2014
DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2014.906680
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Linking inventory efficiency, productivity and responsiveness to retail firm outperformance: empirical insights from US retailing segments

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In line with recent literature (Alan et al , 2014; Shockley and Turner, 2015) and following the original idea of Eroglu and Hofer (2011), there are three major inventory measurement methodologies: absolute measures including average inventory levels and maximum inventory levels (Shockley and Turner, 2015); standardized measures referring to inventory turnover and its variants, such as days of inventory (Koumanakos, 2008), inventory scaled by sales (Capkun et al , 2009), gross margin return on inventory (Alan et al , 2014; Shockley and Turner, 2015), and sales-to-inventory ratio (Mishra et al , 2013); and complex measures, such as empirical leanness indicator (ELI) (Eroglu and Hofer, 2011) and adjust inventory turnover (Alan et al , 2014), estimated by regression analysis.…”
Section: Literature Review and Hypothesis Developmentsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In line with recent literature (Alan et al , 2014; Shockley and Turner, 2015) and following the original idea of Eroglu and Hofer (2011), there are three major inventory measurement methodologies: absolute measures including average inventory levels and maximum inventory levels (Shockley and Turner, 2015); standardized measures referring to inventory turnover and its variants, such as days of inventory (Koumanakos, 2008), inventory scaled by sales (Capkun et al , 2009), gross margin return on inventory (Alan et al , 2014; Shockley and Turner, 2015), and sales-to-inventory ratio (Mishra et al , 2013); and complex measures, such as empirical leanness indicator (ELI) (Eroglu and Hofer, 2011) and adjust inventory turnover (Alan et al , 2014), estimated by regression analysis.…”
Section: Literature Review and Hypothesis Developmentsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…To verify the validity of our findings, we have assessed the robustness of our results by including two measures (ROI and EBITDA) for financial performance in our study. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA) and return on investment (ROI) have been accepted by OSCM scholars as a reliable accounting-based financial measures to capture operational profitability which is independent of capital investments or non-operating expenses (Shi and Yu 2013;Shockley and Turner 2015). Following existing studies that investigated supply chains and financial outcomes (Vickery et al 2010;Quintana-García, Benavides-Chicón, and Marchante-Lara 2021), we have retested the model by including ROI and EBITDA as two measures of financial performance and found consistent results.…”
Section: Robustness Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Starting in the early 2000s, research have explored the measurement of inventory performance and three categories have emerged according to the summary of Eroglu and Hofer (2011): absolute measurements, like the average inventory level and the maximum inventory level (Shockley and Turner, 2015); standardized measurements, including inventory turnover and its derivatives – days of inventory (Koumanakos, 2008), inventory scaled by sales (Capkun et al , 2009), sales-to-inventory ratio (Mishra et al , 2013); complex measurements, such as Empirical Leanness Indicator (ELI) (Eroglu and Hofer, 2011) and data envelopment analysis (Lozano et al , 2009). Given the peer effects and returns-to-scale, we use the ELI as the focal variable to capture the relative degree of inventory reduction among similar size firms in the same industry.…”
Section: Literature Review and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%