The Influence Mechanism of Strategic Partnership on Enterprise Performance: Exploring the Chain Mediating Role of Information Sharing and Supply Chain Flexibility
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Research Hypothesis
2.1. Theoretical Foundation
2.2. Literature Review
2.3. Research Hypothesis
2.3.1. Strategic Partnership and Enterprise Performance
2.3.2. Role of Information Sharing between Strategic Partnership and Enterprise Performance
2.3.3. Role of Supply Chain Flexibility in Strategic Partnership and Enterprise Performance
2.3.4. Information Sharing and Supply Chain Flexibility
3. Research Method
3.1. Questionnaire Design
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Sample Screening
4. Data Analysis
4.1. Homogeneity of Variance Test
4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4.3. Reliability and Validity Tests
5. Hypothesis Testing
5.1. Direct Effect Testing
5.2. Indirect Effect Testing
6. Conclusions and Discussion
6.1. Research Finding
6.2. Managerial Implication
6.3. Research Significance
6.4. Research Prospect
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Questionnaire
Appendix A.1. Part 1: Basic Information of Your Company
- The full name of your company is:
- Your position in the company is ( )A. General Manager or Vice President B. Director level C. Manager level D. Supervisor level E. Other (please specify ____________)
- 3.
- until 2020 years, your company has established (for joint venture is the time of doing business in China is ( )A. Within 3 years B. 3 To 5 years C. 5 to 10 years D. More than 10 years
- 4.
- The nature of your company’s business is ( )A. State-owned B. Private-owned C. Shareholding D. Foreign invested E. Other (please specify ____________)
- 5.
- The type of industry your company belongs to is ( )A. Manufacturing (machinery, automobiles, instruments, etc.)B. Services (logistics, finance, restaurants, tourism, consulting, advertising, etc.)C. Emerging industries (biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, new energy, optoelectronics, etc.)D. Social welfareE. Other (please specify ____________)
- 6.
- The current number of employees in your company is ( )A. 100 people or less B. 100–499 people C. 500−999 people D. 1000−4999 people E. 5000 people or more
- 7.
- The total value of your company’s fixed assets is ( ) (RMB)A. 1−4.99 million B. 5−9.99 million C. 10−49.99 millionD. 50−100 million E. more than 100 million
- 8.
- Your company’s turnover is ( ) (RMB)A. 1−4.99 million B. 5−9.99 million C. 10−49.99 millionD. 50−100 million E. more than 100 million
- 9.
- The management culture of your company is ( )A. Mainland China B. Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan C. Europe and America D. Japan E. Others (please specify ________)
Appendix A.2. Part 2: Supply Chain Management Practices of Your Company
Strategic Partnership | Strongly Disagree →Strongly Agree | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
We consider quality as our number one criterion in selecting partners. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
We regularly solve problems jointly with our partners. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
We have helped our partners to improve their product/service quality. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
We actively involve our partners in new product/service development processes. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
We include our partners’ long-term development in our goal-setting activities. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
We regularly evaluate our partners’ satisfaction. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Information Sharing | Strongly Disagree →Strongly Agree | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
We do not inform trading partners in advance of changing needs (reverse coded item). | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
We share proprietary information with trading partners. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Our trading partners are informed about issues that affect business. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
We share business knowledge of core business with our trading partners. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
We exchange information with our trading partners for business planning. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
We keep our trading partners informed about changes that may affect their other partners. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Supply Chain Flexibility | Strongly Disagree →Strongly Agree | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reduction of manufacturing lead-time | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Reduction of product/service development cycle time | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Increase of frequency of new product/service introductions | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Increase of level of customization of product/service | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Rapid adjustment of product/service delivery capacity/capability | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Improvement of the level of customer service | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Improvement of delivery reliability | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Improvement of responsiveness to changing market needs | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
Enterprise Performance | Strongly Disagree →Strongly Agree | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The company’s return on investment has increased in the recent three years. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
The company’s profits from sales have increased in recent three years. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
The company’s product/service delivery cycle time has decreased in recent three years. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
The company’s response to market demand change has improved in recent three years. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
The company’s rapid confirmation of customer orders has improved in recent three years. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
The company’s customer satisfaction has increased in recent three years. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
References
- Kumar, P.; Zaheer, A. Ego-network stability and innovation in alliances. Acad. Manag. J. 2019, 62, 691–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, C.; Petkova, B.; Molleman, E.; van der Vaart, T. Technology uncertainty in supply chains and supplier involvement: The role of resource dependence. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 24, 697–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghouri, A.M.; Akhtar, P.; Shahbaz, M.; Shabbir, H. Affective organizational commitment in global strategic partnerships: The role of individual-level microfoundations and social change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 146, 320–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, C.; Sarkis, J.; Yin, F.; Dou, Y. Sustainable supply chain flexibility and its relationship to circular economy-target performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 5893–5910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chardine-Baumann, E.; Botta-Genoulaz, V. A framework for sustainable performance assessment of supply chain management practices. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2014, 76, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saci, F.; Jasimuddin, S.M. Does strategic partnership matter to create value of a firm? An empirical study based on SBF 250 French firms. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2018, 46, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haaskjold, H.; Andersen, B.; Lædre, O.; Aarseth, W. Factors affecting transaction costs and collaboration in projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2020, 13, 197–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perdana, Y.R.; Ciptono, W.S.; Setiawan, K. Broad span of supply chain integration: Theory development. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2019, 47, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalaitzi, D.; Matopoulos, A.; Bourlakis, M.; Tate, W. Supply chains under resource pressure: Strategies for improving resource efficiency and competitive advantage. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2019, 39, 1323–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dekkers, R.; de Boer, R.; Gelsomino, L.M.; de Goeij, C.; Steeman, M.; Zhou, Q.; Sinclair, S.; Souter, V. Evaluating theoretical conceptualisations for supply chain and finance integration: A Scottish focus group. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 220, 107451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketokivi, M.; Mahoney, J.T. Transaction cost economics as a theory of supply chain efficiency. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2020, 29, 1011–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Fang, Y. The more we get together, the more we can save? A transaction cost perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2022, 62, 102434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeung, K.; Lee, P.K.C.; Yeung, A.C.L.; Cheng, T.C.E. Supplier partnership and cost performance: The moderating roles of specific investments and environmental uncertainty. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 144, 546–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, Z.; Wang, Q.; Lai, F.; Collins, B.J. Managing interdependence: Using Guanxi to cope with supply chain dependency. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 103, 620–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radziwon, A.; Bogers, M. Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 146, 573–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhee, L.; Leonardi, P.M. Which pathway to good ideas? An attention-based view of innovation in social networks. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 1188–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leenders, R.T.A.J.; Dolfsma, W.A. Social networks for innovation and new product development. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2016, 33, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Valbuena-Hernandez, J.P.; Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N. Encouraging corporate sustainability through effective strategic partnerships. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bag, S.; Rahman, M.S. The role of capabilities in shaping sustainable supply chain flexibility and enhancing circular economy-target performance: An empirical study. Supply Chain Manag. 2021; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar]
- Jagtap, M.; Kamble, S. An empirical assessment of relational contracting model for supply chain of construction projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2020, 13, 1537–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obayi, R.; Ebrahimi, S.N. A neo-institutional view of the transaction cost drivers of construction supply chain risk management. Supply Chain Manag. 2021, 26, 592–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, Z.; Ulziisukh, S.; Bao, Y.; Zuo, P.; Wang, Y. Outsourcers’ control mechanisms, vendors’ contract schemas, and project performance in cross-border IT outsourcing: A vendor’s perspective. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 92, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y. The micro-foundations of global business incubation: Stakeholder engagement and strategic entrepreneurial partnerships. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 161, 120294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burin, A.R.G.; Perez-Arostegui, M.N.; Llorens-Montes, J. Ambidexterity and IT competence can improve supply chain flexibility: A resource orchestration approach. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2020, 26, 100610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montoya-Torres, J.R.; Ortiz-Vargas, D.A. Collaboration and information sharing in dyadic supply chains: A literature review over the period 2000–2012. Estud. Gerenc. 2014, 30, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eksoz, C.; Mansouri, S.A.; Bourlakis, M.; Önkal, D. Judgmental adjustments through supply integration for strategic partnerships in food chains. Omega 2019, 87, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, N.; Yoo, J.; Kwon, I.G. Fostering Trust and Commitment in Complex Project Networks through Dedicated Investment in Partnership Management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, J.; Zhao, J.; Hou, X. Bilateral information sharing in two supply chains with complementary products. Appl. Math. Model. 2019, 72, 28–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.H.; Wang, Y.; Naim, M. Reconceptualization of information technology flexibility for supply chain management: An empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 187, 196–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Zhang, M. Linking product modularity to supply chain integration and flexibility. Prod. Plan. Control. 2020, 31, 1149–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Huo, B.; Gu, M. The impact of information sharing on supply chain adaptability and operational performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar]
- Bicen, P.; Hunt, S.D.; Madhavaram, S. Coopetitive innovation alliance performance: Alliance competence, alliance’s market orientation, and relational governance. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsaad, A.; Mohamad, R.; Ismail, N.A. The contingent role of dependency in predicting the intention to adopt B2B e-commerce. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2019, 25, 686–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.M.; Choi, D. Supply Chain Governance Mechanisms, Green Supply Chain Management, and Organizational Performance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, M.J.; Jie, F. The moderating effect of Guanxi on supply chain competencies of logistics firms in China. Int. J. Logist. 2021, 24, 407–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacDonald, A.; Clarke, A.; Huang, L.; Seitanidi, M.M. Partner Strategic Capabilities for Capturing Value from Sustainability-Focused Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships. Sustainability 2019, 11, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Q.; Oshri, I.; Zhao, X. Value cocreation in new service development: A process-based view of resource dependency. Eur. J. Mark. 2022, 56, 184–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashman, D. Civil society collaboration with business bringing empowerment back in. World Dev. 2001, 29, 1097–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Ragu-Nathan, B.; Ragu-Nathan, T.S.; Rao, S.S. The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega 2006, 34, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontana, E. Corporate social responsibility as stakeholder engagement: Firm-NGO collaboration in Sweden. Corporate Social Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukati, I.; Hamid, A.B.; Baharun, R.; Yusoff, R.M. The Study of Supply Chain Management Strategy and Practices on Supply Chain Performance. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 40, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agus, A. The significant effect of information sharing and strategic supplier partnership on supplier performance. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Sci. 2011, 4, 75–92. [Google Scholar]
- Caiazza, R.; Stanton, J. The effect of strategic partnership on innovation: An empirical analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 54, 208–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fynes, B.; Voss, C.; de Búrca, S. The impact of supply chain relationship quality on quality performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2005, 96, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmann, T.; Stöckmann, C.; Niemand, T.; Hensellek, S.; de Cruppe, K. A configurational approach to entrepreneurial orientation and cooperation explaining product/service innovation in digital vs. non-digital startups. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 125, 508–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, S.; Luo, M. Competition or cooperation? Ports’ strategies and welfare analysis facing shipping alliances. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 153, 102429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanichchinchai, A. The linkages among supplier relationship, customer relationship and supply performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2021, 36, 1520–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, M.; Liao, C.; Liu, S. Applying internet-based information systems to facilitate business alliance activities. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2007, 107, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, M.; Zhang, Q. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beuren, I.M.; Santos, V.; dos Bernd, D.C.; Pazetto, C.F. Reflections of Information Sharing and Collaborative Innovation in the Social Responsibility of Cooperatives. Rev. Bras. De Gestão De Negócios 2020, 22, 310–330. [Google Scholar]
- Reklitis, P.; Sakas, D.P.; Trivellas, P.; Tsoulfas, G.T. Performance Implications of Aligning Supply Chain Practices with Competitive Advantage: Empirical Evidence from the Agri-Food Sector. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delic, M.; Eyers, D.R. The effect of additive manufacturing adoption on supply chain flexibility and performance: An empirical analysis from the automotive industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 228, 107689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, A. Partnering through cooperative goals in supply chain relationships. Total Qual. Manag. 1999, 10, 786–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benton, W.; Maloni, M. The Influence of Power Driven Buyer-Seller Relationships on Supply Chain Satisfaction. J. Oper. Manag. 2005, 23, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Youn, S.; Yang, M.G.; Hong, P.; Park, K. Strategic supply chain partnership, environmental supply chain management practices, and performance outcomes: An empirical study of Korean firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 56, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prajogo, D.; Olhager, J. Supply chain integration and performance: The effects of long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 135, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogunranti, G.A.; Ceryan, O.; Banerjee, A. Buyer-supplier currency exchange rate flexibility contracts in global supply chains. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021, 288, 420–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, M.; Bonn, M.A.; Giunipero, L.; Jaggi, J.S. Supplier selection and partnerships: Effects upon restaurant operational and strategic benefits and performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argyres, N.; Bercovitz, J.; Zanarone, G. The role of relationship scope in sustaining relational contracts in interfirm networks. Strateg. Manag. J. 2020, 41, 222–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramanathan, U.; Gunasekaran, A. Supply chain collaboration: Impact of success in long-term partnerships. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 147, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, I.; Chuang, C.; Hsu, C. Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in enabling supply chain performance: A social exchange perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 148, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pham, H.C.; Nguyen, T.-T.; Mcdonald, S.; Tran-Kieu, N.Q. Information Sharing in Logistics Firms: An Exploratory Study of the Vietnamese Logistics Sector. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2019, 35, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.L.; Whang, S. Information sharing in a supply chain. Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2000, 1, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-López, R.J.; Olguín Tiznado, J.E.; Mojarro Magaña, M.; Camargo Wilson, C.; López Barreras, J.A.; García-Alcaraz, J.L. Information Sharing with ICT in Production Systems and Operational Performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Y.; Ali, Z. Exploring big data use to predict supply chain effectiveness in Chinese organizations: A moderated mediated model link. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2021, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, F.; Wang, Z. Effects of information technology alignment and information sharing on supply chain operational performance. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2013, 65, 370–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.Y.H.; Saunders, C.; Panteli, N.; Wang, T. Managing information sharing: Interorganizational communication in collaborations with competitors. Inf. Organ. 2021, 31, 100354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, Z.; Musa, R. The Effect of Trust and Information Sharing on Relationship Commitment in Supply Chain Management. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 130, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Matsui, K. Buyer’s strategic demand information sharing with an upstream echelon for entry promotion. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 242, 108286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Can Saglam, Y.; Sezen, B.; Çankaya, S.Y. The inhibitors of risk information sharing in the supply chain: A multiple case study in Turkey. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2019, 28, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Li, H.; Lu, Y. Factors affecting transaction costs in megaprojects: A qualitative comparative analysis. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2021, 14, 1245–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashid, Z.; Noor, U.; Altmann, J. Economic model for evaluating the value creation through information sharing within the cybersecurity information sharing ecosystem. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2021, 124, 436–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koçoğlu, İ.; İmamoğlu, S.Z.; İnce, H.; Keskin, H. The effect of supply chain integration on information sharing:Enhancing the supply chain performance. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 24, 1630–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, X.; Fang, W.; Pi, Z. Interaction among Information Sharing, Supply Chain Structure and Performance. J. Coast. Res. 2019, 93, 870–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demirbag, M.; Apaydin, M.; Sahadev, S. Micro-foundational dimensions of firm internationalisation as determinants of knowledge management strategy: A case for global strategic partnerships. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 165, 120538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, S.; Wang, J.; Xiao, Y.; Tong, D.Y.K. Two-path model of information sharing in new product development activities. Inf. Dev. 2020, 36, 312–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Batista, L.; Rong, K. Green operations: What’s the role of supply chain flexibility? Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 214, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojo-Gallego-Burin, A.; Llorens-Montes, F.J.; Perez-Arostegui, M.N.; Stevenson, M. Ambidextrous supply chain strategy and supply chain flexibility: The contingent effect of ISO 9001. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020, 120, 1691–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandra, C.; Grabis, J. Role of flexibility in supply chain design and modeling—Introduction to the special issue. Omega 2009, 37, 743–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, A.T.L.; Ngai, E.W.T.; Moon, K.K.L. The effects of strategic and manufacturing flexibilities and supply chain agility on firm performance in the fashion industry. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 259, 486–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramos, E.; Patrucco, A.S.; Chavez, M. Dynamic capabilities in the “new normal”: A study of organizational flexibility, integration and agility in the Peruvian coffee supply chain. Supply Chain Manag. 2021; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar]
- Shekarian, M.; Nooraie, S.V.R.; Parast, M.M. An examination of the impact of flexibility and agility on mitigating supply chain disruptions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 220, 107438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Q.; Wang, S. Study on the Relations of Supply Chain Digitization, Flexibility and Sustainable Development—A Moderated Multiple Mediation Model. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, R.; Mishra, O.N. Prioritising dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation for supply chain flexibility development in an uncertain environment. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 483–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Luo, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, W. Supply chain coordination through capacity reservation contract and quantity flexibility contract. Omega 2021, 99, 102195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siagian, H.; Zeplin, J.H.T.; Jie, F. Supply Chain Integration Enables Resilience, Flexibility, and Innovation to Improve Business Performance in COVID-19 Era. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maqueira, J.M.; Novais, L.R.; Bruque, S. Total eclipse on business performance and mass personalization: How supply chain flexibility eclipses lean production direct effect. Supply Chain Manag. 2021, 26, 256–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sreedevi, R.; Saranga, H. Uncertainty and supply chain risk: The moderating role of supply chain flexibility in risk mitigation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 193, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merschmann, U.; Thonemann, U.W. Supply chain flexibility, uncertainty and firm performance: An empirical analysis of German manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 130, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, Y.; Vonderembse, M.; Ragu-Nathan, T.S.; Smith, J.T. Exploring relationships among IT-enabled sharing capability, supply chain flexibility, and competitive performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 153, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, M.; Banerjee, M. Non-coercive influence: Scale development and validation based on resource and relational paradigms. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2019, 25, 100498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Zhang, H.T. Information sharing in a supply chain with a make-to -stock manufacturer. Omega 2015, 50, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadovnikova, A.; Pujari, A.; Mikhailitchenko, A. Radical innovation in strategic partnerships: A framework for analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1829–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huo, B.; Haq, M.Z.U.; Gu, M. The impact of information sharing on supply chain learning and flexibility performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 59, 1411–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiaoping, C.; Shuying, X.; Jingli, F. Empirical Methods in Organization and Management Research; Peking University Press: Beijing, China, 2008; pp. 190–195. [Google Scholar]
- Brislin, R.W. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. Handb. Cross-Cult. Psychol. Methodol. 1980, 2, 389–444. [Google Scholar]
- Chuu, S. Interactive group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a supply chain. Eur. J. Philos. Sci. 2011, 213, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Ke, W.; Wei, K.K.; Hua, Z. The impact of IT capabilities on firm performance: The mediating roles of absorptive capacity and supply chain agility. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 54, 1452–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minglong, W. Structural Equation Model: The Operation and Application of AMOS; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing, China, 2009; pp. 212–254. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, G.; Huang, L.; Apostolidis, C.; Huang, Z.; Cai, W.; Li, G. Assessing Consumer Preference for Overpackaging Solutions in E-Commerce. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, B. Crowd-Sourcing a Way to Sustainable Urban Logistics: What Factors Influence Enterprises’ Willingness to Implement Crowd Logistics? IEEE Access 2020, 8, 225064–225075. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, X.; Dou, J.; Shang, Y. Blockchain-driven supply chain decentralized operations—Information sharing perspective. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2021, 27, 184–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swafford, P.M.; Ghosh, S.; Murthy, N. Achieving supply chain agility through IT integration and flexibility. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 116, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatzikontidou, A.; Longinidis, P.; Tsiakis, P.; Georgiadis, M.C. Flexible supply chain network design under uncertainty. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2017, 128, 290–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ordonez Ponce, E.; Clarke, A. Sustainability cross-sector partnerships: The strategic role of organizational structures. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2122–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lei, H.; Wang, J.; Shao, L.; Yang, H. Ex post demand information sharing between differentiated suppliers and a common retailer. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 703–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z.; Zhu, X. The effects of information transparency on suppliers, manufacturers, and consumers in online markets. Mark. Sci. 2010, 29, 1125–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, H.; Liu, X.; Huang, H.; Zhou, Y.; Wei, Y. Innovation information sharing between two competitive supply chains. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2022, 29, 471–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Chen, W. Incentive contracts of knowledge investment for cooperative innovation in project-based supply chain with double moral hazard. Soft Comput. 2019, 24, 2693–2702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, S.; Gupta, S.; Singh, S.K.; Perano, M. Organizational ambidexterity through global strategic partnerships: A cognitive computing perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 145, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, T.; Tang, J. Applying fuzzy LinPreRa cognitive map to evaluate strategic alliance partnerships for outlying island duty-free shop. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 31, 730–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Reference | Theories | Research Question | Research Finding |
---|---|---|---|
Xiao et al., 2019 [2] |
Resource Dependency Theory
Relationship Theory | How buyer dependence, supplier dependence, and buyer–supplier interdependence influence buyer decisions to enter upstream supply networks to cope with technological uncertainty | There is a significantly positive relationship between technology uncertainty and supplier involvement, which is positively moderated by buyer dependence and interdependence, and negatively moderated by supplier dependence. |
Alsaad et al., 2019 [33] | Resource Dependency Theory | How resource dependencies among partners drive different models of innovation acceptance among potential adopters | Resource dependence can be either a facilitator or an inhibitor. Predicting the diffusion of innovations in the market requires good understanding of the interdependence structure among supply chain members. |
Haaskjold et al., 2020 [7] | Transaction Cost Theory | The major factors affecting transaction costs and how they affect project collaboration | Improving the partnership between contractor and client may reduce the transaction costs of a project. |
Lee and Choi, 2021 [34] | Transaction Cost Theory | The causal relationship between partnership governance mechanisms and the success of green supply chain management | The governance mechanism between suppliers and manufacturers is positively related to GSCM performance. |
Chu et al., 2019 [14] |
Resource Dependency Theory
Social Network Theory | The effectiveness of relationships as a strategy | Improved relationship management with a company’s third-party logistics service providers leads to an increased cooperation among partners, the effectiveness of which is determined by the level of risk in the logistics outsourcing transaction. |
Ding and Jie, 2021 [35] | Social Capital Theory | The causal linkages between information sharing, trust and commitment and relationship-specific investment, and logistics and supply chain competencies of logistics service providers | Relationship management factors (i.e., information sharing and trust and commitment) are significantly related to logistics and supply chain competencies while relationship-specific investment has no significant relationship with logistics and supply chain competencies. |
MacDonald et al., 2019 [36] | Resource Base View | How to use partnerships to achieve global sustainable development | Different partner strategies result in different types of resources gained. |
Liu, 2020 [23] | Stakeholder Theory | How stakeholders influence the development of technology business incubation platforms and entrepreneurial activities in the context of strategic entrepreneurial partnerships | From a temporal perspective, different types of stakeholders play different roles during the developmental trajectory involved in the launch and development of entrepreneurial ventures. |
Wei et al., 2021 [22] | Psychological contract theory | The impact of contract-based and trust-based control mechanisms on relationship conflict from the supplier’s perspective | The supplier’s transactional contract model reduces the impact of trust-based control on relationship conflict, while the supplier’s relational contract model enhances the impact of outsourcer’s contract-based control on relationship conflict. |
Wang et al., 2022 [37] | Value Co-creation Theory Resource Dependence Theory | The impact of value co-creation among service companies, business partners, and customers on organizational performance | Customer value co-creation has a positive effect on ideation performance and development performance, while business partner value co-creation has a positive effect on deployment performance. |
Reference | Research Methodology | Sample | Research Finding |
---|---|---|---|
Fynes et al., 2005 [44] | Structural equation modeling | 200 Irish suppliers to the electronics industry | Supply chain relationships (including the four dimensions of trust, commitment, adaptation, and communication and collaboration) have a positive effect on design quality and no significant effect on conformance quality. |
Yang et al., 2007 [48] | Case study | Alliance of 6 Chinese companies from Taiwan | SME business performance is highly dependent on strategic alliance partnerships, and companies should decide whether to adopt an internet-based information system (IBIS) based on the level of support from alliance partners and their technical capabilities possessed. |
Cao and Zhang, 2011 [49] | Structural equation modeling | 211 U.S. manufacturing companies | Supply chain collaboration improves firm performance, with collaborative advantage completely mediating the relationship between supply chain collaboration and firm performance for small firms while partially mediating the relationship for medium and large firms. |
Saci and Jasimuddin, 2018 [6] | Panel data analysis | 48 strategic partnership groups built by 250 French companies | In the short term, strategic partnership has a negative impact on performance, while in long run, there is no positive impact of strategic partnerships on financial performance (neutral effect). |
Chu et al., 2019 [14] | Regression analysis | 149 Chinese third-party logistics companies | The relationship has a significant positive effect on operational performance and is positively moderated by environmental uncertainty and negatively moderated by asset specificity. |
Shin et al., 2020 [27] | Structural equation modeling | 472 Korean companies | Conceptualization of partnership trust on four dimensions, and investigation into the roles of dedicated investment and information sharing in partnership trust commitment. |
Beuren et al., 2020 [50] | Structural equation modeling | Strategic Alliance of Agricultural Cooperatives in Brazil (91 questionnaires) | Information sharing among partners facilitates the exploration of new knowledge/technology. |
Zheng and Luo, 2021 [46] | Game theory | Chinese shipping companies | The formation of alliances is the dominant strategy for shipping companies, and the choice of cooperation strategy depends on the substitutability of transport routes and the economies of scale of shipping companies. |
Kollmann et al., 2021 [45] | Fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) | 690 digital and nondigital startups in Germany | Building partnerships with different companies at different stages of development have different impacts on product/service innovation; therefore, firms should strategically choose the type of partners. |
Reklitis et al., 2021 [51] | FCM (fuzzy cognitive mapping) model | Greek agrifood supply chain sector (300 questionnaires) | Good strategic suppliers’ partnerships and partners’ information quality and sharing contribute to the competitive advantage (quality, process flexibility, and time to market) of the company. quality, process flexibility, and time to market) and positively impact business performance (profitability and market share). |
Vanichchinchai, 2021 [47] | Structural equation modeling | 516 Thai manufacturing companies | Customer relationship has significant positive direct effects on supply chain performance. Supplier relationship has direct effect on customer relationship but has no significant positive effects on supply chain performance. |
Valbuena-Hernandez and Ortiz-De-Mandojana, 2022 [18] | Panel data analysis | Listed companies in Spain from 2016 to 2019 | Good partnership facilitates sustainability improvements, which is negatively moderated by duration and diversity. |
Item | Factor Loading | p | Item | Factor Loading | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SP1 | 0.550 | *** | IS1 | 0.789 | *** |
SP2 | 0.781 | *** | IS2 | 0.852 | *** |
SP3 | 0.789 | *** | IS3 | 0.796 | *** |
SP4 | 0.763 | *** | IS4 | 0.765 | *** |
SP5 | 0.683 | *** | IS5 | 0.844 | *** |
SP6 | 0.661 | *** | IS6 | 0.588 | *** |
Item | Factor Loading | p | Item | Factor Loading | p |
SCF1 | 0.840 | *** | EP1 | 0.819 | *** |
SCF2 | 0.782 | *** | EP2 | 0.763 | *** |
SCF3 | 0.794 | *** | EP3 | 0.834 | *** |
SCF4 | 0.866 | *** | EP4 | 0.741 | *** |
SCF5 | 0.830 | *** | EP5 | 0.692 | *** |
SCF6 | 0.793 | *** | EP6 | 0.808 | *** |
SCF7 | 0.775 | *** | |||
SCF8 | 0.801 | *** |
Variable | Mean | S.D. | α | CR | AVE | SP | IS | SCF | EP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SP | 5.435 | 1.041 | 0.852 | 0.858 | 0.503 | 0.710 | |||
IS | 5.191 | 1.059 | 0.894 | 0.900 | 0.604 | 0.527 ** | 0.777 | ||
SCF | 5.228 | 0.952 | 0.938 | 0.939 | 0.657 | 0.567 ** | 0.482 ** | 0.811 | |
EP | 5.170 | 0.818 | 0.898 | 0.902 | 0.605 | 0.581 ** | 0.556 ** | 0.568 ** | 0.778 |
Influence Path | Direct Effect | 95% Confidence Interval | Indirect Effect | 95% Confidence Interval | Total Effect |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SP→EP | 0.334 *** | [0.092, 0.570] | 0.322 *** | [0.166, 0.482] | 0.656 |
SP→IS | 0.579 *** | [0.430, 0.724] | - | - | 0.579 |
IS→EP | 0.262 *** | [0.067, 0.447] | 0.062 *** | [0.010, 0.143] | 0.324 |
SP→SCF | 0.496 *** | [0.315, 0.650] | 0.133 *** | [0.042, 0.235] | 0.630 |
SCF→EP | 0.270 *** | [0.101, 0.467] | - | - | 0.270 |
IS→SCF | 0.230 ** | [0.067, 0.391] | - | - | 0.230 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yang, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Xie, G.; Tian, Y. The Influence Mechanism of Strategic Partnership on Enterprise Performance: Exploring the Chain Mediating Role of Information Sharing and Supply Chain Flexibility. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4800. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084800
Yang Y, Zheng Y, Xie G, Tian Y. The Influence Mechanism of Strategic Partnership on Enterprise Performance: Exploring the Chain Mediating Role of Information Sharing and Supply Chain Flexibility. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8):4800. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084800
Chicago/Turabian StyleYang, Yanling, Yanling Zheng, Guojie Xie, and Yu Tian. 2022. "The Influence Mechanism of Strategic Partnership on Enterprise Performance: Exploring the Chain Mediating Role of Information Sharing and Supply Chain Flexibility" Sustainability 14, no. 8: 4800. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084800
APA StyleYang, Y., Zheng, Y., Xie, G., & Tian, Y. (2022). The Influence Mechanism of Strategic Partnership on Enterprise Performance: Exploring the Chain Mediating Role of Information Sharing and Supply Chain Flexibility. Sustainability, 14(8), 4800. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084800