Building Sustainable Global Marketing Channels: Exploring the Role of Inter-Organizational Trust and Performance Metrics in the Age of Industry 4.0
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Industry 4.0 and Sustainability in Global Marketing Channels
2.2. Marketing Channel Operational Performance
2.3. Market Performance (MP)
2.4. Inter-Organizational Trust
2.5. Financial Performance (FP)
2.6. Structural Model
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and Respondent Characteristics
3.2. Measurement and Questionnaire Development
3.3. Method of Statistical Analysis
4. Data Analysis
4.1. Background Data
4.2. Preparation and Checking of Data
4.3. Evaluation of the Reliability and Validity of the Measurement Model
4.4. Assessment of the Structural Model
4.5. Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA)
4.6. Interpretation of the Results
5. Discussion
6. Implications
6.1. Theoretical Implications
6.2. Managerial Implications
7. Limitations and Future Research
8. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Setting | PLS–SEM Results | NCA Results | Conclusion |
1. Exogenous construct is a… | significant determinant | and a necessary condition | On average, an increase in the exogenous construct will increase the outcome. However, a certain level of the exogenous construct is necessary for the outcome to manifest. |
2. Exogenous construct is a… | significant determinant | but no necessary condition | On average, an increase in the exogenous construct will increase the outcome; no minimum level of the construct is needed to ensure that the outcome will manifest. |
3. Exogenous construct is a… | nonsignificant determinant | but a necessary condition | A certain level of the exogenous construct is necessary for the outcome to manifest. However, a further increase is not recommended, as it will not increase the outcome any further. |
4. Exogenous construct is a… | nonsignificant determinant | and not a necessary condition | Exogenous construct is neither a mus-have nor a should-have factor for the manifest outcome. |
Appendix B
References
- Choi, T.; Kumar, S.; Yue, X.; Chan, H. Disruptive technologies and operations management in the Industry 4.0 era and beyond. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2022, 31, 9–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beltrami, M.; Orzes, G.; Sarkis, J.; Sartor, M. Industry 4.0 and Sustainability: Towards Conceptualization and Theory; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution; Crown Business: NewYork, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Alcácer, V.; Cruz-Machado, V. Scanning the Industry 4.0: A literature review on technologies for manufacturing systems. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2019, 22, 899–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Olvera, C.; Mora-Vargas, J. A comprehensive framework for the analysis of Industry 4.0 value domains. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arromba, I.F.; Martin, P.S.; Cooper Ordoñez, R.; Anholon, R.; Rampasso, I.S.; Santa-Eulalia, L.A.; Martins, V.W.; Quelhas, O.L. Industry 4.0 in the product development process: Benefits, difficulties and its impact in marketing strategies and operations. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2021, 36, 522–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajayi, O.; Bagula, A.; Maluleke, H. The Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Technological Wave of Change. In Industry 4.0-Perspectives and Applications; Gordan, M., Ghaedi, K., Maluleke, H., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, H.; Kumar, A.; Wasan, P. Industry 4.0, cleaner production and circular economy: An integrative framework for evaluating ethical and sustainable business performance of manufacturing organizations. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delligatti, J. The Benefits and Challenges of Digital Supply Chain Integration; SDI, The Digital Supply Chain: Bristol, PA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Saarikko, T.; Westergren, U.H.; Blomquist, T. The Internet of Things: Are you ready for what’s coming? Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahzad, K.; Hafeez, S. Communication, Leadership and Trust in Organizations, 1st ed.; Paliszkiewicz, J., Cusumano, J.L.G., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2023; Chapter 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahzad, K.; Hafeez, S. Digital trust in business ecosystem collaboration. In Trust, Digital Business and Technology; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cygler, J.; Wyka, S. Internal barriers to international R&D cooperation: The case of Polish high-tech firms. Forum Sci. Oeconomia 2019, 7, 25–45. [Google Scholar]
- Oláh, J.; Hidayat, Y.A.; Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z.; Hasan, M.; Popp, J. Inter-organizational trust on financial performance: Proposing innovation as a mediating variable to sustain in a disruptive era. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patil, K.; Garg, V.; Gabaldon, J.; Patil, H.; Niranjan, S.; Hawkins, T. Firm performance in digitally integrated supply chains: A combined perspective of transaction cost economics and relational exchange theory. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2024, 37, 381–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kittur, P.; Agarwal, S. Cultural bridges in business: Critical review and future directions in cross-cultural B2B relationships. J. Bus. Res. 2024, 180, 114721. [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]
- Nosalska, K.; Mazurek, G. Marketing principles for Industry 4.0—A conceptual framework. Eng. Manag. Prod. Serv. 2019, 11, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daviy, A.O.; Paklina, S.N.; Prokofyeva, A.S. Digital manufacturing: New challenges for marketing and business models. Russ. Manag. J. 2017, 15, 537–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazurek, G. Transformacja Cyfrowa-Perspektywa Marketingu; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bowen, F.E.; Rostami, M.; Steel, P. Timing is everything: A meta-analysis of the relationships between organizational performance and innovation. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 1179–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenbusch, N.; Brinckmann, J.; Bausch, A. Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. J. Bus. Ventur. 2011, 26, 441–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brozzi, R.; Forti, D.; Rauch, E.; Matt, D.T. The advantages of Industry 4.0 applications for sustainability: Results from a sample of manufacturing companies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghobakhloo, M. Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Dai, J.; Cui, L. The impact of digital technologies on economic and environmental performance in the context of industry 4.0: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 229, 107777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiwari, K.; Khan, M.S. Sustainability accounting and reporting in the industry 4.0. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Gawankar, S.A. Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 408–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mumtaz, U.; Ali, Y.; Petrillo, A. A linear regression approach to evaluate the green supply chain management impact on industrial organizational performance. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yong, J.Y.; Yusliza, M.; Ramayah, T.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Sehnem, S.; Mani, V. Pathways towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empirical evidence on the role of green human resource management. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 212–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umar, M.; Khan, S.A.R.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Ali, S.; Yu, Z. Industry 4.0 and green supply chain practices: An empirical study. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2022, 71, 814–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pero, M.; Lamberti, L. The supply chain management-marketing interface in product development. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2013, 19, 217–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amar, J.; Yeon, H. Customers’ Lives Are Digital—But is Your Customer Care Still Analog? McKinsey & Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ardito, L.; Petruzzelli, A.M.; Panniello, U.; Garavelli, A.C. Towards Industry 4.0. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2019, 25, 323–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bal, H.Ç.; Erkan, Ç. Industry 4.0 and Competitiveness. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 158, 625–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajamanickam, M.; Nirmala, E.; Royan, J.G.; Ramaswamy, G.; Rajendran, M.; Vadivelu, V. Fourth Industrial Revolution: Industry 4.0. In Integration of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering with IoT: A Digital Transformation; Rajasekar, R., Moganapriya, C., Kumar, P.S., Kumar, M.H., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 41–84. [Google Scholar]
- Ashraf, N.; Siddiqui, D.A. The effect of service customization on customer loyalty towards mobile network operator in Pakistan: The mediatory role of perceived quality, value, customer satisfaction, and trust. SSRN Electron. J. 2020, 39, 2140–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, F.; Merle, A.; Gotteland, D. Enhancing consumer value of the co-design experience in mass customization. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillani, F.; Chatha, K.A.; Jajja, M.S.S.; Farooq, S. Implementation of digital manufacturing technologies: Antecedents and consequences. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 229, 107748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rekettye, G.; Rekettye, G., Jr. The changing role of customer experience in the age of Industry 4.0. Mark. Menedzsment 2020, 54, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittal, A.; Sachan, S.; Kumar, V.; Vardhan, S.; Verma, P.; Kaswan, M.S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. Essential organizational variables for the implementation of Quality 4.0: Empirical evidence from the Indian furniture industry. TQM J. 2024, 36, 1550–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raj, R.; Kumar, V.; Sharma, N.K.; Verma, P. Industry 4.0 readiness: The impact of effective implementation of I4.0 on marketing performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2024, 39, 2140–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Zhao, D.; Gu, F.F. Distributors’ customer-driving capability under supplier encroachment. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2021, 94, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabrilo, S.; Dahms, S. How strategic knowledge management drives intellectual capital to superior innovation and market performance. J. Knowl. Manag. 2018, 22, 621–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gangwani, K.K.; Bhatia, M.S. The effect of market orientation and technology orientation on industry 4.0 technologies and market performance: Role of innovation capability. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2024, 118, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villena, V.H.; Choi, T.Y.; Revilla, E. Revisiting inter-organizational trust: Is more always better or could more be worse? J. Manag. 2019, 45, 752–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruneel, J.; Spithoven, A.; Clarysse, B. Interorganizational trust and technology complexity: Evidence for new technology-based firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2017, 55, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryan Jean, R.; Sinkovics, R.; Hiebaum, T.P. The effects of supplier involvement and knowledge protection on product innovation in customer-supplier relationships: A study of global automotive suppliers in China. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, E.; Rowlinson, S. Interpersonal trust and inter-firm trust in construction projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2009, 27, 539–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seppänen, R.; Blomqvist, K.; Sundqvist, S. Measuring inter-organizational trust—A critical review of the empirical research in 1990–2003. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2007, 36, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claro, D.P.; Hagelaar, G.; Omta, O. The determinants of relational governance and performance: How to manage business relationships? Ind. Mark. Manag. 2003, 32, 703–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Söderlund, M.; Julander, C.-R. The variable nature of services: An empirical examination of trust and its effects on customers’ satisfaction responses to poor and good service. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2003, 14, 291–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Q.; Cuypers, I.R.P.; Wang, H. A tale of two signals: Partner CSR versus CSI and alliance formation. Acad. Manag. J. 2025, 68, 138–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.; Jia, F.; Cai, S. The performance implications of perceptual differences of dependence in marketing channels. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2014, 26, 344–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lumineau, F.; Jin, J.L.; Sheng, S.; Zhou, K.Z. Asset specificity asymmetry and supplier opportunism in buyer–supplier exchanges. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 149, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyer, J.H.; Singh, H. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiala, R.; Prokop, M.; Živělová, I. The relationship between inter-organizational trust and performance. Acta Univ. Agric. Et Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2013, 60, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poppo, L.; Zhou, K.Z.; Li, J.J. When can you trust ‘trust’? Calculative trust, relational trust, and supplier performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 724–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, K.Z.; Zhang, Q.; Sheng, S.; Xie, E.; Bao, Y. Are relational ties always good for knowledge acquisition? Buyer–supplier exchanges in China. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safari, A.; Albaum, G. Transactional or relational exchange theory in B2C marketing: An agenda for a different type of relational exchange theory. J. Cust. Behav. 2019, 18, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulati, R.; Sytch, M. Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in inter-organizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Adm. Sci. Q. 2007, 52, 32–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rai, A.; Patnayakuni, R.; Seth, N. Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krause, D.R.; Handfield, R.B.; Tyler, B.B. The relationships between supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 528–545. [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]
- Williamson, O.E. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s: Champaign, IL, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Dyer, J.H.; Chu, W. The determinants of trust in supplier–automaker relationships in the US, Japan, and Korea. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2011, 42, 10–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gligor, D.M.; Esmark, C.L.; Holcomb, M.C. Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: When should you be agile? J. Oper. Manag. 2015, 33–34, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, C.W.Y.; Lai, K.; Cheng, T.C.E.; Lun, Y.H.V. The role of IT-enabled collaborative decision making in inter-organizational information integration to improve customer service performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 159, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, K.A.; Çera, G.; Netek, V. Perception of the selected business environment aspects by service firms. J. Tour. Serv. 2019, 10, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gök, O.; Peker, S. Understanding the links among innovation performance, market performance and financial performance. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2017, 11, 605–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwak, D.-W.; Seo, Y.-J.; Mason, R. Investigating the relationship between supply chain innovation, risk management capabilities and competitive advantage in global supply chains. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 2–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gligor, D.; Gligor, N.; Maloni, M. The impact of the supplier’s market orientation on the customer market orientation-performance relationship. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 216, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Na, Y.K.; Kang, S.; Jeong, H.Y. The effect of market orientation on performance of sharing economy business: Focusing on marketing innovation and sustainable competitive Advantage. Sustainability 2019, 11, 729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldakhil, A.M.; Aamir, A.; Nassani, A.A.; Askar, S.E. Exploring the nexus between the market orientation, market performance and financial performance of manufacturing firms in KSA: Does the supply chain strategy matter? Rev. Argent. Clínica Psicológica 2020, 29, 652–663. [Google Scholar]
- Laari, S.; Töyli, J.; Ojala, L. The effect of a competitive strategy and green supply chain management on the financial and environmental performance of logistics service providers. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 872–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esparza, O. The Benefits of Industry 4.0 for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Available online: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/benefits-industry-40-small-medium-sized-enterprises-oscar-esparza/ (accessed on 15 February 2025).
- BDO. Industry 4.0: Redefining How Mid-Market Manufacturers Derive and Deliver Value. Available online: https://www.bdo.com/insights/industries/industry-4-0/industry-4-0-redefining-how-midmarket-manufacturers-derive-and-deliver-value# (accessed on 29 May 2024).
- Soper, D. Post-hoc Statistical Power Calculator for Multiple Regression. Available online: http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc (accessed on 15 February 2025).
- Bahrami, M.; Shokouhyar, S. The role of big data analytics capabilities in bolstering supply chain resilience and firm performance: A dynamic capability view. Inf. Technol. People 2022, 35, 1621–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Singh, P.V.; Srinivasan, K. A structured analysis of unstructured big data by leveraging cloud computing. Mark. Sci. 2016, 35, 363–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, S.J.-F.; Wamba, S.F.; Akter, S.; Dubey, R. Modelling quality dynamics, S.J.C., business value and firm performance in a big data analytics environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 5011–5026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaheer, A.; McEvily, B.; Perrone, V. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of inter-organizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organ. Sci. 1998, 9, 141–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Lowry, P.B.; Gaskin, J. Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) for building and testing behavioural causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 2014, 57, 123–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Mitchell, R.; Gudergan, S.P. Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 1617–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richter, N.F.; Schubring, S.; Hauff, S.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. When predictors of outcomes are necessary: Guidelines for the combined use of PLS-SEM and NCA. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020, 120, 2243–2267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dul, J. Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA). Organ. Res. Methods 2016, 19, 10–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukhov, A.; Lättman, K.; Olsson, L.E.; Friman, M.; Fujii, S. Assessing travel satisfaction in public transport: A configurational approach. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2021, 93, 102732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cochran, W.G. Sampling Techniques; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Grande, T. Identifying Multivariate Outliers with Mahalanobis Distance in SPSS. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXLAX6r5JgE (accessed on 15 February 2025).
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis. In Always Learning; Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2013; Available online: https://books.google.ca/books?id=VvXZnQEACAAJ (accessed on 15 February 2025).
- 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]
- 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]
- Geisser, S. The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1975, 70, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, M. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions (with discussion). J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 1976, 38, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. Commentary: Issues and opinions on Structural Equation Modelling. MIS Q. 1998, 22, vii–xvi. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, G.M.; Feinn, R. Using effect size—Or why the P value is not enough. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2012, 4, 279–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. Things I have learned (so far). Am. Psychol. 1990, 45, 1304–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, G.A. A Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) Model of Rapid Decision Making. In Decision-Making in Action: Model and Methods; Klein, G.A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., Zsambok, C.E., Eds.; Ablex Publishing Compnay: Norwood, OH, USA, 1993; pp. 138–147. [Google Scholar]
- Hauff, S.; Richter, N.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. Importance and performance in PLS-SEM and NCA: Introducing the combined importance-performance map analysis (cIPMA). J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 78, 103723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mubarak, M.F.; Petraite, M. Industry 4.0 technologies, digital trust and technological orientation: What matters in open innovation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 161, 120332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostopoulos, K.; Papalexandris, A.; Papachroni, M.; Ioannou, G. Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. J. Bus. Res. 2011, 64, 1335–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, J.; Su, J.; Xin, Z.; Wang, C. Calculative trust, relational trust, and organizational performance: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. J. Bus. Res. 2024, 172, 114435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Qualification Criteria | # | Question | Original Sample (N = 944) | % | Final Sample (N = 131) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Global vs. domestic | 1 | Not involved in global value chain activities. | 813 | 86.1 | |
Respondent’s affiliation | 1 | Other than 1. Marketing, business development, and sales, 2. Distribution or 3. Operations. | |||
Firm size | 1 | Less than 400 employees. | |||
Deployment stage of Industry 4.0 technologies | 1 | Unaware of any marketing analytics applications. | |||
2 | Aware of the Industry 4.0 technologies. | ||||
3 | Knowledge of the Industry 4.0 technologies, but have not yet evaluated any. | ||||
4 | Evaluation of the potential of the Industry 4.0 technologies. | ||||
5 | Limited deployment of the Industry 4.0 technologies. | 42 | 4.5 | 32.1% | |
6 | General deployment of Industry 4.0 technologies indicates a wide impact on critical business processes. | 57 | 6.0 | 43.5% | |
7 | Mature deployment for a longer period of time with legacy support. | 32 | 3.4 | 24.4% |
Construct | Indicator Variable | Source |
---|---|---|
Financial performance (CA = 0.928, CR = 0.946, AVE = 0.777) |
| [78,79] |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
Market performance (CA = 0.858, CR = 0.904, AVE = 0.703) |
| [80] |
| ||
| ||
| ||
Marketing channel operational performance (CA = 0.849, CR = 0.892, AVE = 0.630) |
| [78,79] |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
Inter-organizational trust (CA = 0.718, CR = 0.875, AVE = 0.778) |
| [81] |
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
# | Country of Residence | N (%) | Years With the Organization | N (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Canada | 19 (14.5%) | 1 | Less than a year | 5 (3.8%) |
2 | United States | 111 (84.7%) | 2 | 2–5 years | 35 (26.7%) |
3 | Other | 1 (0.8%) | 3 | 6–10 years | 36 (27.5%) |
Age group | N (%) | 4 | 11–15 years | 25 (19.1%) | |
1 | 19–24 | 3 (2.3%) | 5 | 16–19 years | 12 (9.2%) |
2 | 25–28 | 8 (6.1%) | 6 | Over 20 years | 18 (13.7%) |
3 | 29–34 | 19 (14.5%) | Education | N (%) | |
4 | 35–40 | 27 (20.6%) | 1 | High school or less | 18 (13.7%) |
5 | 41–45 | 11 (8.4%) | 2 | Some college–no degree | 30 (22.9%) |
6 | 46–54 | 15 (11.5%) | 3 | College diploma | 4 (3.1%) |
7 | 55–64 | 39 (29.8%) | 4 | Associate | 18 (13.7%) |
8 | +65 | 9 (6.9%) | 5 | Bachelor’s | 44 (33.6%) |
6 | Master’s | 13 (9.9%) | |||
7 | Doctorate | 4 (3.1%) | |||
8 | Other | 0 (0.0%) |
Construct | Variable *) | Mean | Std. Dev. | Skewness | Kurtosis | Kolmogorov–Smirnov **) | Sign. | Shapiro–Wilk | Sign. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Financial performance | FP1 | 4.04 | 0.98 | −1.024 | 1.009 | 0.225 | <0.001 | 0.819 | <0.001 |
FP2 | 4.08 | 1.01 | −1.171 | 1.339 | 0.233 | <0.001 | 0.800 | <0.001 | |
FP3 | 3.93 | 1.03 | −0.928 | 0.621 | 0.229 | <0.001 | 0.838 | <0.001 | |
FP4 | 4.01 | 0.97 | −0.955 | 0.987 | 0.222 | <0.001 | 0.825 | <0.001 | |
FP5 | 3.98 | 1.00 | −1.001 | 0.814 | 0.247 | <0.001 | 0.830 | <0.001 | |
Market performance | MP1 | 3.91 | 0.90 | −0.529 | −0.117 | 0.235 | <0.001 | 0.862 | <0.001 |
MP2 | 4.19 | 0.88 | −1.007 | 0.745 | 0.257 | <0.001 | 0.802 | <0.001 | |
MP3 | 4.15 | 0.85 | −0.685 | −0.308 | 0.246 | <0.001 | 0.818 | <0.001 | |
MP4 | 4.01 | 0.95 | −0.894 | 0.748 | 0.230 | <0.001 | 0.834 | <0.001 | |
Marketing channel operational performance | MCOP1 | 4.24 | 0.86 | −1.159 | 1.246 | 0.268 | <0.001 | 0.783 | <0.001 |
MCOP2 | 4.19 | 0.96 | −1.236 | 1.356 | 0.273 | <0.001 | 0.781 | <0.001 | |
MCOP3 | 3.98 | 1.07 | −0.909 | 0.191 | 0.227 | <0.001 | 0.830 | <0.001 | |
MCOP4 | 4.29 | 0.90 | −1.190 | 0.912 | 0.312 | <0.001 | 0.761 | <0.001 | |
MCOP5 | 3.95 | 1.08 | −1.023 | 0.619 | 0.234 | <0.001 | 0.825 | <0.001 | |
Inter-organizational trust | TRU1 | 3.73 | 0.98 | −0.601 | 0.269 | 0.226 | <0.001 | 0.873 | <0.001 |
TRU2 | 3.46 | 1.04 | −0.095 | −0.517 | 0.227 | <0.001 | 0.893 | <0.001 | |
TRU3 | 2.96 | 1.29 | 0.138 | −1.044 | 0.177 | <0.001 | 0.905 | <0.001 | |
TRU4 | 3.45 | 1.21 | −0.398 | −0.643 | 0.171 | <0.001 | 0.894 | <0.001 | |
TRU5 | 4.18 | 0.87 | −1.086 | 1.10 | 0.248 | <0.001 | 0.797 | <0.001 |
Relationship | HTMT | 2.5% | 97.5% |
---|---|---|---|
MP ↔ FP | 0.788 | 0.623 | 0.907 |
Marketing channel operational performance ↔ FP | 0.688 | 0.555 | 0.794 |
Marketing channel operational performance ↔ MP | 0.725 | 0.572 | 0.850 |
Inter-organanizational trust ↔ FP | 0.784 | 0.605 | 0.906 |
Inter-organanizational trust ↔ MP | 0.748 | 0.573 | 0.886 |
Inter-organanizational trust ↔ Marketing channel operational performance | 0.745 | 0.522 | 0.935 |
Construct | Q2Predict | RMSE | MAE |
---|---|---|---|
FP | 0.975 | 0.655 | 0.492 |
MP | 0.979 | 0.602 | 0.460 |
Marketing channel operational performance | 0.978 | 0.625 | 0.444 |
H | Relationship | Path Coeffi-cient | 5% Bootstrapping Confidence Intervals | Effect Size (f2) | Effect Size Descriptor | Total Effect **) | Indirect Effect | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.5% | 97.5% | |||||||
1 | Marketing channel operational performance → MP | 0.437 | 0.264 | 0.641 | 0.258 | Large to medium | 0.437 | - |
2 | Inter-organizational trust → Marketing channel operational performance | 0.571 | 0.411 | 0.662 | 0.551 | Large | 0.571 | - |
3 | Inter-organizational trust → MP | 0.303 | 0.126 | 0.455 | 0.135 | Medium to small | 0.552 | 0.250 *) |
4 | Inter-organizational trust → FP | 0.298 | 0.078 | 0.507 | 0.114 | Medium to small | 0.689 | 0.391 *) |
5 | MP → FP | 0.441 | 0.194 | 0.687 | 0.192 | Medium to large | 0.441 | - |
6 | Marketing channel operational performance → FP | 0.258 | −0.029 | 0.502 | 0.071 | Small to medium | 0.450 | 0.193 *) |
Relationship | Specific Indirect Effect | p-Value |
---|---|---|
Marketing channel operational performance → MP → FP | 0.193 | 0.006 |
Inter-organizational trust → Marketing channel operational performance → FP | 0.147 | 0.058 |
Inter-organizational trust → Marketing channel operational performance → MP → FP | 0.110 | 0.020 |
Inter-organizational trust MP → FP | 0.133 | 0.028 |
Inter-organizational trust → Marketing channel operational performance → MP | 0.250 | 0.001 |
FP (%) | FP | MP | Marketing Channel Operational Performance | Inter-Organizational Trust |
---|---|---|---|---|
30% | 2.20 | NN | NN | NN |
40% | 2.60 | NN | 2.00 | NN |
50% | 3.00 | NN | 2.00 | NN |
60% | 3.40 | NN | 2.00 | 2.40 |
70% | 3.80 | NN | 2.00 | 3.00 |
80% | 4.20 | NN | 3.50 | 3.00 |
90% | 4.60 | NN | 3.50 | 3.00 |
100% | 5.00 | 4.00 | 3.50 | 3.20 |
Construct | CR-FDH Effect Size (d) | Permutation p-Value | Effect Size Descriptor on the Marketing Agility |
---|---|---|---|
MP | 0.033 | 0.069 | Small |
Marketing channel operational performance | 0.168 | 0.001 | Medium |
Inter-organizational trust | 0.145 | 0.000 | Medium |
Setting | PLS–SEM Results | NCA Results | Conclusion | Conclusion |
1. MP construct is a… | significant determinant | but no necessary condition | On average, an increase in the MP construct will increase the FP; no minimum level of MP is needed to ensure that the FP will manifest. | Should have! |
2. Marketing channel operational performance construct is a… | non-significant determinant | and a necessary condition | A certain level of the marketing channel operational performance construct is necessary for the FP to manifest. However, a further increase is not recommended, as it will not increase the FP any further. | Must have! |
2. Inter-organizational trust construct is a… | significant determinant | and a necessary condition | On average, increasing inter-organizational trust will increase FP. However, a certain level of the inter-organizational trust construct is necessary for FP to manifest. | Must have! |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 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
Haverila, M.; Twyford, J.C.; Nader, N. Building Sustainable Global Marketing Channels: Exploring the Role of Inter-Organizational Trust and Performance Metrics in the Age of Industry 4.0. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083524
Haverila M, Twyford JC, Nader N. Building Sustainable Global Marketing Channels: Exploring the Role of Inter-Organizational Trust and Performance Metrics in the Age of Industry 4.0. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083524
Chicago/Turabian StyleHaverila, Matti, Jenny Carita Twyford, and Nashwa Nader. 2025. "Building Sustainable Global Marketing Channels: Exploring the Role of Inter-Organizational Trust and Performance Metrics in the Age of Industry 4.0" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083524
APA StyleHaverila, M., Twyford, J. C., & Nader, N. (2025). Building Sustainable Global Marketing Channels: Exploring the Role of Inter-Organizational Trust and Performance Metrics in the Age of Industry 4.0. Sustainability, 17(8), 3524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083524