Resilience Through Integration: The Synergistic Role of National and Organizational Culture in Enhancing Market Responsiveness

Abstract

This study explains how integrating with foreign suppliers fortifies a buying firm’s supply-chain resilience, captured here as heightened market responsiveness. Drawing on information-processing theory, we argue that supplier integration equips buyers with richer, faster information flows that enable timely adaptation to market shocks. Extending value-congruence theory, we posit that this resilience dividend depends on simultaneous cultural alignment at two levels—national and organizational. Survey data from 174 manufacturing firms engaged in international buyer–supplier relationships across East Asia, North America, Latin America and Europe were analyzed via hierarchical regression. Results confirm that foreign supplier integration has a positive main effect on market responsiveness. Crucially, a significant three-way interaction (integration × national-culture congruence × organizational-culture congruence) reveals that the responsiveness—and thus resilience—payoff materializes only when both cultural layers are highly congruent; congruence at just one layer is insufficient. By demonstrating the contingent, multilevel nature of resilience benefits, this research advances the global supply-chain literature in three ways: (1) it unites information-processing and value-congruence perspectives to clarify when integration generates adaptive capability; (2) it positions dual-level cultural fit as a prerequisite for resilient performance; and (3) it offers region-spanning evidence that guides managers in designing culturally attuned integration strategies to withstand market turbulence.

1. Introduction

Sustaining competitive advantage increasingly requires resources and capabilities beyond what any single firm can possess independently [1]. Consequently, organizations are enhancing their competitiveness through strategic supplier relationships that provide access to complementary resources and capabilities [2]. Moreover, the global expansion of supply networks has intensified the strategic importance of international supplier collaborations, which offer significantly broader opportunities for accessing diverse knowledge than domestic partnerships [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Firms engage with foreign suppliers to achieve multiple strategic objectives—reducing production and logistics costs [8], entering new markets [3], acquiring specialized capabilities [4], driving innovation through technological-knowledge integration [5], and developing joint product platforms [6].

Despite these advantages, global supply chains have introduced increased complexity [9]. Recent disruptions—including international trade conflicts and the COVID-19 pandemic—have further exposed vulnerabilities arising from this complexity [10,11]. As uncertainty rises, firms must mitigate supply-chain risks so they can respond rapidly to market changes. In this environment, market responsiveness founded on agile and flexible operations has reemerged as a critical competitive factor [12,13,14].

Supplier integration (SI)—which involves information sharing and partnership development with suppliers—has become essential for optimizing procurement and production processes [2,15]. Through collaborative operational practices, firms gain critical information from suppliers, enabling swift detection of market shifts and agile responses [2,16]. This integration seamlessly organizes management processes between organizations as if they were a single entity [17,18], contributing to multiple performance dimensions including market responsiveness, cost efficiency, inventory management efficiency, quality, customer satisfaction, and new-product development [15,17,18]. Notably, Braunscheidel and Suresh [12] defined market responsiveness as a component of agility and confirmed that supplier integration—together with internal and customer integration—positively influences it. Furthermore, Narayanan et al. [13] found that supplier-integration elements such as information exchange, joint problem-solving, and top-management involvement significantly enhance a buying firm’s market responsiveness.

However, maximizing market responsiveness through integration with international suppliers presents unique challenges. Performance outcomes of supplier integration vary with supplier capabilities, knowledge characteristics, collaborative climate [19], governance structures and management approaches [20], infrastructure [21], and cultural differences [22,23]. While cultural differences between buyer and supplier have long attracted attention in supply-chain management [22,23], comprehensive studies that examine both national- and organizational-culture congruence in international supplier integration remain scarce. Most research on supplier integration and agile supply-chain performance has focused on domestic or single-country contexts [13,24,25] has examined national or organizational culture separately [26,27] or has simply demonstrated that cultural differences exist [28,29]—rather than probing how cultural factors jointly enhance or inhibit integration effectiveness.

This research gap is significant because firms are increasingly forming global supply chains that must be managed across differing national cultures. Although international-business literature extensively examines national cultural differences, most studies focus narrowly on international expansion outcomes [30,31] rather than on knowledge-transfer contexts [20,32]. Some studies have considered national and organizational culture simultaneously, yet they either analyze only direct effects [21] or concentrate on other cultural dimensions (e.g., global common culture, group culture, expert culture) [8,33].

Accordingly, this study investigates how national- and organizational-culture congruence between a buyer and its foreign supplier moderates the relationship between supplier integration (SI) and performance. In particular, we consider market responsiveness—defined as the ability to respond swiftly to a changing market environment—and examine the conditions under which buyers can maximize the effectiveness of their integration activities with foreign suppliers. Grounded in both information-processing theory and value-congruence theory, we argue that cultural alignment at both levels is essential if supplier integration is to translate into superior market responsiveness and, by extension, greater supply-chain resilience.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Market Responsiveness and Supply Chain Resilience

Market responsiveness is defined as the ability to respond swiftly and effectively to market demand and environmental changes [34], and it captures the agility dimension of supply chain resilience—a multifaceted construct encompassing robustness (absorbing disturbances without performance loss), recovery speed (restoring operations rapidly), and absorptive capacity (learning from disruptions to improve future performance) [35,36,37]. By focusing on market responsiveness, we operationalize resilience through firms’ real-time adjustment and information-processing capabilities [38] rapid reconfiguration of processes, reallocation of resources, and cross-functional coordination mitigate the propagation of upstream shocks and serve as both a preventive buffer and an adaptive mechanism in volatile environments [38,39,40].

Extensive empirical studies confirm that market responsiveness is closely linked to flexibility, agility, and improvisation, collectively enhancing a supply chain’s capacity to absorb, adapt, and recover from unexpected events [39,40,41]. Richey et al. [42] emphasize that superior performance hinges on responsiveness to environmental signals, supply chain partners, and end customers, while Qi et al. [43] demonstrate that integration practices boosting market responsiveness directly shorten time-to-recovery in Chinese e-commerce platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moreover, market responsiveness plays a dual role in risk management: proactive market sensing enables firms to anticipate potential disruptions and deploy contingency plans before crises fully materialize, and rapid response capabilities facilitate swift adaptation and resource reallocation to minimize impact and accelerate recovery [44,45,46]. In this sense, market responsiveness serves as a valid proxy for the agility component of resilience, even though it does not capture robustness against extreme events or the full scope of organizational learning embedded in absorptive capacity.

Despite its critical role in managing complex, global supply chains, research on market responsiveness within international supplier integration remains scarce. Although numerous studies examine cultural factors in cross-border partnerships, few investigate how national and organizational cultural congruence moderates the enhancement of market responsiveness when firms integrate with foreign suppliers. Given that cultural differences significantly affect information sharing, joint planning, and collaborative decision-making—key drivers of responsiveness—understanding this moderating role is essential for designing resilient global supply chains across diverse cultural contexts.

2.2. Information Processing Theory and Supplier Integration (SI)

According to organizational information processing theory, firms must possess information processing capabilities that match their information processing needs to reduce uncertainty while improving performance. Information processing can be defined as the collection, interpretation, and synthesis of information necessary for organizational decision-making [47,48]. Recent studies in supply chain management have emphasized the importance of external information acquisition and processing capabilities to address supply chain uncertainty based on organizational information processing theory [49].

From an organizational information processing perspective, SI can be viewed as an opportunity or set of activities for buyers to obtain external knowledge and information from suppliers [2,50]. SI represents a high level of strategic partnership, including supplier participation in the buyer’s operations and production processes from procurement to new product design, inventory and demand information sharing, and buyer support for supplier process improvements [2,18,50]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that these activities can improve both strategic and operational performance for both suppliers and buyers.

First, SI enables buyers to easily access valuable, new, and accurate supplier information. This supplier information directly helps buying firms respond quickly to market demands by facilitating accurate demand forecasting and scheduling and by enabling better coordination of supply plans [2,16,50]. Additionally, buyers can improve operational performance, such as delivery, cost, quality, and production flexibility [2,16,17,26], new product development and launch speed [18,31,51], and financial performance [15,52] through SI. The essential upstream supply chain information obtained through SI encompasses suppliers’ overall production operations and management capabilities, allowing buyers to anticipate and prepare for potential risks from suppliers and throughout the upstream supply chain. Furthermore, buyers can clearly identify suppliers’ capability gaps and provide appropriate training and support activities accordingly, which improves the operational performance of the suppliers. This, in turn, enables buyers to respond quickly to changes, thus driving continuous performance improvement [17,18,53].

Second, SI effectively reduces various potential conflicts between the two firms, enhancing supply chain efficiency and strengthening collaborative relationships [54]. SI itself represents efficient communication through various channels and a commitment to developing long-term trading and collaborative relationships. Thus, this frequent collaborative communication facilitates the formation of long-term collaborative relationships based on inter-firm decision-making routines and efficient problem-solving [55]. Even when frequent quality and design changes are necessary, both firms can more easily allocate resources for each other and streamline procurement processes through SI, freeing buyers from potential inefficiencies [2,16,17,18,50].

Third, SI activities provide opportunities for suppliers to improve their operational and management capabilities. They also represent important opportunities for suppliers to better understand buyers and for both parties to strengthen partnerships based on mutual trust and commitment [55,56]. Consequently, suppliers are more likely to strive to meet buyers’ requirements, leading to improved operational performance for both suppliers and buyers [57].

In summary, through close collaboration with overseas suppliers across the entire production process, supplier responsiveness to buyer requirements increases, which enables buyers to respond more quickly to customer or market demands, improve new product launch speed, and maintain stable delivery and inventory management [18,51]. In conclusion, buyers can acquire useful information and enhance collaborative relationships with international suppliers through integration activities, ultimately preparing themselves to respond quickly to changes in customer markets.

Hypothesis 1.

Supplier Integration is positively associated with the market responsiveness of the buying firm.

2.3. Congruence Theory and Cultural Fit

Value-congruence theory is a widely used framework in organizational behavior, positing that the alignment of values between employees and the organization, or between subordinates and supervisors, contributes to enhanced organizational commitment among employees [58]. This theory can also be applied to inter-firm relationships, where value congruence between firms is defined as the similarity in their cultural value systems [59] (p. 823). This concept is analogous to the notion of cultural compatibility discussed in the strategic alliance literature [60]. Cultural compatibility—which refers to the alignment of organizational philosophies, objectives, norms, traditions, and values [60,61]—facilitates effective communication and knowledge sharing between firms, thereby contributing to the creation of sustained competitive advantage.

Thus, value congruence implies that when two firms share similar values, criteria, and goals, they are likely to develop comparable cognitive processes that promote the understanding and absorption of the information and knowledge they exchange [62]. When firms share similar cultures or organizational values, this alignment functions as a behavioral-control mechanism that reduces the coordination costs and ambiguity in role allocation required for effective collaboration [47]. Furthermore, similar cognitive-processing standards enhance a common understanding of collaborative activities, increase trust and commitment toward partner firms, and create an environment conducive to effective information sharing [60,61,63,64].

Culture is often referred to as the “social glue” [65] and has been recognized as a critical factor in achieving successful cooperation with international partners [30]. To successfully foster strategic alliances that involve the sharing of knowledge and technology with foreign partners, not only is resource complementarity required, but so is cultural compatibility [8,21,60]. In other words, similarity in values and norms based on a shared culture between two firms facilitates the formation of similar cognitive frameworks, thereby reducing uncertainty and potential conflict and ultimately promoting harmonious cooperation and collaboration [66]. Moreover, such value congruence enhances the positive impact of supplier integration (SI) on the operational performance of buyers [18,67].

Culture has been studied primarily at the levels of national, organizational, and individual culture; however, this study focuses on the firm level, with an emphasis on national and organizational culture. National culture is defined as the shared system of norms, values, and priorities that members of a country are first exposed to and that continue to influence them over time, thereby providing meaning regarding “how things should be done” [8,33]. In contrast, organizational culture refers to the collective values and norms that an organization deems important, believes in, and strives to uphold—directly influencing various practices within the organization, including decision-making, processes, and strategies [68,69].

The importance of organizational-culture similarity in inter-firm knowledge and information transfer has been substantiated by numerous studies. The similarity in values and goals between firms reduces the psychological distance among employees, which in turn creates an environment conducive to close strategic integration and in-depth information sharing [60,61]. This similarity helps to reduce coordination costs and facilitates the recognition of behaviors that support collaboration, thereby serving as a control mechanism [63]. Moreover, cultural compatibility between manufacturing firms and their supplier firms improves communication efficiency, reduces ambiguity, uncertainty, and conflicts in knowledge transfer [70], and fosters high levels of relationship satisfaction and commitment [71].

National culture can be viewed as a form of collective programming [72] and exerts a powerful influence on the behavior and cognition of its members. Hofstede [73] posited that national culture develops from shared experiences in a specific region—including education, government, family structures, and religion—which in turn shape a common way of understanding and interpreting the world among organizational members. Moreover, national culture tends to change and be institutionalized very slowly [72,73]. Differences in national culture create communication barriers between partners, thereby increasing interactional difficulties and negatively affecting the transfer of knowledge and technology [21,74]. Additionally, national culture leads to differences in the interpretation of strategic issues, commitment, and prioritization, which may inherently give rise to fundamental conflicts between partners with disparate national cultures [20,21,75]. Consequently, divergent national cultures can result in varying priorities in resource allocation and differences in the utilization of information systems or concentrated investments, thereby impeding agile responses to change [20,75]. National-culture differences with foreign partners further increase uncertainty and elevate transaction costs associated with the transfer, sharing, negotiation, and control of knowledge and technology [21].

In contrast, when buyers that have expanded internationally and their key local suppliers share similar national cultures, the bias between in-groups and out-groups is reduced, thereby fostering cooperation and a sense of “we-ness” [30,76]. Furthermore, buyers are less likely to suspect opportunistic behavior from suppliers that share similar national cultures [77]. During SI activities, there is relatively less hostility or distrust, which reduces resistance to collaborative activities such as process integration [30,76].

National and organizational cultures can be viewed as either independent [21,68] or interrelated, such that organizational culture is seen as a subset of national culture [8,33]. Although national culture can influence the formation of organizational culture, organizational culture is internally created and developed through an organization’s unique history, experiences, and leadership [69,73]. Therefore, it is not accurate to assume that all organizations within the same country share an identical culture.

In the context of integration with foreign suppliers, national and organizational cultures play different roles. National culture is rooted in the overall values, traditions, and behavioral norms of a society, thereby influencing the basic perceptions and attitudes of organizational members [73]. In contrast, organizational culture is formed by an organization’s unique history, leadership style, internal communication practices, and management philosophy, and it has a direct impact on specific work processes and collaborative procedures [69,72].

For example, even if organizational cultures are similar, firms from different national backgrounds may experience cultural differences in basic communication styles or in the way trust is built, leading to friction during the early stages of collaboration [21]. In the global alliance between Renault and Nissan, several instances of friction were reported during the initial cooperation phase due to differences in communication styles and trust-building methods arising from their distinct national backgrounds; Renault, operating within a low-context culture, preferred direct and open communication, whereas Nissan, rooted in a high-context culture, emphasized implicit and relationship-based trust formation [78].

Conversely, even when firms share similar national cultures, differences in internal policies, decision-making processes, or approaches to innovation may limit the synergy achievable through SI. A prominent example is the merger between Daimler-Benz and Chrysler [76]. Although both companies shared similar traditional Western values—such as an emphasis on efficiency, systematic approaches, and technical excellence—substantial differences in their organizational cultures led to challenges in integration, communication, and strategic alignment. Daimler-Benz valued strict quality control and long-term planning and maintained a formal and structured communication system, whereas Chrysler prioritized short-term performance and cost efficiency, adopting a relatively informal and flexible communication style. Consequently, the expected synergy following the merger was not fully realized [79,80].

These cases suggest that, to maximize the effectiveness of integration with foreign suppliers, it is insufficient to rely solely on congruence in organizational culture or national culture in isolation. Organizational culture and national culture play distinct yet interdependent roles; neither can reach its full potential in isolation. Considering both the common social background provided by national culture and the concrete management practices shaped by organizational culture enables both parties to establish a cooperative system based on mutual understanding and trust. Such an approach can maximize the positive effects of SI on enhancing the market responsiveness of buyers.

Hypothesis 2.

The association between supplier integration (SI) and market responsiveness is strongest when both organizational culture congruence (OCC) and National Culture Congruence (NCC) are high.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sampling and Data Collection

To secure data that accurately captures global supply chains aligned with the objectives of this study, we collaboratively conducted a data collection effort with academic researchers in Mainland China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States. We reached consensus on the sampling policy and data collection processes, and accordingly, data were gathered in the four regions stated above. Country coordinators assembled comprehensive sampling frames using various sources, including manufacturing association directories and industry databases. From these frames, manufacturing firms from diverse industries were randomly selected, with sample sizes ranging from 2000 to 5000 firms per region.

The original survey was developed in English and subsequently translated into multiple Asian languages (Korean, Mandarin, Cantonese, and Taiwanese). To verify translation accuracy, we employed a rigorous back-translation methodology wherein each translated version was converted back into English and meticulously compared with the original document. This systematic process enabled country coordinators to identify and rectify discrepancies in terminology and meaning. The translation-verification cycle continued iteratively until all language versions demonstrated semantic consistency, ensuring conceptual equivalence across all survey instruments.

Following established guidelines, country coordinators first contacted selected firms to identify appropriate key informants who possessed in-depth knowledge of the firm’s internal processes and supplier relationships—typically supply chain managers, CEOs or presidents, plant managers, purchasing/marketing managers, and other senior directors or managers. Individual contacts were made with these randomly selected key respondents to ascertain their willingness to participate in the survey. Survey participants from the manufacturing sector were questioned about their interactions with their key supplier. In this study, the key supplier is defined as the supplier from whom the manufacturing firm (a buyer) makes the highest final payment (in U.S. dollars) for procuring raw materials.

For each participating firm, the survey was mailed along with a cover letter outlining the study’s potential contributions and objectives. Additionally, a web page was created to facilitate online survey completion, and data were also collected through this channel. Follow-up phone calls were conducted to encourage participation and to address any missing responses.

The total number of surveys collected, as well as the number of valid surveys, are presented in

Table 1. Response Rates by Respondent Regions.

	Mainland China	Hong Kong	Taiwan	U.S.	South Korea	Total
1. Number of questionnaires sent	2878	2056	2000	2500	1278	10,712
2. Number of valid responses	410	202	212	202	204	1230
3. Response rate	14.25%	9.82%	10.60%	8.08%	15.96%	11.48%
4. Number of the companies whose main suppliers are foreign company	0	108	13	35	30	186
5. The total number of firms after excluding samples with unspecified overseas supplier countries.	0	106	12	32	24	174
6. Ratio from entire responses	0.00%	53.47%	6.13%	17.33%	14.71%	15.12%

below. Because this study focuses on examining the effect of SI when the key supplier of the buyer (manufacturing firm) is a foreign company, only 174 samples were ultimately used in the analysis. Specifically, although there was a total of 186 samples in which the key supplier was located abroad, 12 cases with imprecise location information were excluded (i.e., respondents indicated that their major supplier was overseas without specifying the supplier’s country). As national culture congruence cannot be computed without the country information on both buyer and supplier, these observations were list-wise deleted in line with established survey practice [81]. Therefore, the final sample comprises 174 manufacturing firms with complete country information for themselves and their primary supplier.

Table 2. Respondent Company Profiles.

Buyer’s dependence on its major supplier	Frequency (%)
<20%	26 (15.2)
21% to <40%	64 (37.4)
41% to <60%	39 (22.8)
61% to <80%	34 (19.9)
81% to <100%	8 (4.7)
Total	171 (100)
Relationship duration with the major supplier
<5 years	39 (22.4)
6 years to <10 years	71 (40.8)
11 years to <15 years	29 (16.7)
16 years to <20 years	24 (13.8)
21 years to <25 years	5 (2.9)
26 years to <30 years	2 (1.1)
More than 31 years	4 (2.3)
Total	174 (100)
Number of employees
<50	33 (19.0)
51 to <99	34 (19.5)
100 to <199	48 (27.6)
200 to <499	28 (16.1)
500 to <999	16 (9.2)
1000 to <4999	6 (3.4)
More than 5000	9 (5.2)
Total	174 (100)
Buyer’s industry
Arts & crafts	1 (0.6)
Building materials	2 (1.2)
Chemicals & petrochemicals	6 (3.5)
Electronics & electrical	35 (20.2)
Food, beverage, alcohol, & cigarettes	3 (1.7)
Jewelry	2 (1.2)
Metal, mechanical, & engineering	26 (15.0)
Pharmaceutical & medicals	4 (2.3)
Publishing & printing	2 (1.2)
Rubber & plastics	11 (6.4)
Textiles & apparel	54 (31.2)
Toys	4 (2.3)
Wood & furniture	3 (1.7)
Others	20 (11.6)
Total	173 (100)

presents the characteristics of the respondent firms. The average dependency on key suppliers is 46.88%, and the average duration of business relationships is 11.5 years.

Additionally, we conducted a non-response bias test by comparing the 109 questionnaires returned before our follow-up phone call (two weeks after survey distribution) with the 65 returned afterward. Independent-samples t-tests revealed no significant differences between these two groups on any of our key variables: number of employees (t = 0.793, p = 0.432), total sales (t = 0.553, p = 0.583), responsiveness (t = −0.035, p = 0.972), supplier integration (t = 0.191, p = 0.849), national culture congruence (t = 1.172, p = 0.247), organizational culture congruence (t = −1.115, p = 0.270), supply uncertainty (t = 0.589, p = 0.558), demand uncertainty (t = 0.218, p = 0.828), and technology uncertainty (t = −1.478, p = 0.146). The analysis indicates no statistically significant differences between the early responding group (samples = 109) and the late responding group (samples = 65), indicating that non-response bias was not a serious issue in our sample [82].

3.2. Measurement Instruments

All constructs in our study were adopted from the existing literature. Detailed information is presented in Table 3. Each measurement item utilized a 7-point Likert scale, and respondents were instructed to complete the survey based on their business and collaborative relationships with their key suppliers. To check common method bias (CMB) and potential single respondent bias, first, we employed Harman’s one-factor test. The analysis revealed six distinct factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0, collectively accounting for 74.96% of the total variance. Notably, the first factor explained only 19.09% of the variance, which is below the 50% threshold and does not constitute a majority of the total variance. Additionally, we assessed CMB using the marker variable test. This approach assesses the shared variance between the variables in the research model and a theoretically unrelated marker variable [83]. We included a manifest variable, measured by the item “I am the same person at work and at home” on a 5-point Likert scale, which is assumed to be theoretically unrelated to the substantive variables in our model. We compared model fits between the original measurement model (Chi-square = 342.191, df = 194, p = 0.000; Chi-square/df = 1.764; CFI = 0.928; TLI = 0.907; and RMSEA = 0.066) and the alternative measurement model (Chi-square = 361.577, df = 210, p = 0.000; Chi-square/df = 1.722; CFI = 0.927; TLI = 0.904; and RMSEA = 0.065) including the marker variable using a Chi-square different test [84]. The non-significant results (∆Chi-square =19.386) suggest that CMB does not pose a substantive threat to the validity of our study [83]. Specifically, Chi-square/df values of each model are below the commonly accepted ceiling of 3.0, indicating an adequate ratio of model misfit to degrees of freedom [85]. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI = 0.928, 0.927) and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI = 0.907, 0.904) both exceed the conventional 0.90 threshold [86], while the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = 0.066, 0.065) falls below the 0.08 guideline for good fit [87]. Taken together, these indices demonstrate that our original measurement model fits the data well and that both biases are unlikely to be a significant concern in our study.

To understand cultural differences, various models have been developed, including the Hofstede Model [72,73], Schwartz and Bilsky [88], Trompenaars [89], and the GLOBE Model [90]. Although the Hofstede Model has been widely used, this study employs the GLOBE Model—considered to be a refined and enhanced framework that provides more detailed insights into how various cultural dimensions interact with business practices—to examine national cultural congruence. The GLOBE Model comprises nine cultural dimensions: power distance, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, future orientation, performance orientation, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, uncertainty avoidance, and humane orientation [90]. The GLOBE study surveyed participants from 61 different societies, asking them to evaluate their cultural attributes from two perspectives: how they perceive their culture currently (“as is”) and how they believe their culture ideally ought to be (“as should be”). Recognizing that current cultural practices tend to reveal clearer and more distinct differences than ideal cultural values, we utilized the “as is” practice scores to measure the extent of cultural distance between societies. The definition and score of each dimension of the country or region to which buyer belong are summarized in Table 4. In this study, following the measurement approach for cultural difference used by Reus and Lamont [91] and Kogut and Singh [92], the formula to measure National Culture Congruence (NCC) is:

$$\begin{array}{cc}National Culture& Congruenc (NCC)\hfill \\ & =1-\left[\left\{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^9}{\displaystyle \frac{{\frac{\left({Supplie{r}^{’}s score of dimension}_i-{Buye{r}^{’}s score of dimension}_i\right)}{V{ariance of dimension}_i}}^2}{9}}\right\}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{100}}\right]\end{array}$$

Specifically, it is calculated by subtracting the cultural distance from 1, thus converting the distance measure into a congruence measure. Then, the resulting congruence is scaled down by dividing it by 100 for normalization purposes. The cultural distance was measured as below.

$$National Culture Congruence (NCC)=\left(1-{Cultural Distance}_{jk}\right)\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{100}}$$

$${Cultural Distance}_{jk}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\sum _{i=1}^9{\displaystyle \frac{{(I_{ij}-I_{ik})}^2}{V_i}}$$

In this formula, I_ij is the index of country j on the i-th cultural dimension, I_ik is the index of country k on the i-th cultural dimension, V_i is the variance of the i-th cultural dimension, and Cultural Distance_jk is the cultural distance between j-th country and k-th country. In the case of the organizational culture congruence measure, our study concentrates on the value-congruence aspect among multiple dimensions of organizational culture.

To capture the statistical significance of the research model more clearly, this study employed a variety of control variables. First, a higher dependency of the buyer on suppliers tends to foster a more proactive attitude toward integration activities with suppliers, which in turn can influence the buyer’s market responsiveness [93]. Thus, the dependency on the key supplier was controlled by measuring the percentage of total purchase costs represented by payments to the key supplier. Second, maintaining long-term business relationships is likely to build social capital between the two firms, which in turn facilitates active SI and can affect improvements in market responsiveness [94,95,96]. Therefore, the duration of the relationship with the key supplier was controlled by measuring the number of years of business transactions. Third, larger firms tend to possess more abundant resources, which may influence market responsiveness [97]; accordingly, the size effect was controlled by measuring the number of full-time employees in the buyer. Fourth, because the overall degree, level, and importance of SI may vary across industries—and can thereby affect the proactiveness toward SI—the industry effect was controlled using dummy variables [98]. Fifth, variability in the consistency and quality of supplier inputs can independently drive a buyer’s integration effort and responsiveness; controlling for supply uncertainty ensures that our estimates of SI’s effect on market responsiveness are not confounded by baseline supplier stability [99]. Sixth, fluctuations in customer requirements and order volumes create exogenous pressures on market responsiveness; by holding demand uncertainty constant, we isolate the impact of supplier integration from the effects of volatile demand [18]. Finally, rapid shifts in production technology and high obsolescence rates heighten firms’ agility needs; controlling for technological uncertainty accounts for industry-level turbulence that might otherwise bias the observed relationship between integration and responsiveness [100].

Table 3. Measurement Items with Factor Loadings.

Construct	Measurement Items		Mean	SD	Loading a	t-Value	Cronbach α	CR
Supplier Integration (SI)	Please indicate the extent of integration or information sharing between your organization and your major supplier in the following areas. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree); Adapted from [101,102]
	SI01	Our level of strategic partnership with our major supplier	4.70	1.45	0.742	10.592	0.912	0.913
	SI02	The participation level of our major supplier in our procurement and production processes	4.52	1.62	0.804	11.758
	SI03	The level of participation by our major supplier in our product design	4.09	1.73	0.785	11.388
	SI04	The extent to which our major supplier shares its inventory availability with us	4.12	1.72	0.852	12.682
	SI05	The extent to which we share our demand forecast with our major supplier	4.24	1.69	0.8	11.67
	SI06	The extent to which we help our major supplier to improve its process to better meet our needs	4.28	1.68	0.8	-
Organizational culture congruence (OCC)	The following statements are about the relationship between your organization and your major customer. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree); Adapted from [103]
	VC01	Our attachment to our major customer is primarily based on the similarity between its values and ours	4.44	1.38	0.727	9.561	0.870	0.873
	VC02	The reason we prefer our major customer to others is because of what it stands for, its values	4.31	1.33	0.878	11.544
	VC03	During the past year, our company’s values and those of our major customer have become more similar	4.34	1.29	0.805	10.684
	VC04	What our major customer stands for is important to our company	4.56	1.39	0.765	-
Market Responsiveness	Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements concerning your company’s performance, in comparison to the average of your competitors. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree); Adapted from [12,101,104]
	MR01	Our company can quickly modify products to meet our customers’ requirements	5.40	1.32	0.813	11.444	0.878	0.883
	MR02	Our company can quickly introduce new products into the market	4.96	1.44	0.94	12.241
	MR03	Our company can quickly respond to changes in market demand	5.09	1.29	0.777	-
Supply Uncertainty	Please indicate your degree of agreement that you have with each statement. (1 = Strongly Agree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Disagree); Adapted from [105,106]
	SU01	Our suppliers consistently meet our requirements	4.57	1.30	0.831	7.646	0.809	0.820
	SU02	Our suppliers provide us with inputs of consistent quality	4.54	1.40	0.896	7.61
	SU03	We have a low rejection rate for incoming critical materials from our suppliers	4.76	1.22	0.58	-
Demand Uncertainty	Please indicate your degree of agreement that you have with each statement. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree); Adapted from [105,106]
	DU01	Our demand fluctuates drastically from week to week	4.29	1.51	0.829	9.379	0.828	0.830
	DU02	Customer requirements for our products vary dramatically	4.45	1.36	0.789	9.238
	DU03	Our supply requirements vary drastically from week to week	4.37	1.44	0.741	-
Technological Uncertainty	Please indicate your degree of agreement that you have with each statement. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree); Adapted from [105,106]
	TU01	Our industry is characterized by rapidly changing technology	4.35	1.54	0.764	10.05	0.842	0.842
	TU02	Our production technology changes frequently	4.25	1.60	0.794	10.337
	TU03	The rate of technology obsolescence in our industry is high	4.29	1.65	0.842	-

Note: ^a Standardized loadings from confirmatory factor analysis, significant at p < 0.001.

Table 3. Measurement Items with Factor Loadings.

Construct	Measurement Items		Mean	SD	Loading a	t-Value	Cronbach α	CR
Supplier Integration (SI)	Please indicate the extent of integration or information sharing between your organization and your major supplier in the following areas. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree); Adapted from [101,102]
	SI01	Our level of strategic partnership with our major supplier	4.70	1.45	0.742	10.592	0.912	0.913
	SI02	The participation level of our major supplier in our procurement and production processes	4.52	1.62	0.804	11.758
	SI03	The level of participation by our major supplier in our product design	4.09	1.73	0.785	11.388
	SI04	The extent to which our major supplier shares its inventory availability with us	4.12	1.72	0.852	12.682
	SI05	The extent to which we share our demand forecast with our major supplier	4.24	1.69	0.8	11.67
	SI06	The extent to which we help our major supplier to improve its process to better meet our needs	4.28	1.68	0.8	-
Organizational culture congruence (OCC)	The following statements are about the relationship between your organization and your major customer. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree); Adapted from [103]
	VC01	Our attachment to our major customer is primarily based on the similarity between its values and ours	4.44	1.38	0.727	9.561	0.870	0.873
	VC02	The reason we prefer our major customer to others is because of what it stands for, its values	4.31	1.33	0.878	11.544
	VC03	During the past year, our company’s values and those of our major customer have become more similar	4.34	1.29	0.805	10.684
	VC04	What our major customer stands for is important to our company	4.56	1.39	0.765	-
Market Responsiveness	Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements concerning your company’s performance, in comparison to the average of your competitors. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree); Adapted from [12,101,104]
	MR01	Our company can quickly modify products to meet our customers’ requirements	5.40	1.32	0.813	11.444	0.878	0.883
	MR02	Our company can quickly introduce new products into the market	4.96	1.44	0.94	12.241
	MR03	Our company can quickly respond to changes in market demand	5.09	1.29	0.777	-
Supply Uncertainty	Please indicate your degree of agreement that you have with each statement. (1 = Strongly Agree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Disagree); Adapted from [105,106]
	SU01	Our suppliers consistently meet our requirements	4.57	1.30	0.831	7.646	0.809	0.820
	SU02	Our suppliers provide us with inputs of consistent quality	4.54	1.40	0.896	7.61
	SU03	We have a low rejection rate for incoming critical materials from our suppliers	4.76	1.22	0.58	-
Demand Uncertainty	Please indicate your degree of agreement that you have with each statement. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree); Adapted from [105,106]
	DU01	Our demand fluctuates drastically from week to week	4.29	1.51	0.829	9.379	0.828	0.830
	DU02	Customer requirements for our products vary dramatically	4.45	1.36	0.789	9.238
	DU03	Our supply requirements vary drastically from week to week	4.37	1.44	0.741	-
Technological Uncertainty	Please indicate your degree of agreement that you have with each statement. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4= Neutral, 7 = Strongly Agree); Adapted from [105,106]
	TU01	Our industry is characterized by rapidly changing technology	4.35	1.54	0.764	10.05	0.842	0.842
	TU02	Our production technology changes frequently	4.25	1.60	0.794	10.337
	TU03	The rate of technology obsolescence in our industry is high	4.29	1.65	0.842	-

Note: ^a Standardized loadings from confirmatory factor analysis, significant at p < 0.001.

Table 4. A Definition of GLOBE Dimensions and scores by respondent regions.

GLOBE Index Dimension	Definition	Mainland China	Hong Kong	Taiwan	U.S.	South Korea
Future Orientation	The extent to which individuals engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification.	3.75	4.03	3.96	4.15	3.97
Institutional Collectivism	The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action.	4.77	4.13	4.59	4.20	5.20
Humane Orientation	The degree to which a collective encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others.	4.36	3.90	4.11	4.17	3.81
Uncertainty Avoidance	The extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate the unpredictability of future events.	4.94	4.32	4.34	4.15	3.55
Assertiveness	The degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in their relationships with others.	3.76	4.67	3.92	4.55	4.40
Power Distance	The degree to which members of a collective expect power to be distributed equally.	5.04	4.96	5.18	4.88	5.61
In-Group Collectivism	The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families.	5.80	5.32	5.59	4.25	5.54
Performance Orientation	The degree to which a collective encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence.	4.45	4.80	4.56	4.49	4.55
Gender Egalitarianism	The degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality.	3.05	3.47	3.18	3.34	2.50

Table 4. A Definition of GLOBE Dimensions and scores by respondent regions.

GLOBE Index Dimension	Definition	Mainland China	Hong Kong	Taiwan	U.S.	South Korea
Future Orientation	The extent to which individuals engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying gratification.	3.75	4.03	3.96	4.15	3.97
Institutional Collectivism	The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action.	4.77	4.13	4.59	4.20	5.20
Humane Orientation	The degree to which a collective encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others.	4.36	3.90	4.11	4.17	3.81
Uncertainty Avoidance	The extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate the unpredictability of future events.	4.94	4.32	4.34	4.15	3.55
Assertiveness	The degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in their relationships with others.	3.76	4.67	3.92	4.55	4.40
Power Distance	The degree to which members of a collective expect power to be distributed equally.	5.04	4.96	5.18	4.88	5.61
In-Group Collectivism	The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families.	5.80	5.32	5.59	4.25	5.54
Performance Orientation	The degree to which a collective encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence.	4.45	4.80	4.56	4.49	4.55
Gender Egalitarianism	The degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality.	3.05	3.47	3.18	3.34	2.50

3.3. Reliability and Validity

To evaluate the internal consistency of the constructs, we calculated Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) for each factor. The extracted factors aligned with the proposed measurement model, with all Cronbach’s alpha and CR values surpassing the 0.70 threshold [85]. Table 3 presents the factor loadings for individual measurement items and the Cronbach’s alpha for each construct. CR values are also provided in Table 3.

To establish convergent validity, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA model, encompassing the constructs shown in Table 3, demonstrated an acceptable fit (normed Chi-square = 1.764, RMSEA = 0.06, TLI = 0.91, CFI = 0.93) according to Kline [85]. Furthermore, each construct’s composite reliability (CR) exceeded its average variance extracted (AVE), providing additional support for convergent validity (refer to Table 3 and Table 5).

Discriminant validity was assessed using multiple methods since the squared correlation between each pair of constructs was lower than the AVE for each individual construct [107].

Table 5. Correlation Matrix.

	Mean	SD	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
(1) Buyer’s Dependence on its Major Supplier	46.883	22.954	-
(2) Relationship Duration	11.491	8.385	0.031	-
(3) Supply Uncertainty	3.379	1.114	−0.122	−0.078	0.610 a
(4) Technological Uncertainty	4.319	1.454	0.118	−0.139 †	0.011	0.641 a
(5) Demand Uncertainty	4.303	1.168	−0.151 *	−0.036	0.037	0.536 ***	0.620 a
(6) Supplier Integration (SI)	4.324	1.374	0.121	0.203 **	−0.373 ***	−0.068	0.009	0.637 a
(7) National Culture Congruence (NCC)	1.250	0.712	0.022	0.087	−0.209 **	−0.158 *	−0.169 *	0.159 *	-
(8) Organizational culture congruence (OCC)	4.413	1.143	0.208 **	0.100	−0.257 **	0.013	−0.028	0.442 ***	0.156 *	0.633 a
(9) Market Responsiveness	5.150	1.212	−0.048	0.007	−0.245 **	0.095	0.009	0.246 **	−0.116	0.183 *	0.720 a

Note(s): † p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. ^a Average variance extracted; AVE.

Table 5. Correlation Matrix.

	Mean	SD	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
(1) Buyer’s Dependence on its Major Supplier	46.883	22.954	-
(2) Relationship Duration	11.491	8.385	0.031	-
(3) Supply Uncertainty	3.379	1.114	−0.122	−0.078	0.610 a
(4) Technological Uncertainty	4.319	1.454	0.118	−0.139 †	0.011	0.641 a
(5) Demand Uncertainty	4.303	1.168	−0.151 *	−0.036	0.037	0.536 ***	0.620 a
(6) Supplier Integration (SI)	4.324	1.374	0.121	0.203 **	−0.373 ***	−0.068	0.009	0.637 a
(7) National Culture Congruence (NCC)	1.250	0.712	0.022	0.087	−0.209 **	−0.158 *	−0.169 *	0.159 *	-
(8) Organizational culture congruence (OCC)	4.413	1.143	0.208 **	0.100	−0.257 **	0.013	−0.028	0.442 ***	0.156 *	0.633 a
(9) Market Responsiveness	5.150	1.212	−0.048	0.007	−0.245 **	0.095	0.009	0.246 **	−0.116	0.183 *	0.720 a

Note(s): † p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. ^a Average variance extracted; AVE.

4. Analysis Results

4.1. Hierarchical Regression Analysis

To test the hypotheses, we employed a hierarchical regression analysis with buyer market responsiveness serving as the dependent variable (results shown in

Table 6. Hierarchical Regression Result.

		Dependent Variable: Buyer’s Market Responsiveness
		Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Industry Dummy (Base: Electronics)
	Arts & crafts	1.643	1.924	1.713	1.713	1.527
	Building materials	0.916	1.010	1.044	1.066	0.795
	Chemicals & petrochemicals	−0.094	−0.136	−0.086	−0.055	−0.097
	Food, beverage, alcohol, & cigarettes	−0.291	−0.075	−0.186	−0.295	−0.440
	Jewelry	0.509	0.330	0.107	0.083	0.118
	Metal, mechanical, & engineering	−0.130	0.006	−0.185	−0.217	−0.225
	Pharmaceutical & medicals	−1.698 **	−1.772 **	−1.908 **	−1.961 **	−1.991 **
	Publishing & printing	−1.559 †	−2.093 *	−2.271 **	−2.471 **	−2.512 **
	Rubber & plastics	−0.368	−0.361	−0.468	−0.462	−0.500
	Textiles	0.209	0.354	0.181	0.180	0.105
	Toys	−0.230	−0.126	−0.297	−0.396	−0.389
	Wood & furniture	1.165	1.334 †	1.486 *	1.451 *	1.408 *
	Others	−0.001	0.036	−0.104	−0.122	−0.183
Firm-level Control Variables
	Firm size	−0.012	−0.031	−0.014	−0.013	−0.014
	Buyer’s dependence	−0.004	−0.005	−0.006	−0.007	−0.006
	Relationship duration	0.008	0.002	0.003	0.000	0.003
	Supply uncertainty	−0.232 **	−0.111	−0.131	−0.130	−0.148 †
	Demand uncertainty	−0.088	−0.122	−0.146	−0.165 †	−0.184 †
	Technological uncertainty	0.122	0.142 †	0.131 †	0.136 †	0.144 †
Independent Variable & Moderators
	Supplier integration (SI)		0.267 ***	0.234 **	0.258 **	0.223 **
	National Culture Congruence (NCC)			−0.365 **	−0.397 **	−0.530 ***
	Organizational Culture Congruence (OCC)			0.120	0.104	0.023
2-Way Interaction
	SI * NCC				−0.011	0.003
	SI *OCC				0.075	0.045
3-Way Interaction
	SI * NCC * OCC					0.138 *
	R-square	0.194	0.262	0.304	0.314	0.337
	Adjusted R-square	0.091	0.163	0.200	0.200	0.222
	F-value	1.894 **	2.651 ***	2.917 ***	2.764 ***	2.933 ***
	Change in R-square	0.053 *	0.069 ***	0.041 *	0.010	0.023 *
	Change in F	3.297	13.930	4.369	1.062	5.098

Note(s): † p < 0.1; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. All estimates are unstandardised coefficients.

). The correlations among variables remained below the 0.50 threshold, and the largest variance inflation factor reached 2.164, confirming that multicollinearity is not a concern [108]. Model 1 contains only the control variables. Model 2 predicting the direct effect of SI is significant (F = 2.651, p < 0.001) and explains 51.2% of the variance. This analysis validates Hypothesis 1, establishing that SI significantly enhances buyer market responsiveness (unstandardized coefficient = 0.267, p-value = 0.000). Model 3 model includes the main effects of both cultural congruence dimensions, and Model 4 adds the two-way interaction terms between SI and each cultural variable. Our analysis revealed that neither NCC (unstandardized regression coefficient = −0.011, p-value = 0.896) nor OCC (standardized regression coefficient = 0.075, p-value = 0.162) independently moderated the relationship between SI and market responsiveness. Meanwhile, Model 5 incorporates the three-way interaction effect among SI, NCC, and OCC, which was statistically significant (unstandardized regression coefficient = 0.138, p-value = 0.025), supporting Hypothesis 2. This finding indicates that market responsiveness improvements through SI reach their maximum when both national and organizational cultures exhibit high congruence.

Analysis of the interaction plots reveals distinct patterns across different conditions. The data confirm that SI maintains a consistently positive relationship with market responsiveness across all NCC levels (refer to Figure 1a). Conversely, when OCC is high, indicating a strong alignment between buyer and supplier organizational cultures, the positive effect of SI on market responsiveness is further enhanced. However, these two-way interaction effects were not statistically significant. Meanwhile, the three-way interaction effect among SI, NCC, and OCC was statistically significant. The combination yielding the highest market responsiveness occurred when both NCC and OCC were high, where market responsiveness increased sharply as SI increased. In contrast, the combination with the lowest market responsiveness was observed when both NCC and OCC were low, showing relatively weak improvements in market responsiveness despite increases in SI. relatively weak improvements in market responsiveness despite increases in SI. Specifically, in contexts of high NCC, the moderating effect of OCC is amplified, maximizing the impact of SI on market responsiveness. Conversely, when both cultural congruences are low, the positive influence of SI is most limited.

4.2. Ad Hoc Analysis

To unpack the significant three-way interaction among Supplier Integration (SI), National Culture Congruence (NCC), and Organizational Culture Congruence (OCC), we conducted moderated regression using PROCESS Model 3. The interaction term (SI × NCC × OCC) was significant (β = 0.135, SE = 0.066, t(166) = 2.04, p = 0.043) and added an incremental ΔR² = 0.022 to the model, F(1, 166) = 4.15, p = 0.043. This effect size corresponds to a partial η² of 0.024, indicating that the three-way interaction uniquely explains 2.4% of the variance in market responsiveness. Next, we performed simple-slope analyses at ±1 SD of NCC and OCC to quantify how SI influences market responsiveness under four cultural-congruence scenarios. The detailed findings are summarized in

Table 7. Simple Slope Analysis Result.

NCC (Mean-Centered)	OCC (Mean-Centered)	Effect (β)	SE	t	p-Value	95% CI
Low (−0.378)	Low (−1.18)	0.241	0.096	2.51	0.013	[0.052, 0.430]
Low (−0.378)	Mid (−0.18)	0.158	0.082	1.92	0.057	[−0.005, 0.320]
Low (−0.378)	High (0.57)	0.096	0.101	0.94	0.346	[−0.104, 0.295]
High (0.928)	Low (−1.18)	0.121	0.143	0.85	0.399	[−0.161, 0.402]
High (0.928)	Mid (−0.18)	0.214	0.112	1.9	0.059	[−0.008, 0.435]
High (0.928)	High (0.57)	0.283	0.121	2.33	0.021	[0.043, 0.523]

.

When both NCC and OCC are low (−1 SD), SI exerts a significant positive effect on responsiveness (β = 0.241, p = 0.013), corresponding to an approximate 24-point increase in responsiveness per SD increase in SI. Conversely, when both NCC and OCC are high (+1 SD), SI’s effect is also significant and slightly larger (β = 0.283, p = 0.021), equating to an approximate 28-point increase in responsiveness per SD of SI. Under the mixed conditions where one moderator is low and the other high, SI’s slopes remain positive but are not statistically significant (p > 0.05). A slope-difference test comparing the low–low and high–high scenarios revealed no significant difference between their effect sizes (t = 0.27, p = 0.79), indicating that SI delivers similarly strong returns in both extreme cultural configurations.

These results suggest two distinct pathways through which SI enhances market responsiveness. In contexts of high congruence at both levels, shared national norms and aligned corporate values facilitate implicit trust and seamless collaboration, thereby magnifying SI’s impact. In contrast, when both NCC and OCC are low, the absence of natural trust and understanding compels firms to implement explicit controls, such as detailed documentation, formal contracts, and regular audits or training sessions, that compensate for cultural misalignment and again bolster SI’s effectiveness. This finding can be explained based on the “cultural distance paradox” [109]. At moderate levels of congruence, however, neither implicit trust nor formal controls is fully activated, creating a “zone of ambiguity” in which SI’s effectiveness is attenuated [110]. This ad hoc analysis reveals that SI can be highly effective under two extreme cultural configurations (i.e., natural alignment or disciplined compensation) while mid-range congruence offers fewer advantages.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This study significantly advances theoretical understandings in global supply chain integration, international strategic alliances, and resilience theory by integrating Information Processing Theory with Value Congruence Theory and resilience perspectives.

Firstly, our study shows how supplier integration (SI) drives market responsiveness—a key resilience capability—through a culturally contingent information-processing lens. Drawing on Information Processing Theory [47,48] and extant SI research, we demonstrate that alignment in both national culture [72] and organizational culture [23] between buyers and foreign suppliers reduces equivocality and accelerates bilateral information flows. This dual-culture congruence not only amplifies the volume and accuracy of market signals—enabling more agile sensing and decision making (a precursor to rapid recovery)—but also clarifies when and why SI translates into superior responsiveness in international contexts [60,61,63,70], thereby reinforcing resilience through early disruption detection.

Secondly, we reveal that the positive impact of SI on the firm’s resilient performance—via enhanced acquisition and processing of critical external information—is contingent on dual alignment in national and organizational culture between buyer and foreign supplier. Only under this dual-culture congruence do integrative mechanisms fully activate to deliver not just agility but also robustness in operations, echoing resilience frameworks that emphasize both adaptive and absorptive capacities (e.g., [43]). By uniting research streams that have predominantly examined cultural factors in isolation [29,89] or only within limited contexts [21], our dual-culture perspective enriches theoretical discourse on building culturally attuned resilience in inter-firm collaboration.

Finally, by drawing on a diverse international sample of manufacturing firms across the regions, our study overcomes the regional-specificity constraints of prior SI and resilience research. This broad geographical scope not only enhances generalizability and robustness but also demonstrates that culturally congruent integration consistently underpins resilience-enhancing mechanisms—such as rapid sensing, effective adaptation, and coordinated recovery—across varied institutional environments. This provides a solid empirical foundation for future investigations of multinational supply chain resilience in multicultural settings.

5.2. Managerial Implications

From a managerial standpoint, our findings indicate that firms can achieve more effective and efficient international supplier integration by proactively screening for cultural compatibility. In practice, this means that buyer organizations should embed assessments of both national and organizational culture fit into their supplier selection criteria. By giving preference to partners whose underlying values, communication styles, and decision-making norms naturally mirror their own, managers lay the groundwork for smoother collaboration from the very beginning.

When cultural alignment is established at the outset, firms reap multiple operational advantages. Shared norms and expectations reduce misunderstandings and the need for costly oversight, thereby minimizing coordination costs and conflict. Communication flows more freely and accurately, as aligned styles facilitate quicker exchanges of market and operational data. Likewise, joint decision making accelerates when both parties draw on a common framework of values, enabling rapid, coordinated responses to evolving market conditions. Ultimately, partnerships built on cultural fit foster the agility and responsiveness essential to superior market performance. To institutionalize this approach, managers might develop structured cultural-compatibility checklists, set predefined fit thresholds, and employ targeted interview protocols during supplier evaluation—practices that not only optimize market responsiveness but also strengthen operational performance and sustain competitive advantage in today’s interconnected global environment.

5.3. Limitations & Future Research

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations. First, its cross-sectional, self-report design precludes causal inference and may be vulnerable to common-method bias; future research could employ longitudinal, multi-source, or mixed-methods approaches to better unpack causal mechanisms. Second, our sample is confined to manufacturing firms—extending analyses to service industries and emerging-market contexts would enhance external validity. Third, we examine cultural factors in isolation; integrating additional moderators (e.g., technological turbulence, regulatory complexity, industry characteristics) would yield a more comprehensive model. Fourth, by using market responsiveness as our sole proxy for resilience, we capture agility but omit robustness and recovery dimensions; subsequent studies should incorporate measures of absorptive capacity and shock-recovery. Fifth, our organizational-culture congruence measure focuses only on value alignment and neglects broader dimensions such as shared norms, practices, or leadership styles; employing multidimensional culture frameworks would test whether our effects persist under a more holistic assessment. Although subgroup analyses by buyer country (Hong Kong, Taiwan, USA, Korea) could potentially uncover meaningful cross-national differences in the three-way interaction effect, the small sample sizes in the case of Taiwan and Korea precluded reliable estimation and interpretation. Future research should seek to address this limitation by assembling larger and more balanced samples for subgroup analysis, thereby enabling more robust examination of country-specific effects. Finally, although, in the ad-hoc analysis, we extend the “cultural distance paradox” by showing that both high and low congruence at national and organizational levels can amplify supplier integration’s impact via implicit trust and explicit controls [109], future work should investigate how firms design formal control mechanisms under low-congruence conditions, explore the “zone of ambiguity” boundary conditions, and validate our dual-path model across different industries and geographic contexts.