Supplier dependence: impact on supplier's participation and performance

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to extend our understanding of the importance of supplier dependence on the buyer's firm and its relationship to supplier training and supplier involvement in product development with respect to the supplier's performance. Design/methodology/approach -A random sample of 231 firms provided the data that were analyzed for this study. Using structural equation modeling, a sub-set of the sample consisting of 166 manufacturing firms was used to test the five hypothesized relationships in the model. Findings -The main findings indicate that supplier dependence is a significant contributor to increasing supplier participation in buyer supported training and increasing supplier involvement in product development. Also, supplier training and supplier involvement are significant contributors to the supplier's operational performance.Research limitations/implications -The model tested in this study used a random sample of US manufacturing firms. Thus, future studies should include a random sample of non-manufacturing firms and firms outside of the USA. The study explored the buyer's perspective only; a study of suppliers may provide further insights to extend this study. Although the use of supplier training was relatively low, significant relationships were identified. Practical implications -Based on this research, key suppliers can better understand the relationships among supplier dependence, supplier training, supplier involvement in product development and their effects on supplier's operational performance. Originality/value -Although supplier development has emerged in previously published studies as a critical factor in improving performance, the role of supplier dependence on the buyer has not been empirically examined. Further, an integrated research model that investigates the relationships among supplier dependence, supplier training, supplier involvement in product development and supplier's operational performance has not been offered.

An investigation of the cross-border supplier development process: Problems and implications in an emerging economy

“…We identify several conceptual weaknesses in SDP literature, indeed most variables have received limited attention and as suggested by Carr et al (2008) remain inconsistently defined. Of particular value would be further exploration of variables that are of significant relevance in asymmetric relationships, such as in developedemerging country dyads.…”

“…Even more limited studies consider perspectives from both sides of the buyer-supplier dyad (Lu, Lee, & Cheng, 2012;Praxmarer-Carus, Sucky, & Durst, 2013). However, many 7 of the constructs in this limited body of literature have not been consistently defined (Carr et al, 2008).…”

“…SDPs have been studied in the USA (Carr et al, 2008;Krause, Handfield, & Tyler, 2007;Modi & Malbert, 2007;Prahinski & Benton, 2004;Wagner & Krause, 2009), Hong Kong (Li et al, 2007), Japan (Sako, 2004) and Germany (Ghijsen, Semeijn, & Ernstson, 2010;Wagner, 2011); and in developing economies such as Mexico (Arroyo-Lopez, Holmen, & Boer, 2012), Brazil (Lakshman & Parente, 2008) and India (Govindan, Kannan, & Haq, 2010). The context of this study is the automotive industry, which marks the most common industry context for SDP research.…”

“…A further prominent aspect of SDP research are relational variables. Mirroring other bodies of literature such as relationship marketing (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), variables such as commitment/trust (Ghijsen, Semeijn, & Ernstson, 2010;Govindan, Kannan, & Haq, 2010;Krause, Handfield, & Tyler, 2007;Li et al, 2007;Nagati & Rebolledo, 2013;Prahinski & Benton, 2004), programme specific investments (Ghijsen, Semeijn, & Ernstson, 2010;Govindan, Kannan, & Haq, 2010;Li et al, 2007;Mahapatra, Das, & Narasimhan, 2012;Wagner, 2006), dependence (Carr et al, 2008;Ghijsen, Semeijn, & Ernstson, 2010), relationship orientation (Arroyo-Lopez, Holmen, & Boer, 2012;Mahapatra, Das, & Narasimhan, 2012) and fair distribution of costs and benefits (Praxmarer-Carus, Sucky, & Durst, 2013) have been used to examine SDPs relative to certain performance outcomes. Further variables not commonly associated with relationship marketing have also been used such as relational capital (Krause, Handfield, & Tyler, 2007) and value co-production (Lakshman & Parente, 2008) which may encompass buyer-supplier involvement and supplier training initiated by buyers (Carr et al, 2008) and staff transfers (Wagner, 2006;Wagner & Krause, 2009).…”

“…The findings again reveal that the construct of relational capital (Krause, Handfield, & Tyler, 2007) gains strength as relationships in programmes build, and seems absent in Stage 1. Value co-production (Lakshman & Parente, 2008) Seems to begin in earnest in Stage 2 with supplier initiated development initiatives (Carr et al, 2008) apparent from Stage 2 and staff transfers (Wagner, 2006;Wagner & Krause, 2009) evident in Stage 3. Buyer initiated buyer-supplier-supplier relationships (Ho, 2013;Wu & Choi, 2005;Wu, Choi, & Rungtusanatham, 2010) are evident only in Stage 3 of the process.…”