1
Master Thesis
The influence of different national
cultures in a buyer-supplier
relationship on upstream supply
chain sustainability practices
Master Supply Chain Management
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen
Author: Tom Loman
Student number: S3812316
Email: t.m.loman@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: Dr. Ir. N.J. Pulles
Co-assessor: Dr. Ir. T. Bortolotti
2
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research study was to explore how upstream supply chain sustainability practices are influenced by national cultural differences in a buyer-supplier relationship.
Methodology – Multiple-case studies were conducted at 9 internationally operating buying firms, that have buyer-supplier relationships with multiple suppliers in different countries in the world and have implemented upstream supply chain sustainability practices. In total 16 practices were investigated by use of semi-structured interviews.
Findings – The findings have shown that suppliers located in countries with a high power culture have a positive influence and suppliers with an individualistic culture have a negative influence on upstream supply chain sustainability practices. Furthermore, other national cultural differences, such as the speed of action, the need of control and the norms and values related to environmental issues - influence the upstream supply chain sustainability practice.
Contributions – The research contributes to literature as it showed that different national cultures are not a source of resistance to implement an upstream supply chain sustainability practice in a buyer-supplier relationship. Furthermore, it provides insights in how and when cultural dimensions influence the upstream supply chain sustainability practice. Also external factors were found that have an influence. This research findings can help managers to
achieve an upstream sustainable supply chain with international suppliers in different countries and with different cultural backgrounds.
3
Content
Abstract 2 Preface 4 1.Introduction 5 2. Theoretical background 92.1 Sustainable supply chain management 9
2.2 Upstream supply chain sustainability practices in a buyer-supplier relationship 10
2.3 National cultural differences 13
2.3.1 National Culture 13
2.3.2 National culture and buyer-supplier relationships 14
2.3.3 National culture and sustainability 14
3. Methodology 17
3.1 Research design 17
3.2 Case setting and selection 17
3.3 Data collection 18
3.4 Interview protocol 20
3.5 Research quality 21
3.6 Data Analysis 22
4.Results 24
4.1 Upstream supply chain sustainability practices 24
4.2 Within case analysis 27
4.2 Influence of different national cultures 29
4.2.1 Power Distance 29
4.2.2 Uncertainty avoidance 30
4.2.3 Individualism 30
4.2.4 Influence of other cultural differences 31
4.2.4.1 Speed of action 31
4.2.4.2 The need for control 32
4.2.4.3 Other norms and values related to environmental issues 33
4.3 External factors 34
5. Discussion 36
5.1 Discussion 36
5.2 Theoretical implications 38
5.3 Managerial implications 39
5.4 Limitations and further research 40
6. Conclusion 42
References 43
Appendices 54
Appendix A: Descriptions of the six dimensions of Hofstede 54
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 55
Appendix C: Code Tree 57
4
Preface
This is my thesis for the Master Supply Chain Management at the Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen. I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Ir. N.J. Pulles for his guidance and feedback during the past half year and co-assessor Dr. Ir. T. Bortolotti for his valuable feedback.
I would also like to thank all the experts of the buying firms who contributed to my research. Their knowledge and passionate participation enabled me to successfully conduct this research and write this thesis.
Special thanks also go to my peer students who had the same Master thesis subject; I am grateful for their valuable input and time for a discussion when needed. Last but not least I would like to thank my family & friends for supporting and motivating me during my thesis project. They stimulated and supported me all the way.
Tom Loman
5
1.Introduction
Sustainability is an important issue for firms, as it has the potential to improve a firm’s competitive performance, but it also has simultaneously the potential to harm their reputation (Hoejmose & Adrien-Kirby, 2012). Due to the increasing concerns by media,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), researchers and the general public, firms have improved their sustainable practices not only at the firm level, but also for the entire supply chain (Azevedo, Carvalho, Duarte & Cruz-Machado, 2012; Corbett & Klassen, 2006; Eltayeb, Zailani, & Ramayah, 2011; González-Benito & González-Benito, 2006; Sarkis, Zhu, & Lai, 2011). A high level of environmental or social performance by the buying firm itself can be destroyed by poor environmental and social management of its suppliers (Testa & Iraldo, 2010). For example, in 2014, the electronics company Samsung accused of improper social activity. Namely, one of its Chinese suppliers hired children to meet their production targets (The Guardian, 2014). Furthermore, in 2017 major brands, such as H&M, Zara, M&S and Tesco, were accused of using chemicals of their production chains in Indonesia, China and India. Those chemicals, and their by-products, were dumped into the environment. This led to damaged human health as well as damaged waterways and soil (Reutersevents, 2017).
The aforementioned examples illustrate that buying firms must not only promote their sustainability, but also the sustainability of all of the other partners in the supply chain to make sure that eventual negative effects on society and the environment are eliminated or alleviated (Najjar, Small & Yasin, 2019). Firms have to perform well at all dimensions of the triple bottom line (TBL) in their supply chain. Thereby, they have to simultaneously consider the environmental, economic, and social effects of their business activities (Elkington, 1998). With regard to this, Sarkis (2019, p. 1) states the following: “Focusing on organizations alone and separately may provide only some fractional opportunities for improving environmental and economic sustainability. The greatest influences and opportunities occur across and between organizations. Thus, the supply chain is critical for a more complete, systemic and holistic perspective of sustainability concerns caused by commerce and industry.”
6 also social aspects at different upstream tiers in their supply chain. At the same time, through globalization, companies have expanded their supply chains into multiple locations over the past decades (Chopra & Meindl, 2013). Pagell, Katz & Sheu (2005) state that crossing borders means automatically a substantive change in business practices and outcomes.
Conducting business across countries makes it important to understand and manage people from different national cultures (Gupta & Gupta, 2019). Hofstede (1980, p. 25) defines a national culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another.” Although Sustainable Supply Chain Management
(SSCM) in a global supply chain has gained a lot of interest in the last decades (Koberg & Longoni, 2019), the influence of different national cultures in a buyer-supplier relationship on upstream supply chain sustainability practices is yet overlooked in literature.
7 In cross-cultural research, most scholars have applied the framework of Hofstede, because this is the most widely accepted framework of national cultural dimensions that characterize societies (AlAnezi & Alansari, 2016). However, in literature there are contradicting findings regarding the relationship between national culture and sustainability practices (Burritt, Schaltegger & Orij, 2010; Halkos & Skouloudis, 2017; Husted, 2005; Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012; Pucheta-Martinez, Galego-Alvarez, 2020; Scholtens & Dam, 2007; Thanetsunthorn, 2015; Vachon, 2010). For example, uncertainty avoidance and individualism have conflicting outcomes in different studies. Vachon (2010) found a negative relationship between
uncertainty avoidance and Corporate Sustainability Development Practices, whereases Thanetsunthorn (2015) found a positive relationship. Halkos & Skouloudis (2017) found a negative influence of individualism on Corporate Social Responsibility and Vachon (2010) found a positive influence of individualism to Corporate sustainability development practices. The fact that these studies present different outcomes indicates that further qualitative
research is needed to close this gap in literature. This is in line with Ralston et al. (2015, p. 168), who argue that “we will have much to learn to fully understand the dynamics of the triple-bottom-line across cultures.” This subject is important to investigate because supply chain practices are considered as the biggest challenge to improve sustainability for companies (United Nations Global Compact and BSR, 2015).
This leads to the following research question:
“How are upstream supply chain sustainability practices influenced by national cultural differences in a buyer-supplier relationship?”
9
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Sustainable supply chain management
Sustainability concerns are incorporated more and more on the agendas of firms’
policymakers and the strategies of firms (Geissdoerfer, Bocken, Savaget & Hultink, 2017). Many definitions of sustainability have come into existence in the last decades. The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defines sustainability as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 41).
Environmental issues such as global warming and water scarcity, and social issues such as human rights and safety, have led to more pressure from stakeholders, including customers, trade unions, governments, non-governmental organizations and public authorities (Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen, 2009). This pressure influences firms to adopt sustainability in their plant operations as well as it forces them to expand sustainability across their supply chain (Eltayeb et al., 2011). This has made sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) a crucial factor for buying firms.
SSCM extends the scope of supply chain management with the three dimensions of the TBL: economic, social and environmental (Bai & Sarkis, 2010; Carter & Rogers, 2008; Elkington, 1994; Seuring & Müller, 2008). Seuring (2013, p. 1514) defines SSCM as “the management of material, information and capital flow’ between companies, whilst integrating
environmental, social and economic goals.”
The objective of SSCM is “to create, protect and grow long-term environmental, social and economic value for all stakeholders involved in bringing products and services to the market” (United Nations Global Compact and BSR, 2010, p. 7). By ensuring supply chain
sustainability, the long-term viability of companies’ business is protected and secure a social license to operate (United Nations Global Compact, 2015). This is only possible by
10 Since firms have global supply chains, this has led to global sustainability challenges. Jickling & Wals (2008) argue that finding solutions to sustainability problems is often challenging in the global supply chain due to different interests. Tang, Wang, Yang & Tang (2020) conclude that “globalization has a favourable implication on sustainability overall”.
2.2 Upstream supply chain sustainability practices in a buyer-supplier
relationship
The buyer-supplier relationship is important in improving sustainability of the supply chain (Kumar & Rahman, 2015). A buyer-supplier relationship is defined by Hendrick (1995, p. 41) as “an on-going relationship between two firms that involves a commitment over an extended time period, and a mutual sharing of information and the risks and rewards of the
relationship”.
Functional relationships between buyers and suppliers can lead to positive performance outcomes (Liao & Kuo 2014; Whipple, Wiedmer & Boyer 2015). Several studies have identified the importance of the buyer-supplier relationship for sustainability (Geffen & Rothenberg, 2000; Gualandris, Golini & Kalchschmidt, 2014; Kumar & Rahman, 2015; Kumar & Rahman, 2016; Simpson & Power, 2005). Gualandris et al. (2014) argue that good buyer-supplier relationships do facilitates as well the implementation of sustainability as making it more effective.
Many of the buying firms’ operations are done by suppliers; nearly 60 percent of the value of products from manufacturing companies is purchased from suppliers (Tate, Ellram & Dooley, 2012). This indicates dependence from the buying firm to its suppliers for its products, and thus also for a sustainable supply chain. Poor sustainability performance of suppliers is
largely reflected onto the buying firm (Schneider & Wallenburg, 2012) and it has the potential to harm the buying firm’s reputation (Reuter et al., 2010). Some consumers even punish companies that do not follow sustainable supply chain practices; they move to another brand of service that they consider as more environmentally and socially (Holbrook, 2018).
11 Sustainability practices must ensure that suppliers are being environmentally and socially responsible in their operations (Gimenez, Sierra & Rodon, 2012; Sancha et al., 2019). The literature suggests that many buying firms implement two types of sustainability practices: (1) a supplier code of conduct and supplier assessment tools and (2) collaboration with suppliers (Andersen & Skjoett-Larsen, 2009, Gimenez et al., 2012, Gimenez & Tachizawa, 2012).
A code of conduct could assist buying firms to impose specific guidelines in their interaction with suppliers (Mamic, 2005). It describes norms and principles which suppliers have to agree to and comply with if they want to successfully uphold the relationship with the buyer
(Colwell, Zyphur, & Schminke, 2011). Supplier assessment is defined by Gimenez & Sierra (2013) as any activity related with evaluating suppliers. The assessment of supplier
sustainability can be in several forms, such as pre-established guidelines, non-regulatory standards, questionnaires, audits and company visits (Large & Thomsen, 2011; Min & Galle, 2001; Walton, Handfield & Melnyk, 1998).
An important part of the supplier assessment process is evaluation of the results with feedback to the suppliers to give directions for improvements (Krause, Scannell & Calantone, 2000). Conclude by Gimenez & Tachizawa (2012) can be stated that supplier assessment positively influences environmental performance and corporate social responsibility. However, that assessment alone is not enough; buying firms also need to collaborate with their suppliers. Assessment can be a first step in identifying which actions are needed, but collaboration practices are important to improve sustainability. Sancha et al. (2019) mention that supplier assessment must help to identify problematic areas that can then be improved by collaboration between buyers and suppliers.
12 materials or processes are examples of such kind of collaborative practices (Lee & Klassen, 2008).
According to Awan, Kraslawski & Huiskonen (2018) collaboration with suppliers plays an essential role in developing a better understanding and improving the social and
environmental aspects of the supply chain. Caniëls & Gelderman (2007) & Duffy, Fearne, Hornibrook, Hutchinson & Reid (2013) states that effective collaboration for sustainability between buyers and suppliers are strong relationships necessary.
13
Practice Author(s)
Environmental
Using renewable resources (Hassini, Surti, Searcy, 2012) Reverse logistics (Pushpamali, Agdas & Rose, 2019) Use of environmentally friendly
raw materials
(Rao & Holt, 2005)
Reducing CO2 emissions (Azevedo, Carvalho & Fereira, Matias, 2017) Reducing carbon footprint (Larsen, Solli & Pettersena, 2012; Lee &
Vachon, 2016) Suppliers ISO 14001 certification (Zhu & Sarkis, 2004) Environmental audit for suppliers’
internal management
(Zhu & Sarkis, 2004) Social
Improve working conditions (Lee & Vachon, 2016) Better labour practices (Pagell & Wu, 2009)
Fair wages (Lee & Vachon, 2016)
Safety workplace (Lee & Vachon, 2016)
Sourcing from local suppliers (Azevedo, Carvalho & Fereira, Matias, 2017) Minority supplier development (Krause, Ragatz & Hughley, 1999)
Elimination of child labour (Huq, Stevenson, 2020; Fedorova, Aaltonen, Pongragz, 2020; Lee & Vachon, 2016; Respect of worker rights Fedorova, Aaltonen, Pongragz, 2020) Gender equality (Fedorova, Aaltonen, Pongragz, 2020) Table 2.1: Upstream supply chain sustainability practices presented in literature
2.3 National cultural differences
2.3.1 National Culture
Studying cultural differences between countries supporting the challenges and opportunities that managers have when operating internationally (Beugelsdijk, Kostova & Roth, 2017). The term “national culture” distinguishes the cultural character of one nation from others. National cultures differ in their set of values, beliefs, ideas, attitudes and morals, which guide
14 focus on “when and how culture matters” rather than the question “whether culture matters (Metters, Zhao, Bendoly, Jiang, Young, 2010, p. 183).
There are many reasons for different national cultures in the world. The differences can consist of ethnicity (Tsui, 2001), religion (Hamid, Craig & Clarke, 1993), language (Belkaoui, 1980), age (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004) & gender (Hofstede, 2001). According to Tayeb (1996), also history, climate, social hierarchy, educational systems and political- and economic institutions are reasons for different national cultures.
Hofstede (1980) was the first one who developed a theoretical framework to define cultural differences between countries that could be fitted into a framework of four cultural
dimensions: individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance and masculinity-femininity. Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory was expanded with a fifth dimension – long-term versus short term orientation – and a sixth dimension in 2010 – Indulgence versus self-restraint (Hofstede, Hofstede, Minkov, 2010). An overview of the Hofstede’s framework with description of the dimensions is shown in Appendix A.
2.3.2 National culture and buyer-supplier relationships
Different cultures can affect buyer-supplier relationships in a positive or negative way. Prior supply chain management studies pointed out that cultural differences have been a potential factor that cause different performance outcomes (Metters, 2008; Wiengarten, Fyness, Pagell & Búrca, 2011). Cross-cultural partnerships can increase creativity and innovation, due to “diversity of perspectives and less emphasis on conformity to norms of the past’ (Cox & Blake, 1991, p. 47). However, on the other side, Lenssen, van den Berghe, Louche &
Blowfield (2005) state that the values of one culture butting up against each other is a causer of much of the tension between elements of the supply chain.
2.3.3 National culture and sustainability
16
- = Negative significant relationship; + = Positive significant relationship; NS = No significant relationship; Blanco = Not studied
Table 2.2: Effect of Cultural Dimension of Hofstede on sustainability practices in previous literature
Author(s) Measured Power
Distance
Uncertainty avoidance
Individualism Masculinity Long term orientation
Indulgence
17
3. Methodology
3.1 Research design
The main purpose of this study is to examine how upstream supply chain sustainability practices are influenced by national cultural differences in a buyer-supplier relationship. For this research, a multiple case study was conducted at multiple internationally operating buying firms.
Because of the exploratory nature of this research, the thesis is based on a multiple case study approach (Voss, Tsjikriktis & Frohlic, 2002). A case study is convenient for this research, because it is suitable for answering “how” questions and to understand certain phenomena in depth in real life contexts (Yin, 2003). Furthermore, Brandenburg, Govindan, Sarkis & Seuring (2014, p. 310) assert that “employing case study research is highly recommended for SSCM-studies”. Moreover, qualitative methods are more suitable than quantitative methods when studying actions in cultural settings, as the method has the ability to observe “the embeddedness and dynamism of the phenomenon” (Boscari, Bortolotti, Netland & Rich, 2018, p. 10).
Multiple cases were conducted to achieve a depth of information to make it possible to investigate how different national cultures influence sustainability practices in buying firms. The use of multiple case studies can increase the external validity (Voss et al., 2002) and has the ability to generalize and compare different results (Gerring & McDermott, 2007).
3.2 Case setting and selection
18 In this research, 16 different upstream supply chain sustainable supply chain practices of internationally operating manufacturing companies are studied, which allows for cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The following criteria were applied for selection of the companies:
• The selected companies are internationally operating buying companies, as these types of companies have a long and global supply chain with a wide range of suppliers. • The selected companies have implemented upstream supply chain sustainability
practices.
• The selected companies have buyer-supplier relationships with multiple suppliers in different countries in the world.
3.3 Data collection
For this research, primary data was collected in November and December 2020 by investigating 16 upstream supply chain sustainability practices at 9 companies with semi-structured interviews. Gray (2013) argues that the interview is the most logical and
appropriate data collection method for exploratory research inquiries. Since this research is associated with sustainability supply chain management practices, the interviews were conducted with participants working in internationally operating manufacturing companies, who were related to or were experts in the field of sustainability performance. The
interviewees were approached via email or LinkedIn.
19 Due to the explorative nature of this research, the design of the interviews was
structured and open-ended. According to Louise Barriball & While (1994), the use of semi-structured and open-ended interviews enhance in-depth information but maintains flexibility. Participants were always asked identical questions, but the questions were formulated in such a way that open-ended responded could be obtained. The use of semi-structured questions enables to steer the conversation to a certain degree while still leaving room for possible elaborations or unexpected relevant topics. All interviews were recorded, after permission of the interviewee. The interviews were transcribed within 24 hours and documented in a
Database. Subsequently, all transcripts were summarized to get a better overview of the cases.
Table 3.1: Overview of company and interviewee
Company name Person Industry Respondent position Importance sustainability Country or region of suppliers
Length
Company A Interviewee 1 Food Sustainability Global Supply Chain Manager
One of the pillars in strategy of the company.
Europa, Asia, South-America & Oceania
38:23 Company B Interviewee 2 Textile Supply Chain Coordinator Sustainable distinguish
them from competitors
The Netherlands, Germany, Spain, England and Turkey, China, Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan & India
33:05
Company C Interviewee 3 Food Global Sustainable Sourcing Manager
Very important to grow as company
Most in Europe and North-America. Also, in Russia, Turkey, India & South-America
36:41
Company D Interviewee 4 Food Global Sustainability Director
Since 3 years spearhead of the company
All over the world 50:46 Company E Interviewee 5 Process Director Global Supply
Chain Management
In 2020, in the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World Index
All over the world. Halve in Europe, most in Germany.
66:05
Company F Interviewee 6 Food Serious Farmer Accelerator Goal is not to make money, money is just a means, but the goal is to make an impact to improve the world.
Netherlands, Spain, Ghana & Ivory Coast
49:25
Company G Interviewee 7 Clothing Corporate Social Responsibility Manager
Very important, a must for customers. Turkey, Macedonia, China, India, Cambodia, Pakistan, Bangladesh 30:12
Company H Interviewee 8 Engineered heavy lifting and transport
Global Sustainability Manager
Not one of the most important things now, but it is growing.
All over the world 45:30
Company I Interviewee 9 Semiconductor Supplier Audit and Sustainability Process Developer
It’s getting more and more important. It’s now even important as quality, logistics, technical performance and cost.
Europe, United States & Asia
20
3.4 Interview protocol
An interview protocol (Appendix B) was developed to ensure reliable and valid research. Questions and topics related to the theoretical background were listed in the protocol. There were four topics in the interview protocol: general questions, sustainable supply chain, upstream supply chain sustainability practices and the influence of different national cultures on the implemented upstream supply chain sustainability practices.
The interview protocol started with general questions about the background of the company, the position of the interviewee and the upstream supply chain of the firm. Then, participants were asked questions about their sustainable supply chain, followed by some general
questions about upstream supply chain sustainability practices of the company. Thereafter, the participants were asked to describe a sustainability practice.
The implementation of supplier assessment and supplier collaboration to improve social and environmental sustainability at upstream suppliers will be investigated in this research, as these are important aspects that influence the success of the implementation and execution of upstream supply chain sustainable practices in multi-cultural environments.
Environmental sustainability is focusing on reducing the negative effects on the environment (Simpson & Power, 2005). Environmental practices are related to aspects such as reduction of emissions, product innovation, resource and energy efficiency (Miska, Szőcs, Schiffinger, 2018) Social sustainability requires firms to consider issues beyond firms’ boundaries (Brammer, Hoejmose & Millington al., 2011). Yawar & Seuring (2017) identified a number of social practices in the supply chain: labor conditions, child labor, human rights, health and safety, minority development, disable/marginalized people inclusion and gender.
21 Table 3.2 presents a summary of the interview protocol with the topic of the questions,
purpose of the questions and an example question for each topic.
Topic Purpose Example questions
General information To get information about the participant, their company and their upstream supply chain.
Please describe your upstream supply chain; the number and distribution of suppliers and location of the suppliers?
Sustainable supply chain To understand the importance of sustainability in the supply chain of the firm.
How important is sustainability for your company and industry?
Upstream supply chain sustainability practices
To figure out the upstream supply chain sustainability practice of the company and the success of the practice.
Can you describe an upstream supply chain sustainability practice?
Influence of national cultural differences on upstream supply chain sustainability practices
To understand how different national cultures influence the sustainability practice. And what are the positive and negative impacts of different national cultures.
Could you explain whether cultural differences had an impact on your upstream supply chain sustainability practice?
Table 3.2: Summary overview of the interview protocol
3.5 Research quality
According to Voss et al. (2002), it is particularly important to pay attention to reliability and validity in case study research.
The construct validity is defined by Schwab (1980, p. 5) as “representing the correspondence between a construct (conceptual definition of a variable) and the operational procedure to measure or manipulate that construct”. The construct validity is ensured with an interview protocol, which is based on the core concepts of the literature.
22 External validity is “knowing whether a study’s finding can be generalized beyond the
immediate case study” (Yin, 1994, p. 36). For this research there were multiple cases used, which enables generalization and comparison of data. Furthermore, the interviewees have a lot of experience with upstream supply chain sustainability practices in multiple countries. Thus, they are suitable participants for the multiple case study.
Reliability is “the extent to which a study’s operations can be repeated with the same results (Yin, 1994, p. 36). To ensure transparency in outlining the research process, an interview protocol (Appendix B) was used which enables future researchers to replicate the study. The questions were asked with clear questions and answers were verified. Furthermore, the companies are operating in five different industries.
3.6 Data Analysis
The transcriptions were coded by using the Atlas.ti software, aiming to analyze the
transcriptions and identify patterns and structures between the cases. The coding process was based on an iterative approach. Inductive indicates a transition from raw data to theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2014).
Firstly, all highlighted sentences or quotes that were adding value to answer the research question were diverting into descriptions. Secondly, the descriptions were interpreted and linked to certain codes. These codes were related to the National Cultural Dimensions of Hofstede and related to other cultural traits. Thereafter, quotations and codes were exported to Excel to create a code tree (Appendix C). Additionally, a code tree was made for external factors (Appendix D). Table 3.3 depicts an excerpt of the used coding for power distance and need for control.
Cases were first individually analyzed to investigate how different national cultures affect the implementation of upstream supply chain sustainability practices within a company.
23 Table 3.3: Excerpt coding tree (power distance & the need for control)
Quote 1st code Code group
In the Netherlands, we had to convince people very much. In Indonesia people, are much more inclined to accept what the management says. [Case 1]
Accept what the management says
In Nigeria they are very sensitive to what the boss says here. It is shouting from above and executing it from below. [Case 1]
Sensitive for what the boss says
In my experience, Turkish suppliers were keen to cooperate and in many cases they succeeded in taking steps in that direction. But there it went wrong to make the translation from management to the workplace. [Case 3]
Translation from management to workplace
I notice that in hierarchical countries like Japan and America, if you find something there and say it, it will be solved in no time.With much less hierarchy you have a lot more discussion about it; should we actually do it, or should we do it something else? So then they discuss what will be done and then the question is whether the right thing will happen. [Case 15]
Hierarchy
In Indonesia they need quite a lot of direction, but within the direction they try to implement it as good as possible. [Case 1]
Need direction
Nigeria is a country where they say they do but they don't. They really need control. You have to be on top of it every day. Presence is important to get things done and help direct them. [Case 1]
Deal is deal
In America, they tend to hide things. So they pretend it's right, but then it's not right. We always ask for evidence. After a while you will see through it, but it takes a little longer. [Case 15]
Ask evidence
Power Distance
24
4.Results
In chapter 4, the results of the research are presented in order to answer the main research question: “How are upstream supply chain sustainability practices influenced by national cultural differences in a buyer-supplier relationship?”. Firstly, general information about the different 16 cases is presented to create an understanding of the upstream supply chain sustainability practices researched. Secondly, a within-case analysis for each individual case is executed in order to investigate how they are influenced by different national cultures. Thirdly, a cross-case analysis is conducted to identify the commonalities and differences of the influence of different national cultures in the cases. Fourthly, external factors influencing upstream supply chain sustainability practices were analyzed, as they also influence upstream supply chain sustainability practices.
4.1 Upstream supply chain sustainability practices
Research findings showed that all 9 buying firms included in this research are aware that collaboration with suppliers is important for a sustainable supply chain. The interviewees mentioned that improving sustainability has become more important the last years. In case 15 interviewee I stated the following with regard to this: “Sustainability becomes more and more important. It is now even important as quality, logistics, technical performance and costs.”
However, the interviewees also noted that it is difficult to achieve a meaningful change to people & planet in a short time and also stay competitive. An example of this was given in case 8: “We can solve the low wages problem for farmers within 2 years in theory, with paying them 10 times as much as they are getting now. But then we no longer sell products because it is too expensive.”
25 In table 4.1 the 16 upstream supply chain sustainability practices of the 9 companies
investigated in this research are described, with their purpose (goal) and current state of execution. The 9 companies are operating in various industries: food industry (4), textile industry (1), clothing industry (1), process industry (1), semi-conductor industry (1) and engineered heavy lifting and transport industry (1).
Case Upstream supply
chain sustainability practice Social, Environmental or overall sustainability
Purpose Current state of execution
Case 1 Company A
Reducing water Environmental Reducing water usage in the whole supply chain with 25% in 2030 in comparison to 2018. Each year reduction of 2%.
Achieved the target of reducing water usage each year with 2%. To achieve the 2030 target will require considerable investments.
Case 2 Company A
Reducing CO2 emission
Environmental Reduce CO2 emissions in the whole supply chain, which will be a 40% reduction in 2030 compared to 2015.
Start of the project, on track to achieve this target.
Case 3 Company B
Transport packaging material of a recyclable source
Environmental Suppliers use 100% transportation packaging that comes from a recyclable source.
Partly achieved, at some suppliers succeeded and some not. Case 4 Company C Implementation of Sustainable Agricultural code of conduct at suppliers
Overall 100% of the suppliers meet the Sustainable Agricultural Code. This aims to codify important aspects of sustainability in farming and apply them to the Supply Chain.
Achieved at 80% of the suppliers. It is an ongoing process, will be difficult to improve on this even more.
Case 5 Company C
Reducing carbon footprint
Environmental Aim to be carbon neutral across the business before 2030.
Monitoring of all suppliers, as the goals are not yet achieved.
Case 6 Company C
Higher wages for employees
Social Fair wages and good working conditions for all employees at the dairy farmer companies.
This is successfully completed. Good income for dairy farmers stays a challenge.
Case 7 Company D
Reducing carbon footprint
Environmental Reducing carbon footprint in the whole supply chain by 67% by 2050.
On track to achieve the goal.
Case 8 Company D
Higher wages for farmers
Social Fair wages for farmers in countries with an income issue.
26 Case 9 Company E Implementing procurement sustainability guideline
Overall All critical suppliers meet the conditions in the sustainability guideline.
Not yet succeeded. Audits are being performed to create awareness amongst suppliers.
Case 10 Company F
Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation
Social Making impact that leads to no child labor in the world.
At the moment most focus is on finding the children that illegal works. However, this year more than half of the cases are solved. Other cacao companies adhering to this practice.
Case 11 Company F
Coaching farmers to improve wages
Social Making impact for a fair wage for each cacao farmer in the world.
Big improvement of wages of farmers. Last year 60% wage increase realized in the Ivory Coast and 40% in Ghana. Other cacao companies are adhering to this practice. Case 12
Company G
More voice for employees
Social More “voice” for employees by the implementation of independent workers’ representation to translate the employee’s voice to management.
Ongoing, but requires time to come to a compromise between management and employees.
Case 13 Company G
Use of recycled material
Environmental All products in newest clothing line will be produced from 100% recycled material.
96% of the newest clothing line is produced from recycled material. Not all materials are yet possible to be recycled and re-used in manufacturing. Case 14
Company H
Reducing carbon footprint
Environmental 25% carbon neutral equipment fleet by 2025.
Starting phase. Meeting in 2021 with all important suppliers to discuss ideas to make the equipment fleet more sustainable. Case 15 Company I Adopted the Responsible Business Alliance Code of Conduct
Overall 80 most important suppliers meet the standards of the Responsible Business Alliance Code of Conduct.
In progress. Suppliers who do not meet the standards yet have to come up with an improvement plan. Case 16 Company I Improve working conditions of employees
Social Reduction of working overtime hours at Chinese suppliers to guarantee adherence to the code of conduct of ASML.
Achieved.
Table 4.1: Description of upstream supply chain sustainability practices
27
4.2 Within case analysis
A within-case analysis is made for each individual case. In table 4.2 the cases are presented, with the country of the suppliers, the upstream supply chain sustainability practice and the role of different national cultures.
Case Country or region Upstream supply
chain sustainability practice Different cultures Case 1 Belgium France Germany Indonesia Nigeria Pakistan Romania Russia Thailand The Netherlands Vietnam
Reducing water • In Indonesia, suppliers were easy to convince to implement the practice due to a high power distance culture
• Indonesia suppliers must be steered in the
right direction. They take fast action. But also, when this action is in the wrong direction.
• Suppliers in Thailand and Indonesia have to be convinced with feelings, whereas Dutch suppliers need facts.
• In the Netherlands there is partial responsibility. In Vietnam, Indonesia and
Germany, the management is responsible
for the implementation of the practice.
• Nigerian suppliers say they will implement
a practice, but often no actions were taken.
• With the Nigerian suppliers, it is a joint happening. They are much more collectivist there. Case 2 China Indonesia Europe Malaysia Nigeria Reducing CO2 emission
• European people want always an end goal in mind. Suppliers in Vietnam, Indonesia &
Thailand want to know the steps.
• The Netherlands suppliers need only a few guidelines.
• In Germany and Nigeria, there is more a hierarchical work culture, the employees carry out everything the boss says
Case 3 China Spain Korea Turkey Transport packaging material for a recyclable source
• In the Netherlands and Korea, a deal is a deal, but in Spain not, they are more likely to not stick not agreements.
• The Spanish supplier postponed things, therefore less likely to achieve results within agreed timings
• Looking each other straight in the eyes works good in Turkey and China. Then often much more is possible.
Case 4 All over the world Implementation of Sustainable Agricultural code of conduct at suppliers
• Suppliers from Turkey and India are less reliable. They stop earlier with a
collaboration and go to another buying firm when they get more money there.
Case 5 Europe India
North America Russia
Reducing the carbon footprint
28 South America
Turkey
Case 6 Amerika Higher wages for employees
Not noticed Case 7 All over the world Reducing the carbon
footprint
• Indian suppliers are more likely to go to
another buying for more money than
Europeans.
Case 8 Africa Asia
Higher wages for farmers Not noticed Case 9 Asia Europe North America South America Implementation of procurement sustainability guideline Not noticed Case 10 Ghana Ivory Coast Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation
• The Ghanaian suppliers are not structured. So, buying firms must control them. send things back a few more times and send reminders or give another demonstration of how things should be done
Case 11 Ghana Ivory Coast
Coaching farmers to improve wages
• A lot of farmers in Ivory Coast & Ghana prefer a known situation and are more resistant against changes. They are often not interested in putting all kinds of extra work to earn more.
• In hierarchic countries, such as the Ivory
Coast and Ghana, it is important to make
sure that the people of a local authority feel respected and seen. If you skip such steps, you can really get thwarted in what you do Case 12 China
Vietnam
More voice for employees
• The Chinese people accept what good is for the community. Therefore, a cultural change must take place.
Case 13 Bangladesh Cambodia China India Macedonia Pakistan Turkey Use of recycled material
• Chinese suppliers do not look at recycled
materials. They find that dirty.
Case 14 All over the world Reducing the carbon footprint
• Suppliers in Northern- Europe want to do things the way they have always done. Case 15 America Asia Europe Adopted the Responsible Business Alliance Code of Conduct
• The Japanese suppliers are more collectivistic. They have more discussion about something. The decision period is longer, but it leads to a very solid, thorough, well-developed answer. • In the United States suppliers have a
tendency to hide things. So, they pretend it’s right, but then it’s not right
• In Japan & the United States suppliers are more hierarchical orientated. If you find something there and say it, it will be solved in no time.
Case 16 China Improve working conditions of employees
• Chinese people have other norms and
values. They are used to work many hours. • Management was easy to convince. As a
29
4.2 Influence of different national cultures
All interviewees stress the importance of taking into account other national cultures in an upstream supply chain sustainability practice. In case 1 the following was mentioned by the interviewee: “Every culture requires a different approach. It is therefore important to know in advance what kind of approach is required.” In case 4 interviewee C stated the following in this context: “The biggest mistake you can make is if you are going to tell other regions how to do it from the West or from a Dutch perspective. That never works, it doesn't work for us and it doesn't work for them either. Therefore, some of the buying firms let decisions to people that understand the culture from the other country, as stated by Interviewee H in case 14: “We must leave a lot of the decision making to individual, regional and country
management teams, they are much closer to the cultures.
In this research, the influence of different national cultures on upstream supply chain sustainability practices is analyzed with the National Cultural Dimensions Framework of Hofstede. Only for power distance, uncertainty avoidance and individualism results were found in the 16 cases researched.
4.2.1 Power Distance
The power distance in a company can influence the course of an upstream supply chain sustainability practice. In the cases 1, 2, 9, 15 and 16 the advantage of high power distance in convincing the supplier was noticed. An advantage of high power distance is that this leads to less discussions. In case 15 it appeared to be easier to implement a sustainability practice in Indonesia then in the Netherlands. “Countries with less hierarchy have a lot more
discussions. The people discuss a lot, and the question is if they do the right thing.”
30 Another disadvantage of a low-distance culture in a country was found in case 3, where it appeared that the management was easy to convince and also came up with solutions. However, the employees had to carry out the practice, but were unaware of it or lax, so nothing changed.
The findings in this research indicate that it is easier to implement a sustainability practice in a country with a high power distance culture than in a country with a low power distance culture. However, high power distance can lead to a less sustainable company. In case 9, interviewee E mentioned that power distance can have an influence on the sustainability of a company: “If you have a hierarchical company and the top is not sustainability minded, then the company is by definition not sustainability minded. But if you have a company where all floors can talk to each other, then bottom-up is also possible. If the floor there is sustainable, it will eventually end up on the board, that sustainability drive.”
4.2.2 Uncertainty avoidance
Only in case 11 there was influence of uncertainty avoidance on the upstream supply chain sustainability practice. People with high uncertainty avoidance accept the situation and don’t want some improvements. In case 11, the purpose of the upstream supply chain sustainability practice was creating a fair income for suppliers in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. Interviewee F mentioned the following: “These farmers are often happy with the increased price but didn’t want to engage in extra efforts to increase their productivity.” However, the interviewee also mentioned that farmers involved in this upstream supply chain sustainability practice were often people from 60 or 70 years, which might implicate besides national cultural differences age does also contribute to this upstream supply chain sustainability practice.
4.2.3 Individualism
Influence of individualism is pointed out in case 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14 and 15. In case 3, 14 and 15 are disadvantages of implementing the upstream supply chain sustainability practice
mentioned. In case 14 it was noted that a disadvantage of suppliers in Northern-Europe was that they were more individualistic and wanted to do things their way.
In case 15, the buying firm saw an advantage of their Japanese suppliers which were more collectivistic. The Japanese contact person went to discuss the ideas for improving
31 but they saw this as a positive influence on the upstream supply chain sustainability practice. Interviewee I mentioned the following with regard to this: “When you ask a question in the Netherlands, mostly one person simply gives his own answer. There is more consultation in Japan. As a result, you usually have to wait longer for an answer, but when an answer comes, you have a very solid and well-developed answer”. Thus, collectivism can make the start of a sustainability process take longer but leads to a well-developed answer.
Furthermore, in case 4 and 7 the disadvantages of individualistic cultures in a relationship are mentioned. They were more transactional and opportunistic; therefore, they are less loyal in a relationship. When the suppliers could earn more money from other buying firms, the
individualistic supplier collaborate with the other buying firm. This makes it more difficult for the buying firms to achieve their targets, because they must train new suppliers again. An example of this occurred in case 4, where the buyers had implemented a code of conduct. Interviewee C mentioned the following with regard to this: “We started with a project in Turkey and India that they complied with the Sustainable Agricultural Code. But after one year, when the suppliers gained the knowledge, they stopped the collaboration with us and sold the products to a buying-company where they received 1 cent more. So, that means that you have to train farmers again”
In case 7, interviewee D mentioned that it is very important to have long-term contracts with these suppliers: “When you have no long-term relationship with Indian suppliers, then Indians are more likely to devote than Europeans for more money.”
4.2.4 Influence of other cultural differences
Besides the national cultural dimensions of Hofstede, the research results showed that there are other aspects that vary between national cultures - speed of action, the need for control and norms and values related to environmental issues – that have either a positive or negative influence on upstream supply chain sustainability practices.
4.2.4.1 Speed of action
32 In case 2, Interviewee A noticed that this is not only the case with upstream supply chain sustainability practices, but it applies more in general: “Speed of action is easier in Asia. Whether it is a product development, implementation of a new product or sustainability practice. They can respond to situations faster.” In case 15 it was also mentioned by interviewee I that the Japanese supplier starts immediately with the practice. “If you ask a Japanese supplier a question, they immediately take it very seriously.”
In case 1, the buying firm mentioned that it was easier to convince Asian suppliers because Dutch people need to be convinced with facts about the whole process. Asian people must be convinced on feelings. “We really had to convince Dutch suppliers with facts, with the suppliers from Indonesia and Thailand it was more intuitive.” In case 3, interviewee B mentioned the following in this context. “Looking each other straight in the eyes often works well. Our suppliers in Turkey and China are particularly sensitive to this. If you address them directly personally, there is suddenly much more possible than if everything goes by email or telephone. Because they feel that someone is really there for them”
4.2.4.2 The need for control
In the cases 1, 3, 10 and 15 the buying firms mentioned that it was important that at some suppliers in particular countries it was more important to control them.
Interviewee A mentioned that in case 1 it is important to steer the Indonesian and Vietnamese suppliers in the right way: “They run hard, however, you have to steer them in the right direction, because they run just as fast in the wrong direction.” That is why the buying firm had to control them and make sure they were going in the right direction again.
Also, in case 3, 10 and 15 the buying firms mentioned that in some countries it is important to control then. The buying firm in case 15 always asks for evidence from their American
33 Interviewee B mentioned the following with regard to this: “Korea is the same as the
Netherlands. When they say yes, they mean yes”. In case 1 the Nigerian suppliers say always yes, but they did nothing. Therefore, they control the Nigerian suppliers always with site visits.
In case 10, the buying firm saw a big difference between Ghana & Ivory Coast. Without controlling the Ghanaian suppliers, they didn’t work well. Interviewee F stated the following with regard to this: “Ghana is a bit messier in their work set than Ivory Coast. In Ghana, you therefore have to be more on top of things and send things back a few times and send
reminders or give another demonstration of how things should be done.”
4.2.4.3 Other norms and values related to environmental issues
Differences in norms and values related to environmental sustainability are found between Western Countries and Asian Countries. Case 2, 3, 5, and 13 are all environmental
sustainability practices, and the problem there was that reducing CO2, reducing Carbon Footprint or use of recycled material are not issues there. In case 5, they must take big steps in India, because carbon footprint is there no problem. “In India they are not aware of the carbon footprint problem. There is the carbon footprint 2 to 3 times as high then the Netherlands. This makes the gap bigger.”
Case 3 makes use of transport packaging material from recyclable source; in case 13 they use recyclable material in the clothes. At both practices, this was most difficult with their Chinese suppliers because recyclable material is not an issue in China. In case 3 the following was noted: China is a country that does not put sustainability very high on the agenda in this area.” The same problem arose in China in case 13: “In China they don't look at recycled materials, they find that dirty.”
34
4.3 External factors
In the cases 5, 6, 8 and 9 the interviewees saw no influence of different national cultures on upstream supply chain sustainability practices. For example, in case 5, interviewee D
mentioned the following: “I don't see a cultural influence in the programs we have. We have good programs in Cambodia, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Spain, Philippines and America. All suppliers are open to listen to our idea to sustainable improve the upstream supply
chain”. The interviewees also mentioned external factors that influence an upstream supply chain sustainability practice.
All interviewees mentioned that whether a supplier wants to collaborate with a buyer for an upstream supply chain sustainability practice is depending on the power of the supplier. If a buyer provides a large part of the total turnover, then it is much easier to convince the supplier. For example, in case 3 mentioned by interviewee B: “If we are a relatively small customer for the supplier, they will be less inclined to really want to take steps in this. But when we are a big customer of them, they can lose a lot of sales if they stop the collaboration with us.”
From this research it also appeared that the government of a country has a big influence on sustainability in a country. Rules and support of a particular government can make it easier or more difficult to implement an upstream supply chain sustainability practice. This was mentioned in case 3 by interviewee B where it was easier to implement the upstream supply chain sustainability practice with transport packaging material of a recyclable source in Korea, because of support and rules of the Government in Korea. “In Korea there was much more support from the government and many more rules regarding the use of sustainable materials.”
All interviewees noticed that most companies in Western countries are more sustainability minded. Interviewee D mentioned the following: “In Western countries, for most companies is sustainability a 4th condition, next to quality, price delivery and reliability.” Besides where
35 do with sustainability requirements.” When buying firms don't ask sustainability questions, the companies do not improve their sustainability. Therefore, the sales market has an
influence on the sustainability of a supplier. This is confirmed in case 4 by interviewee C: “In countries such as Turkey, Russia and India, we are often the first to ask questions about sustainability and animal and welfare. As a result, that process takes longer, even when they see its added value. You are constantly tested in the negotiation, because you ask for
something extra.
In case 3, implementing the upstream supply chain sustainability practice went best in Korea. Interviewee B: “Korea is already more geared towards it, which makes it easier for a
supplier to look for a supplier in the area that offers sustainable packaging material.” A well-organized upstream supply chain makes it easier for the supplier to find a supplier who meets the requirements of the buyer.
Thus, the power of the buyer, government of a country, sales market of the suppliers and the upstream supply chain of the suppliers have influence on an upstream supply chain
36
5. Discussion
In this chapter, the previous results will be discussed and linked to existing literature.
5.1 Discussion
Buying firms are held responsible for the sustainability of their upstream supply chain (Krause et al., 2009) and have expanded their upstream supply chain over multiple locations (Chopra & Meindl, 2013). This makes the influence of different national cultures on upstream supply chain sustainability practices important. However, in literature there are contradicting findings regarding the relationship between national culture and sustainability practices (Halkos & Skouladis, 2017; Thanetsunthorn, 2015; Vachon, 2010). The fact that these studies present different outcomes indicated that further qualitative research was needed to close this gap in literature.
This research provided some interesting insights on the influence of different national cultures on upstream supply chain sustainability practices in a buyer-supplier relationship.
Firstly, this research shows that it is important to take another national culture into account at upstream supply chain sustainability practices. Because each culture needs an own approach. Therefore, it is important to understand cultural behavior. This research finding is in line with Gupta & Gupta (2019), who mentioned that it is important to understand and manage people from different cultures. However, different national cultures make it not impossible to implement an upstream supply chain sustainability practice. At none of the 16 upstream supply chain sustainability practices that were investigated during this research the companies are hindered by different national cultures for implementation of a practice. This is in strong contrast with the findings in the research of Ageron et al. (2012), who state that the culture of the supplier is one of the sources of resistance for implementing sustainability practices.
37 management should be convinced. This outcome differs from most previous research. Husted (2005), Scholtens & Dam (2007) and Thanetsunthorn (2015) found a negative relationship between high power distance and sustainability practices. This is in line with Ioannou & Serafeim (2012), who also found a positive relationship between a high power distance culture and sustainability practices. The explanation of Ioannou & Serafeim (2012) was that countries which have a higher power distance culture, managers pay more attention to the needs of their stakeholders and the society.
This research showed that a high power distance culture in a country of a supplier leads to lower discussions and only the management must be convinced. This study also indicated that buying firms notice a negative effect of a high power distance culture: when the top
management of a company in a high power distance culture is not sustainability minded, the whole company is not sustainability minded.
The findings of this research showed a negative impact of upstream supply chain sustainability practices in individualistic countries. This supports the findings of
Thanetsunthorn (2015) & Pucheta-Martinez & Galego-Alvarez (2020), who concluded that individualism has a negative effect on sustainability practices. Thus, collectivism positively influences the upstream supply chain sustainability practice. Bochner & Hesketh (1994) concluded that collectivism results in long-term decision periods because people want to make decisions together. This could also be concluded from this study, where interviewees indicated that the decision period is longer in countries with a collectivist culture. However, it leads to a well-developed answer.
38 Thirdly, the research also provided insights of other cultural traits of national culture that influence upstream supply chain sustainability practices. According to Steenkamp (2001) cultural traits can be missed if only the Hofstede’s dimensions are taken into account. The other cultural traits are the speed of action, the need for control and in some countries and other norms and values related to environmental issues.
Fourthly, the findings of this research showed that external factors also have an influence on upstream supply chain sustainability practices. Pagell et al. (2005) stated that crossing borders means automatically a substantive change in business practices and outcomes. This research showed that different national cultures have an influence on upstream supply chain
sustainability practices, but that external factors - such as the government of a country, the suppliers’ sales market and the upstream supply chain of the suppliers - also have an influence to take into account. Future research must give more insights about their influence on
upstream supply chain sustainability practices.
5.2 Theoretical implications
This research provides theoretical contributions to the field of national cultures and how it influences upstream supply chain sustainability practices in a buyer-supplier relationship from a buyers’ perspective. While the existing literature has heavily been focusing on the
importance of a sustainable upstream supply chain for a buying company, it remains unknown how an upstream supply chain sustainability practice in a buyer-supplier relationship is
influenced by different national cultures.
Firstly, this research contributed to the literature as it showed that different national cultures are not a source of resistance to implement an upstream supply chain sustainability practice in a buyer-supplier relationship.
39 Thirdly, the findings in this research provide evidence on “when and how culture matters” the most. In countries with a high power distance culture, is particularly effective in
implementation stage, because it leads to lower discussions and the employees carry out what management says. Therefore, only the management has to be convinced. This research also indicated that individualism has a negative effect on the buyer-supplier relationship, because some suppliers are less loyal and stop the collaboration when they can earn money at another buying company. This can have a negative influence on the performance of the upstream supply chain sustainability practice.
Fourthly, this research was not only focused on the Hofstede cultural dimensions. Also, other cultural traits - speed of action, the need for control and other norms and values related to environmental issues - were identified as being part of a national culture, with an influence on upstream supply chain sustainability practices. The start phase of an upstream supply chain sustainability practice in this research appeared to be better in Asian countries, where the speed of action is higher. In some countries where the need for control is higher, during the upstream supply chain sustainability practice it is important that the buying firms control the suppliers. Furthermore, Western Countries and Asian Countries have other norms and values regarding environmental issues, which makes it more difficult to convince these suppliers to implement the upstream supply chain sustainability practice.
5.3 Managerial implications
The findings of this research are relevant for managers of multinational buying companies as it describes cultural traits that are related to upstream supply chain social & environmental sustainability practices. The findings can help managers to achieve an upstream sustainable supply chain with international suppliers in different countries and with different cultural backgrounds.
40 Furthermore, this research provided information about cultural dimensions in a number of countries in the world. Managers can use these findings to understand the culture in these countries before they start an upstream supply chain sustainability practice. Moreover, the results showed that also external factors have an influence on an upstream supply chain sustainability practice. Therefore, managers should also take into account the power of the buyer, government of a country, sales market of the suppliers and the upstream supply chain of the suppliers when engaging in upstream supply chain sustainability practices in a country with a different national culture.
Managers can learn from these insights, which potentially may lead to higher upstream supply chain sustainability performance.
5.4 Limitations and further research
This study has several limitations but provides opportunities for future research.
The first limitation of this study is that the scope of the research was limited, as only the buyers’ perspective of the buyer-supplier relationship was taken into account. Only interviews with employees of the buying firm were conducted. Thus, to gain full understanding, future research should also incorporate the suppliers’ perspective.
The second limitation of this research is that it was focused on different upstream supply chain practices, e.g., social, environmental and overall sustainability ones. However, there can be a big difference in upstream supply chain practices, for example, when it concerns a
practice to reduce the carbon footprint or a practice that is focused on giving employees more voice. Further research could focus more specifically on a certain type of upstream supply chain sustainability practice to gain more in-depth knowledge.
41 The fourth limitation concerned the COVID-19 situation. Due to COVID-19 it was not
possible to conduct face-to-face on-site interviews. Therefore, all interviews were conducted online, with Microsoft Teams, Zoom and phone calls. Although with the use of webcams there was a face-to-face experience, it makes it more difficult to look for signs in non-verbal communication. Besides, the interviewee may find it much less comfortable to respond to certain things. Therefore, this might have implications for the reliability of the data (Yin, 2009).
From this research it became clear that also organizational cultural behavior plays a vital role in upstream supply chain sustainability practices. A direction for further research is to
