1
E-RETAILER’S RESILIENCE: THE INFLUENCE OF SUPPLIER CHARACTERISTICS ON SUPPLY CHAIN
RESILIENCE
An embedded multiple case study
Master thesis, MSc, Master Supply Chain Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 27, 2017 SARA HOEKMAN | S1961365
s.w.hoekman@student.rug.nl
Supervisor University of Groningen | Prof. Dr. D.P. Van Donk Co-assessor University of Groningen | Dr. X. Zhang
Supervisor Company | Dr. Ir. M. B.
Word count: 11.673
2
ABSTRACT
As the importance of supply chain resilience grows in many sectors, the ability to identify which suppliers contribute to improving supply chain resilience is crucial. The objective of this paper is to understand how supplier characteristics influence supply chain resilience in the e-retail context.
Previous research shows limited and contrary results about how supplier characteristics influence supply chain resilience. Furthermore, research about resilience in the e-retail context is constrained. In order to generate more in-depth insights, an embedded multiple case study research is chosen. The 7 cases consisting of 13 semi-structured interviews indicated that a small geographical distance, several product characteristics, supplier integration and mutual dependency increases supply chain resilience.
Besides, the findings show no influence of the e-retail context. This paper provides insights to managers and contributes to literature by providing empirical evidence that supplier integration, mutual dependency and several product characteristics increase supply chain resilience.
Keywords: supply chain resilience – supplier characteristics – supply chain integration – e-retail
context
3
CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ... 5
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 6
2.1 Supply Chain Resilience ... 6
2.2 Supplier Characteristics ... 8
2.3 E-retail Context ... 11
2.4 Conceptual model ... 11
3. METHODOLOGY ... 12
3.1 Case selection ... 13
3.2 Data collection ... 14
3.3 Data analysis ... 15
4. FINDINGS ... 17
4.1 Geographical distance ... 18
4.2 Product type ... 19
4.3 Supplier integration ... 20
4.4 Dependency ... 22
4.5 E-retail context ... 24
5. DISCUSSION ... 25
6. CONCLUSION ... 26
7. REFERENCES ... 29
APPENDICES ... 33
Appendix A – Introduction of the study & confidentiality agreement ... 33
Appendix B – Interview protocol: Supplier ... 34
Appendix C – Interview protocol: Focal company ... 36
Appendix D – Coding Tree ... 38
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Prof. Dr. D. P. van Donk for his constructive feedback and valuable brainstorm sessions in which he helped me to get new insights on my study. In addition, I thank my co-assessor Dr. X. Zhang for taking the time to give me some critical feedback.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my supervisor of the focal company Dr. Ir. M. B. who gave me the great opportunity to be part of an inspiring organization and to generate data at the organization and its suppliers. His support, input and motivating feedback from a practical point of view, made my internship very instructive and pleasant. Additionally, I would like to thank the participants for their enthusiasm, willingness and openness to participate in this study. More thankful words go to my colleagues of the supply chain management department for their listening and support.
Moreover, I would like to thank Tom Grevers for his helpful comments and support during these six
months. And last but definitely not least, a special word of thanks to my parents who always supported
me during my studies, always provide me with wise advice and who made it possible for me to study
at the University of Groningen.
5
1. INTRODUCTION
Customer expectations in the e-retail context are rising; in the past, lead times of three days were the standard, nowadays, delivery in less than 24 hours is required. Additionally, customers expect a wide variety of products which result in an enormous supply base for the e-retailer. These rising expectations put pressure on supplier dependency which increase e-retailers’ vulnerability for supply-side disruptions and hence resilience becomes important. However, more than 20% of the retail organizations do not have resilience policies in place (Business Continuity Institute, 2015). Since upstream disruptions have a crucial effect on the entire supply chain, the role of suppliers to improve resilience is of utmost importance (Pereira, Christopher, & Lago Da Silva, 2014). As suppliers differ in characteristics the influence of these characteristics on the capabilities of resilience becomes interesting.
However, these influences become not clear from previous literature. Therefore, this paper contributes to current literature by obtaining how suppliers could contribute to an e-retailer’s resilience.
Supply chain resilience refers to “the ability of a system to return to its original state or move to a new, more desirable state after being disturbed” (Christopher & Peck, 2004, p.4), and is a topic of interest among scientists and practitioners (Kamalahmadi & Parast, 2016). Building resilience has become a strategic tool (Sheffi & Rice, 2005) to prepare, respond, recover and even grow from unforeseen events that disrupt the product or service flow. Previous research has shown that supplier performance influence the ability of a focal company to respond to these unforeseen events, which underlines the importance of working with the right suppliers (Su, Dyer, & Gargeya, 2009). As supplier performance is contingent based upon several characteristics of the supplier (Marthadisastra, Daryanto, Arifin, &
Gumbira-Sa’id, 2014) some authors started to study the influence of supplier characteristics on supply chain resilience. Habermann, Blackhurst, & Metcalf, (2015) state that supply lead times, which are related to geographical dispersion, are negatively related to disruption risks. Brandon-Jones, Squire, Autry, & Petersen, (2014) argue that the effect of supply chain visibility on resilience is contingent upon certain supplier characteristics. However, they did not found a relation with geographical distance.
Additionally, integration is positively related to supply chain, flexibility (Christopher & Peck, 2004;
Fayezi & Zomorrodi, 2015) and visibility (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014), which are elements of supply chain resilience (Tukamuhabwa, Stevenson, Busby, & Zorzini, 2015). However, Wieland &
Wallenburg, (2013) found that integration does not have a significant effect on supply chain resilience but increases dependency within the supply chain. Although some authors started to express the influence of several supplier characteristics on resilience, it does not come clear from previous research how suppliers could contribute to the resilience of a focal company. Furthermore, by following the contingency theory (Flynn, Huo, & Zhao, 2010) the e-retail context might influence these processes.
Previous literature focuses on the specific context of the e-retailer and their processes (Kumar, Tiffany,
& Vaidya, 2016). However, literature does not elaborate on the influence of this context on the resilience
capabilities.
6 To the best of the knowledge of the author, current literature lacks in analysing the relationship between supplier characteristics and resilience in the e-retail context. Due to the competitive e-retail market, the supplier dependency and the importance of product availability, building resilience for e-retailers becomes crucial. Therefore, this paper aims to answer the following research question: How do supplier characteristics influence the resilience of an e-retailer?
In order to answer the research question, an embedded multiple case study at suppliers of a Dutch e- retail organization will be conducted. This study makes contributions in two ways. Theoretically, this paper places the subject of supply chain resilience in a new and contemporary context which is the e- retail context, and thereby answers the further research call of Wiengarten, Humphreys, Gimenez, &
McIvor (2016). Due to the growing importance of velocity and their specific characteristics, it is an interesting context. Besides, novel insights will be provide on how several supplier characteristics influence resilience of the focal company as suggested by Brandon-Jones et al. (2014). Practically, this paper provides managers knowledge on how to manage the characteristics of current suppliers and which supplier characteristics should be included when selecting new suppliers, in order to increase supply chain resilience.
This paper will be structured as follows; the theoretical background gives a review of the relevant literature. The third section shows the method of data collection and is followed by the results of this research in the fourth section. The fifth section will discuss the results and limitations of this study.
Finally, conclusions will be drawn and practical and theoretical implications and suggestions for future research will be made.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Supply Chain Resilience
Based upon the discussion in the relevant literature (Blackhurst, Dunn, & Craighead, 2011; Christopher
& Peck, 2004; Ponomarov, & Holcomb, 2009), Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015, p.5599) define a comprehensive supply chain resilience definition: “the adaptive capability of a supply chain to prepare for and/or respond to disruptions, to make a timely and cost effective recovery, and therefore progress to a post-disruption state of operations – ideally a better state than prior to the disruption.” The concept of resilience differs from traditional risk management (Pettit, Croxton, & Fiksel, 2013) as it is not only focused on reducing the probability and likelihood of risks to occur, but it is a strategic initiative (Sheffi
& Rice, 2005) about “having the capacity to change before the case for change becomes desperately
obvious” (Hamel & Valikangas, 2003, p.53). Consequently, it will increases a company’s
competitiveness (Sheffi & Rice, 2005). In order to establish a resilient supply chain, organizations
should have adaptive capabilities in place (Pettit et al., 2013; Tukamuhabwa et al., 2015). As resilience
is not a one-time event but a network-wide, on-going process (Scholten & Schilder, 2015), four
7 formative capabilities are suggested by Jüttner & Maklan (2011) as they are based on integrating and coordinating resources. Therefore, this study will use the well accepted definition of Jüttner & Maklan (2011) to conceptualize resilience and consists of flexibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration. An overview of the capabilities is given in table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Operationalization of the formative resilience capabilities
Flexibility
Flexibility refers to “the ease with which a supply chain can change the number of possible options and degree of difference between the options in order to cope with a range of market/changes while performing comparably well” (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011, p.251), and is seen as a key capability to achieve resilience in the immediate response phase after a disruption (Scholten, Scott, & Fynes, 2014).
Flexibility empowers organizations to deal with high levels of uncertainty and is important in facilitating coordination processes (Manuj & Mentzer, 2008). It allows a supply chain to response and recover from unexpected events by having multiple alternative solutions (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011;
Sheffi & Rice, 2005) which can lead to a competitive advantage (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011). Resilience can be increased by flexibility in many ways, via flexible production facilities, flexible distribution channels, flexible capacity, flexible transportation systems, flexible supply base and flexible labour arrangements (Pettit et al., 2013; Sheffi & Rice, 2005; Tang & Tomlin, 2008).
Visibility
Visibility refers to the ability to see through the entire supply chain (Christopher & Peck, 2004) and is defined as “The extent to which actors within the supply chain have access to or share timely information about supply chain operations, other actors and management which they consider as being key or useful to their operations” (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011, p.251). Visibility can by attained by information sharing (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014) regarding inventories, production and purchasing schedules and demand and supply conditions. When visibility is increased, uncertainties can be
Capabilities Definition Sources
Flexibility “The ease with which a supply chain can change the number of possible options and degree of difference between the options in order to cope with a range of market/changes while performing comparably well.”
Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011, p.251
Visibility “The extent to which actors within the supply chain have access to or share timely information about supply chain operations, other actors and management which they consider as being key or useful to their operations.”
Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011, p.251
Velocity “The speed with which a supply chain can react to market changes/events.”
Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011, p.251 Collaboration “The level of joint decision making and working together at a
tactical, operational or strategic level between two or more supply chain members. Scalable through the magnitude of relationship strength, quality and closeness.”
Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011, p.251
8 revealed, risks can be managed and the impact of disruptions can be determined (Blackhurst, Dunn, &
Craighead, 2011). Hence, visibility is related to disruption response, recovery and event readiness and consequently contributes to resilience (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011).
Velocity
Velocity focuses on the speed with which a supply chain can react to market changes/events (Jüttner,
& Maklan, 2011) and is defined as “The speed with which a supply chain can react to market changes/events” (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011, p.251). In a risk event velocity means the loss that happens per unit of time (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011). When velocity is low, response to disruptions, and consequently recover time will be low. An increase in velocity improves the ability to quickly obtain control over a disruption, allowing an early prevent of potentially unwanted consequences related to financial damage, product flows and lead times (Manuj & Mentzer, 2008). By shorten the time the disruption impacts the supply chain, velocity contributes to resilience (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011).
Collaboration
Supply chain collaboration refers to “The level of joint decision making and working together at a tactical, operational or strategic level between two or more supply chain members. Scalable through the magnitude of relationship strength, quality and closeness” (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011, p.251).
Reducing uncertainty, by the exchange of information and shared knowledge, is the underlying principle of collaboration in the supply chain (Christopher & Peck, 2004). Consequently, key elements for building cooperative relationships are interfirm trust and information sharing (Kamalahmadi &
Parast, 2016). Collaboration is a proactive capability for resilience as it increases visibility in the chain (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011). However, collaboration is also related to responding and recovering from disruptions in the supply chain (Scholten & Schilder, 2015) because sharing experiences among parties could increase the capability to deal with future disruptions and risks (Jüttner, & Maklan, 2011; Sheffi
& Rice, 2005).
It is important to realize that in order to create an impact on supply chain resilience, these capabilities need to be present in combination (Ponomarov, & Holcomb, 2009).
2.2 Supplier Characteristics
One of the key determining factors of the success of a focal company is the performance of their
suppliers (Carr, Kaynak, Hartley, & Ross, 2008). However, the extent to which suppliers are able to
perform to the requirements of the focal organization depends on several characteristics (Marthadisastra
et al., 2014). Previous studies showed that the type of product a supplier sells, influences the supply
chain strategy and consequently performance (Fisher, 1997; Qi, Boyer, & Zhao, 2009). Furhtermore,
Danese (2013) found that supplier integration is a key managerial strategy for improving company
performance. In addition to performance, several studies started to relate supplier characteristics to
9 resilience. Current studies relate supplier integration positively (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Fayezi &
Zomorrodi, 2015; Brandon-Jones et al., 2014) but also, negatively (Wieland & Wallenburg, 2013) to resilience. Moreover, the geographical distance between a supplier and the focal company could influence the resilience and vulnerability of a supply chain (Brandon-Jones et al. 2014; Choi & Krause, 2006). This paper will describe geographical distance, product type and supplier integration as supplier characteristics.
Supplier Characteristics
Definition Sources
Geographical Distance
“The physical distance (amount of km) between suppliers and their focal company.”
Adapted from: Stringfellow, Teagarden, & Nie, 2008 Product Type “The extent to which products differ in demand
stability, product life cycle, profit margin, product variety, seasonality and lead times.”
Adapted from: Fisher, 1997;
Wong, Arlbjørn, &
Johansen, 2005 Supplier Integration “The degree to which a firm exchanges information
and develops partnerships with its suppliers in order to collaboratively manage materials and information flows, thus smoothing and optimizing procurement and production processes.”
Danese, 2013. p.1029
Table 2.2: Operationalization of the supplier characteristics
Geographical Distance
Organizations have become geographically dispersed as a result of the global nature of today’s business environment. Geographical distance can be measured physically by the amount of kilometres and elongated the flow of goods (Bode & Wagner, 2015). Due to geographical distance, transportations modes, communications styles and power differs (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). Besides, langue barriers and time-zone differences arise (Stringfellow et al., 2008).
Product Type
Products are classified in many ways. Wong et al. (2005) differentiate products based on seasonality and argue that product demand can be influenced as a consequence of different seasons. This results in short selling windows asking for large capacities in short periods (Wong et al., 2005). Fisher (1997) distinguish products based on differences in demand predictability, profit margins, product variety, lead times and product life cycle and state that based on this there are two groups of product types: functional products and innovative products. Although products are physically the same, Fisher (1997) argues that they can be either functional or innovative.
Supplier Integration
Supplier integration is primary focused on the integration between a supplier and a buyer (Das,
Narasimhan, & Talluri, 2006) and is defined as “the degree to which a firm exchanges information and
develops partnerships with its suppliers in order to collaboratively manage materials and information
10 flows, thus smoothing and optimizing procurement and production processes” (Danese, 2013, p. 1029).
Unique capabilities are required as integration with suppliers in the supply chain can be complex (Leuschner, Rogers, & Charvet, 2013). Following Leuschner et al. (2013), this study considers supplier integration as a three-dimensional inter-related construct consisting of information integration, operational integration and relational integration. Although, the dimensions are viewed separately in table 2.3, it should be taken into account that the dimensions are interrelated (Leuschner et al., 2013).
Table 2.3: Operationalization of the dimensions of supplier integration
Information integration is defined as “the coordination of information transfer, collaborative communication and supporting technology among firms in the supply chain” (Leuschner et al., 2013, p. 38). It is the dimension wherein a supplier and buyer start sharing information, data and knowledge including production plans, stock levels and forecasting (Lee, 2001; Van Der Vaart et al., 2012). Sharing information is enabled by linking electronic applications and intra-organizational types of ICT to facilitate information sharing (Wong et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016).
Operational integration refers to “the collaborative joint activity development, work processes and coordinated decision making among firms in the supply chain” (Leuschner et al., 2013, p. 38). It starts when management integrates (tangible) activities or technologies, next to the integration of information, that play an important role in the collaboration with their suppliers (van der Vaart & van Donk, 2008).
Examples are delivery frequencies, customized packaging and vendor management inventory (De Toni, 1999; Frohlich & Westbrook, 2001; Prajogo et al., 2016). By the integration of activities and adaptation of processes between organizations, buyers and suppliers can jointly improve processes (Van Der Vaart et al., 2012) and involve in the development of new processes or products (Danese, 2013).
Supplier integration dimension
Definition Examples of related
elements
Sources
Information Integration
“The coordination of information transfer, collaborative communication and supporting technology among firms in the supply chain.” (Leuschner et al., 2013, p. 38)
Production plans, stock levels, forecasting, orders, future plans, marketing, sales, supporting ICT systems
Lee, 2001; Van Der Vaart, Van Donk, Gimenez, & Sierra, 2012; Zhang, Van Donk, & Van Der Vaart, 2016.
Operational Integration
“The collaborative joint activity development, work processes and coordinated decision making among firms in the supply chain.” (Leuschner et al., 2013, p. 38)
Joint activity development, joint process improvement, vendor management inventory, delivery frequencies, customized packaging
Danese, 2013; De Toni, 1999; Frohlich
& Westbrook, 2001;
Prajogo, Oke, &
Olhager, 2016; Van Der Vaart et al., 2012.
Relational Integration
“The adoption of a strategic connection between firms in the supply chain characterized by trust, commitment and long-term orientation.” (Leuschner et al., 2013, p. 38)
Dedicated investments, commitment, trust, long- term relation, shared goals
Das et al., 2006;
Fayezi & Zomorrodi, 2015; Nyaga, Whipple, & Lynch, 2010.
11 Relational integration is defined as “the adoption of a strategic connection between firms in the supply chain characterized by trust, commitment and long-term orientation” (Leuschner et al., 2013, p. 38).
Information and operational integration are antecedents of the relational integration dimension which goes beyond activities and is focused on attitudes of the supplier and buyer. Integration requires an attitude shift of the supplier and buyer, from an adversarial attitude to a cooperative attitude (Boon-itt
& Chee Yew, 2011) and includes concepts as trust, commitment (Fayezi & Zomorrodi, 2015) and dedicated investments (Nyaga et al., 2010). Furthermore, only firms that have a long-term relationship with suppliers will be able to attain relational integration (Leuschner et al., 2013).
This study focusses on the above mentioned three supplier characteristics. It is important to take into account that these supplier characteristics have inter-relations. Wong et al., (2015) found that the effectiveness of information integration depends on the type of product. Furthermore, it is important for products with short life cycles to invest in ways to reduce lead times. On the other hand, lead time reduction for long life cycle products, is interesting as long as it does not increase costs (Fisher, 1997).
This shows that product type is related with geographical distance. Longer lead times may create difficulties through the requirement of extended planning and further data (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014) which is related to information integration (Leuschner et al., 2013).
2.3 E-retail Context
E-retailers sell goods and services via electronic channels like the Internet (Mankar & Muley, 2016).
The context is characterized by a wide geographical reach of customers and suppliers, a 24/7 availability of the market and an enormous volume and range of different products and services varying from perishable goods to fashion to holidays to financial services (Fernie, Sparks, & McKinnon, 2010;
Mankar & Muley, 2016; Zott, Amit, & Donlevy, 2000). Additionally, the context is marked by high levels of rapid and reliable deliveries and transparency of customer and product data (Fernie et al., 2010;
Swaminathan & Tayur, 2003; Zott et al., 2000). Although e-fulfilment activities do not extremely differ from the traditional retail supply chain, the intensity of this process in e-retailing necessitates to structure processes differently (Kumar et al., 2016). According to the contingency theory (Flynn et al., 2010) contextual factors are the major factors that determine how to manage an organisation or supply chain (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014; Zhang, Van Der Vaart, & Van Donk, 2011). Subsequently, the contextual factors may affect the capabilities or resources needed to drive performance (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014), and cause several challenges for e-retailers. It is assumed in this study that the context in which the e-retailer is operating may influence the relation between supplier characteristics and resilience.
2.4 Conceptual model
Previous literature show the influences of some supplier characteristics on the performance and
vulnerability of a supply chain (Bode & Wagner, 2015; Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). However, literature
12 on how supplier characteristics influence the formative elements of resilience is fragmented. While Bode & Wagner (2015) argue that geographical distance reduces flexibility and Brandon-Jones et al.
(2014) state that collaboration is negatively affected by language barriers and different communication styles, it is not completely clear how geographical distance influences resilience. Furthermore, some authors mention the positive influence of supplier integration on flexibility (Christopher & Peck, 2004;
Fayezi & Zomorrodi, 2015) and visibility (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). However, others state that supplier integration decrease resilience (Wieland & Wallenburg, 2013). Despite, the finding of Scholten
& Schilder (2015) that the criticality and seasonality of the type of product determines the level of collaboration, studies about product type and resilience are limited. Furthermore, in light of the contingency theory (Flynn et al., 2010) the context of an e-retailer may influence the organization of processes between the supplier and the focal company and consequently influence resilience. However, previous literature is not clear on the influences of the e-retail context.
In order to increase resilience, it is important to get an understanding of the influence of the characteristics of suppliers on the flexibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration capabilities of the focal company during disruptions. This paper will describe the relation between supplier characteristics and resilience in more detail and studies the influences of the e-retail context on this process, by conducting an embedded in depth multiple case study. Figure 2.2 visualize the following research question: How do supplier characteristics influence the resilience of an e-retailer?
Figure 2.2: Conceptual Model
3. METHODOLOGY
In order to empirically investigate the influence of the three supplier characteristics on the four
capabilities of resilience, an embedded multiple case study is adopted (Eisenhardt, 1989). This type of
research analyses multiple levels within a single study (Eisenhardt, 1989) and a is suitable method to
explore this scarcely studied phenomenon in its natural context and will enable a better in depth
13 understanding (Yin, 2009). Furthermore, it provides an objective dataset and allows the researcher to do a cross-case analysis (Yin, 2009), which will increase the analytical generalization of the study (Karlsson, 2009). The focal company (FC) of this study, named ‘X’, is an e-retailer. X sells many different types of products via the Internet and delivers these products at the customer’s home. As X is a big, profitable company with many first-tier suppliers responsible for enormous products, it has to deal with many supplier characteristics. Furthermore, it is essential to X that the right products are in place at the moment of customer demand. Therefore, disruptions at the supply side of the supply chain result in enormous problems for X hence resilience becomes important. The differentiation in supplier characteristics and the importance of supply chain resilience, make X a suitable case for this study. As a minimum of four cases is suggested to yield more generalizable, robust and a broader exploration (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) a number of seven cases were studied. Since this study is focussing on supplier characteristics and disruptions at the supply side, the unit of analysis is the relation between the focal company and its first-tier supplier.
3.1 Case selection
In order to select cases, it is important that the characteristics identified in the conceptual model are reflected (Yin, 2009). First, a preselection was done through analysis of documents related to the supply base of the focal company. In this preselection, suppliers were selected based on the significant financial and strategic importance to the focal company. The selected suppliers are in X’s top 3 list of financial and strategic importance of suppliers for the three categories fashion, garden furniture and electronics.
Secondly, the chosen suppliers were selected based on geographical distance and seasonality of their
products. As X has suppliers located in different areas of the world, geographical distance is
operationalized on a two-scale basis. Suppliers located within 1000 kilometres are marked as ‘close
geographical distance’ whereas suppliers over 1000 kilometres located are marked as ‘far geographical
distance’. The type of product is operationalized based on the seasonality of the product. Products are
marked as ‘seasonal’ as they are mainly sold during a specific period or season like, summer, winter,
and Christmas. Products are marked as ‘non-seasonal’ when they are not related to a specific season in
which they are sold. This study will use a combination of literal and theoretical replication, to see
whether the findings predict similar results in several cases or if the results are contrary for predictable
reasons (Karlsson, 2009). The selection process resulted in a final selection of 7 cases. These selected
suppliers are named A, B, C, D, E, F and G. The criteria on which the cases are selected are shown in
table 3.1.
14 Case Geographical Distance Product seasonality
Close Far Yes No Both
A X X
B X X
C X X
D X X
E X X
F X X
G X X
Table 3.1: Research sample
3.2 Data collection
In order to collect data for each case, thirteen individual face-to-face interviews with a representative of the first-tier supplier and with buyers and supply chain planners of X responsible for that supplier, were organized. These interviews are taken between 17 November 2016 and 17 December 2016. The interviewees were selected as a result of their knowledge about past disruptions and interactions between the supplier and focal company. By conducting interviews with both first-tier suppliers and employees of the focal company, different perspectives were highlighted which increases the richness of the data, reduces the responded bias and increases reliability reasons (Karlsson, 2009). Due to geographical dispersion two interviews were taken via Skype. An overview of the details of the interviews is shown in table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Interview details
In order to guide and standardize the process of data collection, to retrieve correct and valuable data and to improve the validity and inter-reliability of the study, an interview protocol is established (see appendix B & C)
(Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002; Yin, 2009). This protocol is grounded in thetheoretical background of this study and began with general questions regarding processes of the company and the position of the interviewee. The interviews with suppliers (appendix B) and employees of the focal company (appendix C) consisted of three topics; supplier integration, past disruptions and
Case Interview Position Interviewee(s)
Main product(s) Location Interview
Total record time (minutes)
A FC A Buyer & SC Planner (X) Apparel X 45
Sup. A Sales Manager (A) X 41
B FC B Buyer (X) Apparel X 51
Sup. B Sales manager (B) Skype 40
C FC C SC planner (X) Electronics X 56
Sup. C Account manager (C) X 53
D FC D SC planner (X) Apparel X 55
Sup. D Account manager (D) X 20
E FC E Buyer (X) Garden furniture X 50
Sup. E Owner/Director (E) Skype 24
F FC F Buyer (X) Garden furniture X 50
G FC G Category Manager (X) Electronics X 45
Sup. G Sales Manager (G) G 40
15 the e-retail context. In order to increase reliability and allow comparability of the answers, the interview consisted of semi-structured questions (Yin, 2009). Before the interviews started, all respondents signed the confidentiality agreement (appendix A). All interviews, except two, took approximately 50 minutes and were recorded by a digital voice recorder after permission of the interviewee. Together with the field notes, these recordings helped the researcher to carefully summarize the relevant responses. The interviews are transcribed within 24 hours after the interview took place (Yin, 2009). In order to achieve construct validity (Yin, 2009), the interviewees reviewed a summary of the relevant outcomes of the interviews and answered remaining questions of the researcher. Since most interviewees are natively speaking Dutch, all interviews, except one, were in Dutch. This informed the participants convenience, generate rich and complete data and additionally, it enabled the interviewees to provide in-depth and extensive answers. However, due to language differences one interview was in English.
Despite several choices to enhance the reliability and validity of the data, this methodology might have possible limitations. First, three of the interviews with representatives of the suppliers took place at the focal company. Even though these interviews were taken in a private room, the respondents may behave les open, since they were interviewed in the environment of their customer. Secondly, due to busy schedules of the suppliers, two interviews lasted only half of the time of the other interviews and one interview has not occurred. Thirdly, the supplier of case D was not very open in answering the questions, which resulted in less useful information for this study from the side of this supplier. Finally, only interviews are used as method of data collection. Increased generalizability will be reached by incorporating a survey study and additional documents concerning the buyer-supplier relationships.
3.3 Data analysis
After data collection and transcription of the interviews, the data was reduced by the use of coding.
According to the guidelines of Miles & Huberman (1994), the collected data was analysed. The data
analysis started with reducing the data to first-order quotes and sentences relevant to supplier
characteristics and the four formative capabilities of resilience. Subsequently, the first-order quotes
were translated and grouped into second-order categories such as ‘information sharing’, ‘cultural
differences’ and ‘seasonality’. This gave a first idea of the supplier characteristics that were present and
empowered the researcher to link third-order quotes related to the supplier characteristics that are
deductively distracted from the initial theory and highlighted in table 2.2. However, the supplier
characteristic ‘dependency’ was inductively derived from the interviews and indicated to influence
resilience. That is why this inductive variable is added to the deductive variables in the coding tree in
appendix D. In the third step of the coding process, the researcher deduced a link between the first-
order codes and the four formative capabilities of resilience, shown in table 2.1. An example of the
coding scheme is shown in table 3.3 and the complete coding scheme is included in Appendix E.
16 Link to
supply chain resilience
Data reduction (first-order code) Descriptive order (second- order code)
Link to supplier characteristic (third-order code)
Flexibility “One of the problems we face with A are thelogistics requirements which they cannot meet. This results in longer lead times for many products and therefore it is always a point of discussion. Other big (national) e-retailers are starting to have logistic requirements too and since they purchase bigger numbers, A will adjust the processes for them first”
(FC A).
Size Dependency
“We decided to produce a big part, almost half of our collection, during low season. This resulted in no delivery delays and a discount on the purchasing price” (FC B).
Joint activity development
Operational integration
Visibility “We've got for example ‘InTouch’, which is a website that shows all our products. Our customers are able to sign in and even order products via this platform. It is refreshed every two or three hours and thus it gives insights about the inventory status and it shows when we will receive new products. It is all based-on information we get from our vendors so when there is a problem at the customs because some papers or not ok for example, it could take longer.” (Supplier C).
IT systems Information integration
“We see each other more often and therefore our band differs. It is easy to jump in the car and discuss things face to face. Furthermore, I think that they are more concerned with us as they have our products on stock” (FC F).
Frequency of communication
Information integration
Velocity “They informed us by mail about the disruption, but we read the email the next day due to the time differences. As reaction to the email we wanted to skype with E however, E was not at the office anymore.” (FC E).
Time differences Geographical distance
“There are only a few hours a day in which we can have direct contact.” (FC B).
Time differences Geographical distance Collaboration “At A there is a person who is fully focused on us.
As A is an enormous supplier with many labels, she visits all the labels and make a preselection for us.
This saves us time and besides she could advise us as she know what sells” (FC A).
Dedicated investments
Relational integration
“During the last years we became more important for D and that is why they made a calculation about the costs and benefits of a process adjustment. As we have shared goals and decided to grow together D adjusted some processes” (FC D).
Size Dependency
Table 3.3: Example of coding scheme
After reducing and coding the data, the researcher started with analysing the data to explore how specific
supplier characteristics influence the capabilities of supply chain resilience. First, a within analysis was
done. By analyzing all cases separately, the researcher became familiar with the different circumstances
and characteristics of each case (Eisenhardt, 1989). Thereafter, a cross-case analysis was done in order
to identify patterns that could explain how specific supplier characteristics could influence resilience.
17 In order to enable a better comparison between cases and to get a greater understanding of the contextual factors in each case, table 4.1 focuses on the characteristics of the relationships between the focal company and the different suppliers. During the cross-case analysis, the cases varying in supplier characteristics are compared and possible trends in the amount of resilience could be related towards the supplier characteristics. Due to the length and number of cases and the intention of the research to study how supplier characteristics influence resilience, a comparison between the seven cases is more relevant. Therefore, the findings focus directly on the cross-case analysis.
4. FINDINGS
In order to find out how supplier characteristics within a buyer-supplier relationship influence supply chain resilience of the focal company, seven cases differing in characteristics are compared. In analyzing the data, specific details are unraveled on how the supplier characteristics geographical distance, product type and supplier integration enable flexibility, visibility, velocity and collaboration.
Furthermore, dependency was found to influence supply chain resilience as well. Additionally, a small influence of the e-retail context is found. In order to get a better understanding of the findings table 4.1 gives an overview of the relations between the focal company and the different suppliers. The supplier integration activities are ranked from a level in which very little information, operations, and relational concepts are shared (1 = low level of integration) to a level on which all kinds of information are shared, processes are aligned, and all relational concepts are shared (5 = high level of integration).
Characteristics of the buyer-supplier relationships
Case Geographical Distance
Product Type Supplier Integration activities
(1 = low level of integration, 5 = high level of integration)
Dependency
A Close Apparel
Seasonal &
non-seasonal Make to stock Substitutable &
Non-substitutable
Info. Int.
Op. Int.
Rel. Int.
4
3 4
Share: sales, trends, orders, seasonal budgets, seasonal evaluations, returns, marketing, turnovers, logistics Joint process improvement Dedicated persons, commitment, growing together: shared goals
"Our relationship feels like a marriage." (sup. A)
Mutual dependency
B Far Apparel
Seasonal Make to order Substitutable
Info. Int.
Op. Int.
Rel. Int.
2
2 2
Share: market information, product design, turnover, orders.
Product development Long term-relationship
"Our relation is the reason we still work together; I think you can call our relation in the meantime history." (FC B)
X highly dependent on B
C Close Electronics
Non-seasonal Make to stock Non-substitutable
Info. Int.
Op. Int.
Rel. Int.
4
4 3
Share: market, purchase, sales, prices
& products, orders, future plans, inventories, deliveries. Daily contact, starting with EDI
Virtual warehouse Long-term relationship
“Our relationship is very open; we can communicate everything with each other”
(FC C)
X more dependent on C than C on X
D Close Apparel
Seasonal &
non-seasonal Make to stock Substitutable &
Non-substitutable
Info. Int.
Op. Int.
Rel. Int.
3
3 3
Share: sales, orders, marketing, logistics, mark downs, market information
Joint process improvement
Dedicated persons, growing together
"X is our key account customer, which means that it is a strategic customer in which we invest more time to collaborate and to have shared goals for the long term." (sup. D)
Mutual dependency
18
Table 4.1: Characteristics of the buyer-supplier relationship across cases
4.1 Geographical distance
As shown in table 4.1 the suppliers in case B and E are located far away. In comparison with the cases close by, the findings of both cases highlight the influence of geographical distance on supply chain resilience, as geographical distance influences velocity, collaboration and visibility. To achieve velocity and hence supply chain resilience, organizations need to consider the geographical distance between each other. The data show that time differences reduce velocity. Working in different timeframes reduce the ability to quickly anticipate, respond to or recover from disruptions. “They informed us by mail about the disruption, but we read the email the next day due to time differences. As reaction to the email we wanted to skype with E however, E was not at the office anymore.” (FC E). Contrary, in case C where the geographical distance is relatively small it is argued that “It is easier to switch with, and react to a supplier close by as you can easily jump in the car and visit each other.” (FC C). Besides, long lead times as a consequence of the geographical distance slow down the time to anticipate and response to a disruption and therefore negatively influence resilience. Furthermore, cultural differences and differences in norms and values are frequently mentioned as factors that negatively influence resilience as it mainly complicates the collaboration between the supplier and focal company. The differences in habits and expectations contribute to a more difficult kind of collaboration in which adjustment is required: “When there is a disruption with a supplier in the Netherlands I call the supplier and become a bit pissed. If I will do that to Chinese suppliers the message will not come over. Chinese people do not understand our emotion and feelings.” (FC B). Furthermore, differences in responsibility, as a result of different norms and values, also influence collaboration. The buyer of X in case E is also the buyer of case F, therefore he is able to compare the collaboration with a supplier close by and far away; “Asian people do not care if the product requirements are not exactly aligned with the result, as long as they get their money. While Dutch people in general, have more responsibility and want the product to be perfect, they have a long-term vision” (FC F). Despite the geographical distance, the cultural differences in case E are reduced since the owner of the company is Dutch: “Collaboration with the local Chinese people increases risks for X due to the differences in mentality and culture. The fact that our company is owned by me, a Dutchman, makes that we have western influences and mind sets which
E Far Garden furniture
Seasonal Make to order Non-substitutable
Info. Int.
Op. Int.
Rel. Int.
3
2 3
Share: sales per season, orders, trends, product, forecast Product development Long-term orientation
"It is important to empathize in each-others situation, to jointly solve problems and to have a long-term
orientation." (sup. E)
X highly dependent on E
F Close Garden furniture Seasonal Make to stock Non-substitutable
Info. Int.
Op. Int.
Rel. Int.
3
3 3
Share: forecasts, orders, market, assortments plans, sales, margins, logistics
Joint (logistic) process improvement Commitment, long-term relationship
“F wanted to commit themselves to us as we have a gentlemen’s agreement about sales to other big retailers in the Netherlands” (FC F)
X more dependent on F than F on X
G Close Electronics Seasonal &
non-seasonal Make to stock Non-substitutable
Info. Int.
Op. Int.
Rel. Int 3
4 2
Share: forecasts, orders, stock levels, sales, daily contact, starting with EDI Starting with VMI (5% working) Long-term focus
“It is like a real relation; we have good years and bad years. However, we are in a relationship for almost 30 years already” (FC G)
X more dependent on G than G on X
19 is positive for X.” (Supplier E). Additionally, the differences in culture, communication and norms and values reduce resilience via visibility as well. Views on processes, possibilities and statuses are unclear as a result of difficulties in communication; “The Chinese workers cannot say no. They answer all our questions with yes, which makes that we do not trust all the answers and that we have to ask more and more questions sometimes we find out in the end that they made a complete different product. We really have to pull the information out of them, while our Dutch suppliers are raised with the same norms, values and patterns of collaboration. This makes that we become more shivery for disruptions” (FC E).
Overall, the findings show that sharing the same culture, norms and values and operating in the same timeframes lead to more velocity, visibility and collaboration hence improve resilience. At the same time, differences in time and culture reduce visibility, velocity and collaboration and, therefore, supply chain resilience.
4.2 Product type
Data analysis show that the substitutability and seasonality of a product influences flexibility, velocity
and visibility hence, supply chain resilience. Substitutability influences flexibility positively as it
enables a company to offer comparable products. Contrary to cases with low product substitutability,
the buyer of case B with a high product substitutability state: “When the product planned for January
is heavily delayed, in consultation with B, I change the product with a product which style is already
approved and planned for March in order to have products to sell in January” (FC B). This was also
recognized in case A, which has both high and low substitutable products. Furthermore, flexibility is
influenced by the seasonality of the product. Seasonal products have shorter selling windows and should
be available at specific moments which makes process adjustments harder. When comparing the
seasonal product cases B, E, F with the non-seasonal product case C (table 4.1) data show that it is more
difficult to react to a disruption with seasonal products, due to limited flexibility. “As our products are
seasonal products, we are highly dependent on production within a certain period. We are not able to
shift the demand like with products with continuous production.” (FC E). At the same time, in cases
with seasonality the data show that in order to create resilience, velocity is crucial. “It is not so excited
if a certain blouse or sweater is delayed for one week however, it becomes a problem when the
Christmas dresses are delayed.” (FC A). Additionally, data show that product type indirectly influences
visibility via information integration. To achieve visibility and hence supply chain resilience,
organizations need to share more information for certain types of products. Promotional products are
found to be critical as they should be available, in high quantities, at the time of promotion. “When we
have a promotion with some products we contact the supplier more often in advance to check the status
of the order and we want to be informed more about the status” (FC D). The same holds for seasonal
products. As these products are important at some moments in time, the frequency and amount of
information sharing during some moments in the year is of significant importance. “The products we
work with ask for fast and frequent communication moments during the year, we and the supplier should
20 be able to think ahead” (FC F). Furthermore, a comparison between case F and case E show that if a supplier supplies seasonal products and is located far away, the visibility and hence supply chain resilience is reduced. As adjustments or changes within the season are difficult with seasonal products from far away and cultural differences arise, less information is shared for seasonal products. “As we cannot do any adjustments or ringing’s within the season, we share less information. We could tell the supplier that we sold 2 of the 10 chairs in five weeks but he cannot do anything with it. We cannot act on information we get within the season; reordering is not possible” (FC E).
Overall, the findings show that the seasonality and substitutability of a product influences flexibility and velocity and supply chain resilience. Moreover, seasonal and promotional products require more information sharing which improves visibility and hence supply chain resilience.
4.3 Supplier integration
The findings highlight the importance of the information, operational and relation integration dimensions of supplier integration as they do not only increase visibility but also improve velocity and collaboration.
Information integration
Looking back at table 4.1, the findings show that the cases in which information integration is medium
(D, E, F & G) or high (A & C) compared to the case with low information integration (B) visibility and
velocity is increased. In order to increase resilience via visibility, organizations need to consider the
type and frequency of information that is shared (forecasts, orders, disruptions, evaluations) and the
mode of information sharing. Whereas site visits give insights in processes of other companies and
enables the awareness of possible disruptions, phone calls and face to face conversations facilitates the
ability to rapidly anticipate and respond to disruptions. “We have frequently contact. From the moment,
the first containers are on their way to X, our logistics department has weekly Skype calls of an hour
with X’s SCP to check the status of the orders, any delays, problems or other issues in order to have
insights in the processes and to prevent for any problems” (Supplier E). “We visit the production
locations of E to have insights in their processes. From our experience, we can see the risks for
disruptions based on this visit” (FC E). Additionally, as mentioned by interviewees, direct lines and
supporting IT systems, enable a company to quickly have access to important information to anticipate,
respond to and recover from disruptions. "I communicate some information directly to the right person
and not via our dedicated person as this goes quicker" (FC A). The speed with which IT systems share
information between partners, enable companies to anticipate or respond to a disruption and hence
create resilience. Although, in none of the cases IT systems between the buyer and supplier like EDI,
are fully used, the importance of these systems is recognized and frequently mentioned; “It is important
21 to have EDI because this saves a lot of time and gives a continuous overview of statuses of orders, which enables a faster respond to problems” (FC A). Moreover, the data show that timely sharing information or having a lack of information influences flexibility. When information is received too late, planning and process adjustments become difficult.
Operational integration
Operational integration was mostly present in case C & G (table 4.1) and contrary to low operational integration cases, the findings show collaboration and flexibility in these cases. As joint process improvement and activity development enhance the ability to work effectively for mutual benefit supply chain resilience is increased via collaboration and flexibility. "C designed a virtual warehouse for scarce products. For example, we have very popular product of which we sell many a week. If C's supplier of this product is not able to deliver, our inventory will be empty in a few days. In order to overcome this, we made the virtual warehouse in which we store a buffer for 2 weeks of these products.
This is only available for us. Furthermore, we use the virtual warehouse when we have promotional products, in order to be sure of inventory" (FC C).
Relational Integration
Furthermore, the case with high relation integration (A) compared to a low relational integration case (B) shows that relational integration creates collaboration, hence supply chain resilience. Collaboration is created through shared goals of partners and a long-term vision together. High levels of commitment between organisations also contribute to collaboration. Both cases with dedicated persons (A & D) show the added value of dedicated persons, who only focus on the particular buyer-supplier relationship, to the creation of collaboration and hence supply chain resilience; “X is our key account customer, this means that it is a strategic customer. We invest more time in our strategic customers, have an intense collaboration and we establish our long-term goals together with X” (Supplier D). Moreover, high levels of trust and commitment between organisations constitute to collaboration. "We made a gentlemen’s agreement with F in which is stated that they only deliver to us and not to other big parties.
So, that says a lot about our relation, as they trust us based on our yearly growth and potential to grow even more every year" (FC F).
Interlinkages information and relational integration
Besides, interlinkages between the relational and information integration dimensions show that
organizations share more (sensitive) and frequently information when they have dedicated investments
which increase supply chain visibility. “As we are D’s key account and they have one employee who is
fully focused on us, our orders get priority and we get a lot of information” (FC D).
22 Overall, the findings show that sharing different types of information and the frequency of sharing information increase visibility and velocity and hence improve resilience. Supply chain collaboration is enhanced by operational integration via joint activity development and joint process improvement between organisations. Furthermore, sharing common goals, adhering to a long-term relationship and high levels of commitment lead to more collaboration and in turn improve supply chain resilience.
Organisations share more and frequently information when they are relationally integrated which in turn improve supply chain visibility.
4.4 Dependency
In addition to the three mentioned supplier characteristics, the data show that dependency is related to supply chain resilience as it has an influence on flexibility, collaboration and visibility.
As shown in table 4.1, within the cases B, C, E and G the focal company is dependent on the supplier.
Flexibility is reduced if one organization is dependent on the other organization due to differences in power and size. Power could arise from the scarcity and uniqueness of products sold by one of the organizations for example in case G: “G categorizes and segments their products. So, for example, let’s say G has 800 products of which 600 are available for the market, then they decide to which customer how many products go based on the type and importance of the customer and the specific product” (FC G). However, power could also arise from a third party in the supply chain. In case C the brand, the supplier of supplier, has a high level of power which influences their customer and indirectly influences X. “Despite the legal obligation not to have preferences, in some cases the brand has a preference of which customer buys their products. For example, if we want to purchase 100 products of supplier C, but C only gets 20 products, we are forced to purchase the products at another supplier” (FC C).
Furthermore, the size of an order or the size of the market influences dependency. The data show that if a company sources products with small order sizes, their importance for the supplier decreases and in turn they become more dependent on the supplier, hence less flexible. Furthermore, a small market forces customers to source from a relatively small group of suppliers which gives the supplier power and makes the customer dependent which in turn decrease resilience. In order to achieve flexibility in the buyer-supplier relationship, the supplier could use multiple sourcing as highlighted in case B:
“Except form very specific situations with very exceptional fabrics, normally we work with three different fabric mills. In case of a disruption at one of the suppliers, we still have 2 other suppliers to help us. That is why we normally do not work with one fabric supplier” (supplier B). The findings show that dependency on the other party was apparent in many of the cases. Except from increasing flexibility within the relationship via multiple sourcing of the supplier, little ways to increase flexibility are found.
In order to increase flexibility and become resilient, the data show that sourcing the same products at
more suppliers is a common way: “Because the importance of E became too big we decided to source
at two other suppliers in Asia who are able to make the same products for us in case of a disruption at
E” (FC E).
23 Next to the influence on flexibility, collaboration is influenced by the order size, company size and market size. The amount of time spend on a relation for mutual benefit depends on the importance of the customer to the supplier and the other way around. When a customer is responsible for a crucial part of the supplier’s turnover, the investment of the supplier in the collaboration in terms of time and adjustment of processes grow as shown in case F; “We are less important for our supplier E in Asia as they have many bigger customers. You can see the difference between supplier interest. We are responsible for a smaller part of E’s turnover while we are responsible for a critical part of F’s turnover. The supplier’s base their choices on this” (FC F). The size of a market decides the number of sources and in turn the dependency of one party on the other. “The market of beachwear is really small with only a few big suppliers; therefore, our choice of suppliers is limited. Additionally, our order sizes are small compared to others, which influences our ability to make demands to B and the way in which we work together with B. As we are relatively small to B we get less attention” (FC B).
Additionally, the data show that dependency indirectly influences the amount and type of information that is shared and the frequency of information sharing. The dependency of an organization as a consequence of the (order) size, influences the amount of information sharing hence visibility. “When we were a bigger customer to B it would be easier to have requirements. I think that B would share more information from the moment we are more important to them. As we are small to B now, we are always handled as latest in the sample room for example” (FC B).
Mutual dependency
Contrary to the dependency of one party on the other, mutual dependency is found to contribute to supply chain resilience as it indirectly increases visibility via information integration and collaboration via operational and relation integration. In the cases A & D where companies are both dependent on each other, more types of information are shared more frequently, which increase visibility hence supply chain resilience. “We are heavily dependent on each other because we are really big, and X is our biggest customer. When we lose X, we lose a critical part of our turnover. To keep the relation this good and to reach our shared goals, we both have a dedicated person who is only focusing on this buyer- supplier relation, as their core business. These persons meet every week, call every day and share all kinds of information” (Supplier A). Furthermore, the mutual dependent cases (A & D) show that mutual dependency leads to investments in dedicated persons, process adjustments, jointly solving problems and shared, long term goals which improve collaboration between partners, hence supply chain resilience. “During the last years we become more important for D and that is why they made a calculation about the costs and benefits of a process adjustment. Since, we have shared goals and decided to grow together D adjusted some processes” (FC D).
Overall, the findings show that differences in size and power increases dependency of one party on the
other and reduces flexibility, collaboration and indirectly visibility hence resilience. Contrary, mutual
24 dependency indirectly increases collaboration and visibility and in turn resilience, as parties share more information, share goals and have dedicated relations.
4.5 E-retail context
Data analysis indicate that the relation between a supplier and an e-retailer does not differ from a relation between a supplier and physical retailer. Although, the respondents stated that some differences exist in the execution of processes, the data show no significant influence of the e-retail context. However, one characteristic was found to have an influence in both electronic cases (C & G). In both cases, the transparency of the market results in extensive information on sales numbers and sales points, which gives a party the power to determine the channel of selling their products; “Brand ‘Y’ gathers all possible data in the market. They know exactly which and how many products are sold in one specific region or neighborhood. Based on this information Y decides which of their customers (like we C) gets their products to sell to their customers and the number of products they get. So basically, the brand decides where X should purchase their products” (Supplier C). The power of one party increases the dependency of the other party, influences flexibility hence supply chain resilience.
Overall, the findings show that except from the effect of the transparency of the market, the e-retail context has no influence. As a consequence of the high amount of available data, power hence dependency arises. The increasing dependency of one party on the other reduces flexibility and consequently supply chain resilience.
To conclude, figure 4.1 gives a graphical overview of the findings of this study.
Figure 4.1: Findings overview
