138 | −0.044 | 0.109 | 0.842 |
Variables | Supplier Trust | Green Supplier Integration | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | |
Control variables | |||||||
Firm size | −0.078 | −0.050 | −0.139 † | −0.118 | −0.116 | −0.111 | −0.140 † |
Firm age | 0.030 | 0.086 | 0.007 | 0.051 | −0.002 | 0.039 | 0.007 |
Longevity of relationship | −0.010 | 0.016 | 0.108 | 0.128 † | 0.111 | 0.125 † | 0.122 |
Industry type | −0.068 | −0.105 | 0.084 | 0.056 | 0.105 | 0.070 | 0.075 |
Competitive intensity | 0.050 | 0.022 | 0.050 | 0.029 | 0.035 | 0.026 | 0.040 |
Independent variable | |||||||
Dependence on supplier (DS) | 0.518 *** | 0.396 *** | 0.347 *** | ||||
Mediators | |||||||
Supplier trust | 0.299 *** | 0.194 ** | 0.275 *** | ||||
Moderator | |||||||
Contract management difficulty (CMD) | 0.156 * | ||||||
Interaction terms | |||||||
DS × CMD | −0.167 * | ||||||
R square | 0.014 | 0.272 | 0.039 | 0.189 | 0.127 | 0.224 | 0.170 |
R square change | 0.258 | 0.150 | 0.098 | 0.035 | 0.043 | ||
F(d, f) change | 63.709 *** | 33.476 *** | 18.159 *** | 8.663 ** | 4.658 * |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, X.; Pan, J.; Song, Y. Dependence on Supplier, Supplier Trust and Green Supplier Integration: The Moderating Role of Contract Management Difficulty. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1673. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051673
Zhao X, Pan J, Song Y. Dependence on Supplier, Supplier Trust and Green Supplier Integration: The Moderating Role of Contract Management Difficulty. Sustainability. 2018; 10(5):1673. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051673
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Xuesong, Jieyi Pan, and Yongtao Song. 2018. "Dependence on Supplier, Supplier Trust and Green Supplier Integration: The Moderating Role of Contract Management Difficulty" Sustainability 10, no. 5: 1673. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051673