FRIENDS OR ENEMIES:
HOW COMPETITIVE FORCES STEER
SUSTAINABLE DECISION MAKING
Master thesis, Msc Supply Chain Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 28
th, 2019
Annelies Oldejans
Student number: 1985604
E-mail: a.oldejans@gmail.com
Supervisor
Dr. Ir. N.J. Pulles
Second supervisor
Prof. Dr. J. de Vries
Word count: 11.343
Acknowledgement:
I would like to thank Dr. Ir. N.J. Pulles and Prof. Dr. J. de Vries for their useful
feedback and support. Moreover, many thanks to Veninga Hijken B.V. and Van
Friends or enemies: how competitive forces steer sustainable decision making
CONTENT
1. Introduction 4
2. Theory section 6
2.1 Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) 6
2.2 Relational orientation 7
2.3 Hypothesis development 8
2.3.1 Competition 8
2.3.2 The influence of relational orientation 9
3. Study 1: scenario-based role-playing experiment: methodology 11
3.1 Respondents 11
3.2 Measures and manipulation 12
4. Study 1: scenario-based role-playing experiment: results 19
4.1 Upstream 19
4.1.1 Moderating effect on the relationship between competition and sourcing decision 20 4.1.2 Moderating effect on the relationship between competition and willingness to report 20
4.2 Downstream 21
4.2.2 Moderating effect on the relationship between competition and sharing information 22 4.2.3 Moderating effect on the relationship between competition and willingness to report 22
5. Study 2: case study: methodology 24
5.1 Case selection 24
5.2 Coding 25
6. Study 2: case study: results 26
6.1 Competition 26 6.2 Relational orientation 28 6.3 Other factors 30 7. Discussion 31 7.1 Findings 31 7.2 Contributions 32 7.3 Managerial implications 33
7.4 Limitations and future research 33
References 35
Appendix A: Hypotheses and conceptual model 37
Appendix B: Vignette used in the study 38
Appendix C: Interview questions 44
1. INTRODUCTION
Climate changes, overpopulation, and other natural pressures have pushed public attention towards more sustainable solutions (Madani & Rasti-Barzoki, 2017). As a result, the pressures for companies to act sustainably have increased as well. Customers expect their products to be environmental friendly and fair trade. Furthermore, sustainability has become a permanent topic on the agenda of governments (Madani & Rasti-Barzoki, 2017). These institutional forces create more competition between firms concerning sustainability choices, which affects the overall competition among firms as well (Yang, Sheng, Wu, & Zhou, 2018). Bennett, Pierce, Snyder, and Toffel (2013) found that competition, on the one hand, can lead to positive social outcomes, however, on the other hand, it can also encourage the opposite and lead to illegal activities. In the light of sustainability, the immense pressures for companies to act responsibly can lead to more sustainable solutions. However, it can also encourage window dressing, in which case it might seem that a company acts responsible, however, this is only keeping up appearances (Kolk & Perego, 2014).
Sustainability is commonly referred to as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987:37). Although the definition of sustainability is clear and commonly used, defining sustainability within supply chain management has proven difficult (Ahi, Jaber, & Searcy, 2016; Stindt, 2017). A commonly used principle to address sustainability is the triple bottom line. The triple bottom line discusses the interplay between three pillars crucial in today’s business practice: People, planet and profit, or in other words, the interplay between social, environmental and economic considerations (Ahi et al., 2016; Stindt, 2017). This thesis distinguishes between social and environmental sustainability as well and addresses whether this harms the profitability. Despite the triple bottom line notion, sustainability research has been performed on different levels. Some research has focused solely on logistics or procurement, while others have discussed the entire supply chain (Ansari & Kant, 2017). Different terminologies have been used to refer to these topics, all of which describing some level of sustainable (Ahi et al., 2016; Rajeev, Pati, Padhi, & Govindan, 2017). In line with Ahi (2016), this thesis will use the term Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) as it builds on the notion that sustainability extends beyond the boundaries of one firm and thus captures the integration of sustainability in the entire supply chain. Moreover, it is deduced from the above mentioned, triple bottom line principle (Stindt, 2017).
success of one participant is inherently related to the failure of another (Kilduff, Elfenbein, & Staw, 2010). Previous research has shown that competition can have positive outcomes: lower prices, higher quality and more innovation (Bennett et al., 2013). Therefore, we would expect, that the increase in sustainable pressures will lead to more sustainable decision making. Unfortunately, there is a downside to competition as well. Due to competitive forces, companies may act unethical and even become corrupt (Bennett et al., 2013). In the case of sustainability, companies start pretending to act the sustainable while the opposite is true. The best-known example was the Volkswagen scandal in 2015. Rhodes (2016) noticed that despite well-established corporate business ethics, Volkswagen was not able to prevent unethical behaviour. It might have even evoked it by putting too much pressure on its employees to act sustainably. As a result, Volkswagen's managers altered the software of the cars to meet C02 emission limits while the emission was way beyond the restrictions.
Currently little is known on how to preclude the negative effects of competition (Reefke & Sundaram, 2017). Several measures have been proposed and used in practice to ensure managers make sustainable choices, however, the results are disappointing. Managers are willing to make sustainable choices, however, as soon as a profit gains come into play, this has been (Kolk & Perego, 2014; Kull & Closs, 2008; Rhodes, 2016). The goal is to create a sustainable supply chain from upstream to downstream, where, despite the individual short-term goals, firms collaborate and make decisions that will benefit the supply chain entirely. Previous research has shown that a relational orientation can be very beneficial in steering behaviour by creating shared expectations (Cao & Lumineau, 2015). As Wang, Ye, and Tan (2014)found; a relational orientation can enhance the probability of making the desired choices in the supply chain. This research examines whether a relational orientation can indeed enhance the process, by decreasing the negative effects of competition in both the up- and downstream and bring the sustainable supply chain one important step closer. To achieve this, the following research questions will be answered:
1. How does competition influence sustainable decision-making?
2. What is the effect of relational orientation on the relationship between competition and sustainable decision making?
consists of a case study, in order to enhance the external validity (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). The case study aims to confirm our findings in study 1, moreover, the case study explores the rationale behind sustainable decision making further (Seawright & Gerring, 2008). The case study has confirmed that relational orientation indeed can compensate for the negative effects of competition. Moreover, we have found several other factors that influence sustainable decision making, the most important ones are: rules and regulations, the influence of the community and customer demand for sustainability.
2. THEORY SECTION 2.1 Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM)
Many definitions have been proposed and used to define SSCM. Ahi and Searcy (2013) compared 12 different definitions and established a new definition as well. For this research, two elements are essential in the definition: having the triple bottom line as a basis and focusing on the interplay between firms, and thus focusing on the entire supply chain. The 12 definitions identified by Ahi and Searcy (2013) all contain these elements with varying degrees. The new definition by Ahi and Searcy (2013) does capture these elements in total, however, it is very elaborate and therefore confusing and unclear. The definition used in this thesis is the definition by Seuring and Müller (2008:1700). It best captures the essence of SSCM, and it is commonly used. SCCM is therefore defined as:
“the management of material, information and capital flows as well as cooperation among companies along the supply chain while taking goals from all three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e. economic, environmental and social, into account which are derived from customer and stakeholder requirements.”
companies have on the environmental and social domain and try to create a truly sustainable supply chain (Montabon et al., 2016). This means that sustainability should be prioritized over profitability. They propose that the following changes in business practice will lead to more sustainable supply chains: take into account more stakeholders, not just focusing on the customer, meeting customer demands after satisfying sustainability and have a long-term focus (Montabon et al., 2016). This follows the third strategy, sufficiency, in which the aim is to harm less instead of maximizing the profit (Montabon et al., 2016; Schaltegger & Burritt, 2014). More researchers agree with Montabon et al. (2016), that sustainability is indeed not a balancing act between environmental, social and economic goals, but the environment and social should be put first, in other words, reducing unsustainable behaviour is not the same as being sustainable (Markman & Krause, 2016). This thesis follows this last trend, proposed by Montabon et al. (2016). We focus on how competition harms environmental and social sustainability, and we propose that a relational orientation can be a useful tool in attempting to minimize the harm. (Cao & Lumineau, 2015). When applying a relational orientation in both the up and downstream managers are encouraged to take the interest of its supplier and customers into account, by doing this a long-term orientation will be taken, leading to more sustainable decision making and a sustainable supply chain (Cao & Lumineau, 2015).
2.2 Relational orientation
When discussing relational orientation, two types of theories are commonly used: Transaction cost theory and social exchange theory. Transaction cost theory (TCT) proposes that a relational orientation can compensate for bounded rationality and therefore decrease opportunism (Cao & Lumineau, 2015). Under TCT relational orientation is seen as economic and trust is calculative (Cao & Lumineau, 2015). Social exchange theory (SET) assumes that trust is essential for a stable relationship. The relation is not only economic, as in TCT, bus also social. Social exchange is based on voluntary actions by parties and reciprocity is expected. Often a combination of the two theories is used which is most applicable in this thesis, as our research focuses on the influence of both trust and relational norms.
relevant. This highlights that both parties should benefit from the relationship (Griffith & Myers, 2005). As mentioned before, sustainability has become a topic that cannot be ignored, all companies aim to become more sustainable and prefer working with companies who have this in mind as well. Therefore, having these relational norms leads to expressing the shared sustainable goals between firms.
Moreover, only living by these shared goals leads to the continuity of the relationship. Both trust and relational norms can be used to implement sustainability throughout the entire supply chain, from supplier to customer. Relational norms create shared goals concerning sustainability issues, moreover, this relational orientation can overcome part of the uncertainty factor. Managers often have incomplete information on the impact their decisions will have on the environment and/or social issues and are therefore unsure how to meet sustainability goals and to know whether their partners will adhere to sustainable choices (Wu & Pagell, 2011). When relational norms are discussed, and trust exists between partners, uncertainty is less profound. Managers can rely on the business partners to make the right sustainable decisions and act in each other's sustainable interest. Moreover, if managers know a partner will make the sustainable choice as well, it is more likely to arrange it themselves as well. The elements, relational norm and trust combined form relational orientation and secure that if managers apply a relational orientation, the entire SSCM becomes more sustainable.
2.3 Hypothesis development
In this section, the hypotheses, which will be tested in our scenario-based-role play experiment, will be discussed. In this, we will focus on the influence of competition on sustainable decision making and the moderating effect of relational orientation on this relationship
2.3.1 Competition
competitive setting, people are more likely to exhibit unethical behaviour (Pierce et al., 2013). Whenever people face competition this will amplify unethical behaviour: individuals, whether in a corporate setting or not, will imagine the behaviour of the other party and act accordingly. People expect that the competition will try to do anything to undermine them, as a consequence they will take action to do the same (Pierce et al., 2013). Managers might find themselves competing for suppliers or customers. When looking at for-profit companies, the primary goal of these cooperations is to maximize the profit. Choosing either a sustainable but more expensive method will decrease profit, and the prevailing thought is that companies will not desire this. The managers assume that their competitors will not choose the sustainable option. When others are also choosing unsustainable options, this justifies their own behaviour as well (Pierce et al., 2013). Managers become uncertain and scared that they will be taken advantage of (Pierce et al., 2013). Losing business is viewed as a bigger treat compared to an unsustainable decision, and therefore managers will act unsustainably. We therefore state the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: High competition will lead to less sustainable decision making
2.3.2 The influence of relational orientation
In the communication with the supplier and its sub-suppliers, relational orientation can be used to enhance the efficiency of this cooperation. Within the supply chain, managers agree on sustainable goals and agree to prioritize these collective goals above the individual goals. Consequently, parties will take each other into account in their sustainable decision making. Parties might consult each other, or at the very least take the other party’s interest into account. As the relational orientation is based on trust and reciprocity (Cao & Lumineau, 2015). Sustainability is becoming an integrated aspect of every supply chain, or at least this is the goal (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). As we saw in the former section, the interdependence between the firms and not knowing whether or not partner firms or competitors are acting sustainable might lead to less sustainable behaviour (Pierce et al., 2013). By creating trust, shared goals and reciprocity concerning sustainable issues, business partners are more aware of what the other party is doing and likewise, the partners are more willing to act in each other interests. Due to this relational orientation, companies become long-term orientated (Cao & Lumineau, 2015). This means, that it would be better to put sustainability before profitability even if this in the short term means not being able to source or to tell your buyer that the product is less sustainable than losing business in the future. The long-term relationships with the business partners are valued more and eventually will lead to an increase in the revenues. If this relational orientation is present within the supply chain, more sustainable decision will be made, despite competition as competition is a short-term factor. We therefore expect the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3: A
higher level of relational orientation will decrease the negative effect of competition on sustainable decision making
Hypothesis 2: A higher level relational orientation will decrease the negative effect of competition on sustainable decision making
2.3 Upstream and downstream
Figure 2.1 Conceptual model
3. STUDY 1: SCENARIO-BASED ROLE-PLAYING EXPERIMENT: METHODOLOGY
To study the proposed relations, first of all a scenario-based role-playing (SBRP) experiment will be used. A SBRP is an experiment in which different versions of a descriptive vignette are used. Respondents are asked to take on a certain role and, answer questions about how they would react or respond (Rungtusanatham, Wallin, & Eckerd, 2011). Scenario-based vignette experiments are especially useful for gaining insights in work behaviours that are difficult to observe (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). As it is difficult to find out the reasoning behind decisions, we can use the vignette to isolate the effects of competition and whether or not to choose for the sustainable solution, within a controlled environment. Usually, three stages are considered in designing SBRP experiments: pre-design, design stage and post-design phase. The pre-design stage consists of familiarizing with the subjects and examining the availability of existing vignettes and measurements items (Rungtusanatham et al., 2011). As this research is part of a broader set of research projects, a measurement has already been developed and was tested in these previous studies.
3.1 Respondents
rationale behind the decision-making of managers. To ensure higher external validity, the people in the sample should represent the population of interest (Landers & Behrend, 2015). Therefore, both downstream and upstream managers have been selected. The sample consists of 62 downstream and 54 upstream respondents. Only half of the respondents participated as all participants took two cases, both the environmental and social sustainability scenario. Therefore, the actual number of participants is duplicated to get N. The order in which the cases are presented to the respondents’ divers, either first the environmental sustainability case and the social sustainability case second, or the other way around. More details on the sample can be found in table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Descriptive statistics sample
Downstream (N=62) Upstream (N=54)
Average age M=42.3 SD=12.1 M=41.1S SD=12.2
Gender Male or Female 90.3% Male 70.4% Male
Competition High or Low competition 51.6% Low 55.6% Low
Scenario order 1. Environmental 2. Social or 1. Social 2. Environmental 54.8% 1. Environmental 2. Social 55.6% 1. Environmental 2. Social Profession Purchaser - 70.4% Marketeer 3.2% 18.5% Sales manager 61.3% -
Supply Chain manager 22.6% 7.4%
Remaining 12.9% 3.7%
3.2 Measures and manipulation
As mentioned before, role play vignettes will be used to test our hypotheses, in this, a distinction is made between upstream and downstream. The upstream and downstream respondents are faced with respectively upstream or downstream scenarios. The scenarios either have high or low competition. Using this manipulation, we can isolate the effect of competition on sustainable decision making. Finally, a distinction is made between two types of sustainability: environmental and social. The order in which these scenarios are presented to the respondent deviates. Table 3.2 depicts the different scenarios and manipulation.
extraction of substances from the earth. Although this sector might seem as environmental unfriendly in general, several measures can be taken to increase sustainability. Especially the mining sector in Australia has taken tremendous steps leading toward sustainable mining (Mudd, 2010).. In our scenario, a company that is currently getting its supplies from Australia receives the opportunity to purchase from Asia.
The social sustainability scenario deals with the fashion industry. The fast fashion industry has to produce its products as cheap as possible to stay competitive. As a result, clothes are made in low-cost countries, which often have bad salaries and dangerous working environments. The fashion industry has promised the customer to check whether their suppliers are socially sustainable (Hjort, 2016). However, what happens if a sub-supplier fails to act sustainably? Are they transparent about it? Even if this would mean losing an important partner to the competition? Our social sustainability scenario refers to this dilemma.
Table 3.2
Manipulation and scenarios in vignette
Upstream Downstream
Low competition
Scenario 1: Environmental sustainability Scenario 2: Social sustainability
Or
Scenario 1: Social sustainability Scenario 2: Environmental sustainability
Scenario 1: Environmental sustainability Scenario 2: Social sustainability
Or
Scenario 1: Social sustainability Scenario 2: Environmental sustainability
High competition
Scenario 1: Environmental sustainability Scenario 2: Social sustainability
Or
Scenario 1: Social sustainability Scenario 2: Environmental sustainability
Scenario 1: Environmental sustainability Scenario 2: Social sustainability
Or
Scenario 1: Social sustainability Scenario 2: Environmental sustainability
To test our hypotheses, the following measures are used:
Competition (manipulation). To manipulate competition, two conditions were used. Condition
one relates to high competition (You know from the reports of one of your business analysts that another major … has approached the …). Condition two relates to low competition (You know from the reports of one of your business analysts that no other major … has approached …).
Sourcing Decision (Upstream managers). Downstream and upstream managers face different
the upstream vignette, the fictive company is facing a problem, and this can be solved, however, this solution would harm the sustainability. Respondents in the role of supply chain manager are asked whether they would take this option. Three items are used with a seven-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The items and their mean and standard deviation can be found in table 3.3. Although the questions are adjusted to the environmental and social sustainability scenario, they are treated as one measure. The influence of either an environmental or social sustainability scenario is tested as a control factor. The Cronbach’s alpha of the tree items is .993, which is above .7, therefore the Cronbach’s alpha has been accepted, no items are deleted.
Table 3.3
Upstream sourcing decision: Cronbach’s alpha, mean, standard deviation
a M SD
Upstream sourcing decision .933 4.2 1.78
1
Environmental Scenario
It is likely that BatteriesCo will start sourcing from AsiaMining
4.15 1.95 Social
scenario
It is likely that HotFashion will make use of DenimFabric’s subcontractor
2
Environmental Scenario
BatteriesCo will use nickel from the Philippines and Indonesia in its production
4.0 1.95 Social
scenario HotFashion will use denim products from the subcontractor in Bangladesh to serve the new markets
3
Environmental
Scenario BatteriesCo will make use of the opportunity to collaborate with AsiaMining
4.44 1.77 Social
scenario HotFashion will make use of the opportunity to collaborate with DenimFabric’s subcontractor
Sharing information (Downstream managers). This measure is only presented to the
Table 3.4
Downstream sharing information: Cronbach’s alpha, mean, standard deviation
a M SD
Downstream sharing information .92 4.54 1.65
1
Environmental Scenario
It is likely that BatteriesCo will inform the OEM on its decision to start sourcing from AsiaMining
4.73 1.74 Social
scenario
It is likely that HotFashion will inform the Nordic retailer on its decision to start sourcing from DenimFabric’s subcontractor
2
Environmental Scenario
BatteriesCo will be open about its use of nickel
from the Philippines and Indonesia to the OEM 4.69 1.76 Social
scenario HotFashion will be open about its use of the subcontractor in Bangladesh to the Nordic retailer
3
Environmental
Scenario BatteriesCo will share information on its new source for nickel with the OEM
4.19 1.81 Social
scenario HotFashion will share information on its new source of denim products with the Nordic retailer
Willingness to report. Three items are used to measure whether the decision will be reported
to colleagues, managers, and subordinates. The answer scale consists of seven-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The items can be found in table 3.5. The Cronbach’s alpha in the upstream is .631. Although this is slightly below the rule of thumb of .7, this can be explained due to the low number of respondents. Therefore, the Cronbach’s alpha is accepted, no items are deleted. The Cronbach’s alpha downstream is .707, which is above .7, therefore the Cronbach’s alpha has been accepted and all items have been included.
Table 3.5
Report (upstream and downstream): Cronbach’s alpha, mean, standard deviation
Upstream Downstream
a M SD a M SD
Report .631 5.66 1.07 .707 5.19 2.07
How likely are you to report on this decision to...
1 … your direct colleagues 5.85 1.34 5.23 1.79
2 … your supervisor/manager 6.5 .8 6.29 1.1
Relational orientation. Besides the measures in the vignette, a separate measure is used to
Table 3.6
Measurement items relational norms
Upstream Downstream
a M SD a M SD
Relational norms .876 5.96 .83 .728 5.61 .72
In my daily job:
1 inform our business partners with accurate and timely
information 5.96 1.11 5.77 .84
2 I inform our business partners about events or
changes that might affect them 6.07 1.06 5.77 1.08
3
I treat problems that arise in the course of the
relationship with our business partners as joint rather than individual responsibilities
5.96 1.05 5.65 1.16
4
I am committed to improvements that may benefit the relationship with our business partners as a whole and not only the individual parties
5.85 1.12 5.55 1.31
5 I consult our business partners in my decision making 5.59 1.14 4.74 1.31
6 I welcome ideas or suggestions from our business
partners 6.33 .82 6.16 .85
3.3 Manipulation and Hawthorne check
Table 3.7 Manipulation check Upstream Downstream a M SD a M SD Manipulation check .876 4.17 1.78 .913 4.55 1.91 1 Environmental scenario
Other manufacturers actively seek to sell similar quantities of automotive batteries to the large OEM
4.37 1.85 4.71 2.07 Social
scenario
Other buyers actively seek to source similar amounts of denim products from the subcontractor
2
Environmental scenario
There is a high level of competition to sell automotive batteries to the large OEM
3.96 1.92 4.4 1.91 Social
scenario
There is a high level of competition for denim products from the subcontractor Independent sample t-test High competition M 5.17 5.72 SD 1.29 .76 Low competition M 3.37 3.47 SD 1.72 2.03 t -4.25* -5.7* df 52 60 *p<.01
Table 3.8 Hawthorne check Upstream Downstream a M SD a M SD Hawthorne check .541 .216 1 Environmental scenario
The automotive OEM is of high importance for the success of BatteriesCo
4 1.92 5.81 1.07 Social
scenario
Securing sufficient supplies of denim products is of high importance for the success of HotFashion
2
Environmental scenario
The growth strategy of BatteriesCo is a good strategy
5.91 1.38 3.94 1.65 Social
scenario
The growth strategy of HotFashion is a good strategy
4. STUDY 1: SCENARIO-BASED ROLE-PLAYING EXPERIMENT: RESULTS
The tests have been performed for the upstream and downstream separately. First, the upstream will be discussed after which downstream will be presented.
4.1 Upstream
First of all, an independent sample t-test has been performed to test the effect of competition on the sourcing decision. The test was insignificant, the decision whether or not to source in the high competition case (M=4.78; SD=1.48) does not differ with the low competition case (M=4.54; SD=1.93). Therefore, the level of competition does not influence the sourcing decision (t(34)=-.42, p<0.10).
4.1.1 Moderating effect on the relationship between competition and sourcing decision To perform the tests, a dummy variable is created for competition. The constructs relational orientation and sourcing decision are standardized. A regression analysis has been performed to test: the main effect of competition and relational orientation on the sourcing decision, the moderating effect of relational orientation on the relationship between competition and the sourcing decision, and the effect of the control variables. The main effect of competition on the sourcing decision is insignificant. Competition has no effect on the sourcing decision (b=.88, t(53)=.646, p>.10). Furthermore, the relational orientation does not have a direct effect on competition (b=-.048, t(53)=-.320, p>.10). Therefore, we can conclude that there is no main effect of competition or relational orientation on the sourcing decision. Next, no significant moderating effect (b=.132; t(53)=.876, p>.10) of relational orientation has been found on the relationship between competition and the sourcing decision. Concerning the control factors, no significant effect is found for age (b=.153, t(53)=1.029, p>.10), gender (b=-.237, t(53)=-1.552, p>.10), and scenario order (b=.087, t(53)=.610, p>.10). However, a significant effect is found for scenario type (b=-.344, t(53)=-2.719, p<.01). The respondents reacted to the environmental sustainability scenario differently than to the social sustainability scenarios (R2=.236, F(7,53)=2.351). Looking more closely at the effect of scenario type, a paired sample t-test has been performed on the effect of scenario type on the sourcing decision. The test is significant. Respondents were more likely to start sourcing in the environmental sustainability scenario (M=4.80, SD=1.48) than in the social sustainability scenario (M=3.59, SD=1.86). This means that respondents are more likely to make unsustainable decisions when they are faced with environmental sustainability issues than with social sustainability issues (t(27)=2.623, p<.05).The results are not what we expected, as we expected that social and environmental sustainability would provide the same results.
A higher level of relational orientation leads to more willingness to report in both the high and low competition. This means that our findings are in accordance with our hypothesis, relational orientation decreases the negative effect of competition on the willingness to report. Figure 4.1 shows the results graphically.
Figure 4.1
Moderating effect in the upstream
Lastly, we took into account the control factors. Insignificant results are found for age (b=.038, t(53)=-.287, p>.10), gender (b=.106, t(53)=.785, p>.10), scenario type (b=.052, t(53)=.469, p>.10) and a significant effect for scenario order (b=.289, t(53)=2.292, p<.05). When a participant took the social sustainability scenario first, they are more willing to report (R2=.340, F(7,53)=4.899). To look more detailed at the effect of scenario order on the willingness to report an independent sample t-test has been performed. This result is significant. Those respondents that took the social sustainability scenario first score higher on the willingness to report (M=6.03, SD=1.10) than respondents who took the environmental sustainability scenario first (M=5.37, SD=.96). The willingness to report is higher in both scenarios if the social sustainability scenario came first (t(52)=-2.348, p<.05).
4.2 Downstream
conclude that there is a positive relationship between the level of competition and the willingness to share information (t(60)=-2.857, p<.01). This is the opposite of what we expected in our hypothesis.
The main effect of competition has also been tested for the willingness to report. The independent sample t-test was significant. The willingness to report is higher if there is high competition (M=5.5, SD=.22) than if there is low competition (M=4.9, SD=.25). The level of competition has a positive effect on the willingness to report (t(60)=-1.76, p>.10). A higher level of competition leads to more willingness to share information, this is in contrary to what we expected in our hypothesis.
4.2.2 Moderating effect on the relationship between competition and sharing information Again, the variables relational orientation and sharing information have been standardized and a dummy variable is created for competition. To test our hypothesis a regression analysis has been performed. The main effect of competition on sharing information is significant (b=.300, t(61)=3.652, p<.05). A higher level of competition leads to an increase in the sharing of information, which contradicts with our hypothesis. The main effect of relational orientation on the sharing of information is also significant (b=.359, t(61)=2.303, p<.05). This means that if the relational orientation becomes higher, the sharing of information increases as well. Next, an insignificant moderating result has been found for relational orientation on the relationship between competition and sharing information (b=.183, t(61)=1.235, p>.10). We conclude that there is no moderating effect and our hypothesis is rejected. Lastly, several control factors have been tested. Insignificant results have been found for gender (b=.118, t(61)=1.042, p>.10), scenario order (b=.038, t(61)=.352, p>.10), and scenario type (b=-.026, t(61)=-.252, p>.10). A significant result has been found for age (b=.345, t(61)=3.022, p<.01). A positive effect of age on sharing information has been found (R2=.412, F(7,61)=5.4), if people are older, they are more likely to share information. To get more detailed information on this, the analysis is performed separately as well. This significant regression confirms our former analysis (b=.246, t(61)=2.119, p<.05). A positive effect of age on sharing information (R2=.264, F(1,61)=4.489). If people are older there is an increase in the sharing of information.
between competition and willingness to report (b=-.645, t(61)=-4.159, p<.01). As mentioned in section 4.2.1, a positive effect between competition and willingness to report has been found, which is the opposite of our hypothesis. Adding the moderating effect deviates these results, as can be seen in figure 4.2. After adding the moderation, the effects are in accordance with our hypothesis. A lower level competition leads to more willingness to report. The relationship is strengthened by the moderator. In the case of high competition, more relational orientation leads to slightly more willingness to report. In the case of low competition, a strong effect can be found for relational orientation. Our hypothesis is therefore confirmed, the moderator relational orientation decreases the negative relationship between competition and willingness to report. These results are similar to the results found in the upstream.
Figure 4.2
Moderating effect in the upstream
5. STUDY 2: CASE STUDY: METHODOLOGY
SCRP experiments and the use of vignettes are rather new in the field of social-economic research, and discussions have emerged on its validity (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014; Antonakis, 2017). Aguinis and Bradley (2014) advocate the use of these experiments, however, they did find, in contrary to internal validity, that the external validity might be lacking. To increase external validity, a case study has been performed. We compare the findings of the scenario-based vignette experiment with the case studies to see whether the result of the experiment also holds within the real world (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). As Eisenhardt (1989) mentions, case studies can be very useful in validating the existence of certain relationships. Next, a case study is a useful tool to gather more in-depth information to understand the dynamics within cases better (Eisenhardt, 1989).
To explore our theory further, multiple cases are selected as this allows for richly describing how sustainable decisions are made (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The vignette allowed us to test whether competition influences the sustainable decision making, moreover, it allowed for testing the influence of relational orientation on the relationship between competition and sustainable decision making. This case study moves beyond this and captures the dynamics behind the decision making. Multiple semi-structured interviews are held to view the phenomenon from both the upstream and downstream perspective. The key focus of the case study is identifying to what extent competition and relational orientation play a role in sustainable decision making. Moreover, we will explore whether other factors have been found to influence sustainable decision making.
5.1 Case selection
Seawright and Gerring (2008) have discussed seven techniques to select cases for qualitative research. The goal of our case study is twofold. Following Seawright and Gerring (2008), on the one hand, we aim to confirm the influence of competition on sustainable decision making and the moderating effect of relational orientation. On the other hand, we want to explore the dynamics behind sustainable decision making and understand better which factors are important. In our case selection, we have selected cases which are rather similar, however, the pressure to make sustainable decision-making deviates. As the pressures vary amongst the cases, we expect that this will influence whether or not managers deal with sustainable decisions and are more likely to choose the sustainable option. By selecting these cases we are able to both confirm the expected relationships of study 1 and explore the dynamics (Seawright & Gerring, 2008).
strict guidelines on what to feed their cattle, as they sell dairy to customers for example. As a result, company B has to deal with very strict regulations as well. The flower sector, on the contrary, has only received little attention concerning sustainability. Moreover, the main part of the customers is located outside Europe, where the sustainability issue is much less pressing. It is therefore interesting to see how these quite similar companies deal with the different level of sustainability pressures. Per company two managers have been interviewed. All participants have both upstream and downstream experience; however, they are specialization towards the upstream and downstream on some level. This allows us to get a complete image of the up- and downstream and allows for confirming the findings per company, as bias by one interviewee is avoided.
Table 5.1 Case information
Company A Company B
Product Flower bulbs Animal nutrition
Location Rural area of Drenthe Rural area of Drenthe
Company type Family owned Family owned
Production Semi-finished: Growing smaller bulbs to larger bulbs
Mixing the ingredients
Purchases Mainly: pesticides, fertilizers. Partly: right to produce flower bulbs.
Grains, vitamins, minerals
Customers 30-40% breeders in the Netherlands, grow flowers from the bulbs and sell them in Western Europe. 60-70% exported to Asia, North & South America via intermediaries.
Pig and cattle farms: bulk. Horse, sheep farms: buy in smaller quantities.
Sustainable pressure
Low High
5.2 Coding
the data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). In our case study, already some information is known on the specific relationship between our constructs, the aim of our case study is to further describe the phenomenon and add to the data already known. A directed approach is better suitable, as we aim to validate and extend our knowledge on sustainable decision-making (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The directed approach deviates from the conventual analysis in using the already known key concepts as categories. This means that in the interviews after open-ended questions, more directed questions will be asked concerning our topic. Hsieh and Shannon (2005) provide two coding techniques. The first technique starts by coding the data along the key concepts. These key concepts are competition and relational orientation. Within competition a distinction is made between the down and upstream. Within relational orientation, distinctions are made between the different stakeholders, which turned out to be important: suppliers, customers, the community and the government. After the first round of coding the remaining data that could not be coded yet, is analysed and coded. These are first classified as sustainable considerations and next labelled as either a corporate goal or the importance of weather. The complete coding tree can be found in Appendix D.
6. STUDY 2: CASE STUDY: RESULTS 6.1 Competition
Upstream. At company A, the competition in the upstream is low, although there are only
three suppliers. All the needed products are used in large quantities by the entire agricultural sector, so the suppliers keep very high stocks. As company A uses standard products there is always enough supply and there remains room for negotiations on the price and quantities.
At company B there is some level of competition in the upstream if raw materials are condemned by the government. Consequently, due to competition higher prices are asked for the available materials of good quality. As the upstream manager explains: “Last year large quantities of
corn were disapproved, we were not allowed to use it. The result was a shortage of good quality corn, which increased the prices tremendously. We were able to choose cheaper but less good corn, however, we never take any risk in this, even though we cannot put this of on the customer”. Both managers of
company B agree that risks should not be taken concerning these sustainability issues. There is a small margin within which company B can make sustainable decisions. Even though they noticed that their competitors are willing to take risks, company B stays away from these practices. Despite these incidents, in general, company B never has issues with purchasing. They have one supplier for each product, and if something goes wrong, they figure it out.
Downstream. In the downstream the competition is higher; however, company A is very good
production of lilies is located in the Netherlands. The sector faces mostly the same challenges and, therefore, increases in costs, for example by using a more sustainable production method, can be laid off to the customer. What does affect company A is that their colleagues/competition are trying to put a hold on the move towards more sustainable production. The lily growers work together in an umbrella organisation. The larger part of these farmers is not as ready for the future as company A. They are afraid that the government will lower the allowance of pesticides. Therefore, the umbrella organisation communicates with the government and the customers that sustainable production is not possible. This is a completely different message than company A would like to send out. This hinder, however, has not slowed company A down, on the contrary, company A is even more motivated to become more sustainable. The managers of company A see potential. As the upstream manager from company A states: “I fight the notion that a choice has to be made between profitability and sustainability. It sounds like a choice needs to be made and that the one is at the expense of the other”. As they have experienced already, being more sustainable also lead to a higher quality flower bulb and thus via this process it can increase the prices.
Company B also faces more competition in the downstream. They have noticed that their competitors have become more aggressive, especially on price. Company B roughly has 300 customers who order in bulk. 20 to 30 are very large farmers, losing one of these would lead to quite an incline in the revenues. Luckily, these customers have been found to be loyal to company B. Horse, and sheep owners make up another 200 customers for company B, these have been found to switch to competitors more easily.
6.2 Relational orientation
During our analysis, it became clear that the relational orientation is not only important in the relationship with customers and suppliers, but companies have relationships with other stakeholders as well and that these relationships can lead to sustainable decision making as well.
Suppliers. The upstream managers of both companies indicated it has very good and
long-lasting relationships with its suppliers. Company B is more dependent on its suppliers, but as the sustainable raw materials come to the Netherlands and company B in masses, it basically goes automatically right that the suppliers deliver sustainable products. The products are also tested a lot before it arrives at company A. Already in the field and during transports the products are tested.
Customers. Through careful selection exporters and breeders have been chosen by company
negative attention; however, the farmers are prepared to make the changes. Unfortunately, there is no market for it, and the customers do not want to buy it.
Company B values the relationships with their customers highly as well. As mentioned before, the customers are very important, concerning revenues, but even more because of the value of the relationship. If a customer decides to choose for the competition, the downstream manager says: “it hurts, but there is nothing we can do.” According to him, 95% of the customers are loyal, and when asked why customers choose for company B he mentions: “probably because of tradition or something”. Sustainability is highly important for company B and its customers due to rules and regulations. The customers of company B are highly dependent on the quality of the products delivered by company B. If the customers get a wrong product and feed it to their cattle, it cannot sell the milk. Therefore, if something goes wrong, company B has to retrieve the products or compensate for the wrong products to stay within the margins. The customer puts the responsibility for this at company B, the farmers themselves know little about this and expect that company B makes the right choices. Company B puts a lot of effort into making the right choice for the customer. For example, protein is the most important nutrient for cows, and before the regulations, they would put a little extra in the final product to satisfy the customer. Nowadays, a too high level of protein would lead to a fine for the farmers, thus the final product stays just below what the cows need. This makes the managers of company B feel that they did not go the extra mile for their customers.
The community as stakeholder. As mentioned before, the flower industry in itself does not
have direct pressures towards sustainability. However, the community is watching. In the Netherlands, sustainability is very important, and the neighbours and surrounding population of company A want to know how production is set up. This had led to major alterations in the production process during the last 3 to 4 years. Company A started using a plant called Tagetes. This plant kills a certain type of parasites, which eliminates the need for pesticides. This makes the process more expensive, but it increases the quality of the product as well, for that reason the selling price could increase to compensate for the extra cost. Also, the soil in Drenthe is different than the soil in the west of the Netherlands. The soil of company A are very suitable for the production of sustainable products. Due to this, company A produces the most sustainable bulbs as they have a lot of power. The community has seen the use of the Tagetes and started asking questions. The community highly appreciates the steps company A has taken and the relationship with the community has become great.
Government. This relationship is quite one-sided, the government will issue new rules and
regulations are augmenting. At company A, the regulations are less, only the amounts of fertilizer and pesticides they are allowed to use are limited.
Analysis. Several stakeholders have been discussed, suppliers, customers, the community and the government. Both companies have very good, long-lasting relationships with their customers and put a lot of effort in serving them the best way they can. However, it has been noticed that the customer is not that interested in sustainable products. The customers of company A do not care about sustainability while the customers of company B only care about it because the government has pressed a lot of legislation. Especially company A is very eager to tell the customers what sustainability means and would like to convince them that it is worth paying an extra price. However, this process goes slow, and the activist and government seem to have directed their efforts to the producers instead of the customers. Moreover, it is interesting to see the power of a community and how company A has built good relationships with its community by producing more sustainable.
6.3 Other factors
Besides competition and relational orientation, other factors have been found to be important for sustainable decision-making process as well.
Weather conditions. Weather conditions are highly important for company A to decide
whether or not fertilizer and pesticides will be used. If it rains a lot, fertilizer will be washed away, moreover, viruses and other micro-organisms that damage the plants will survive more. As a result, more fertilizer and pesticides need to be used. Also, the preventive use of pesticides is dependent on the weather. Tests are done whether or not the preventive application of pesticides is necessary. This year the results were the same, however, this could be very different next year. When asked about sustainability, the downstream manager replied: “Sustainability starts playing a role, however it is weather dependent, if the weather is good, less is used”. Company B itself has to deal with weather conditions less, however, a bad harvest due to bad weather does influence the quality of the raw materials they purchase. Moreover, with bad weather it is more likely that raw materials will be rejected, leading to more shortages.
Corporate goals. At company A, sustainability is the result of general daily decision making. In
is a strong notion within company A that too much or too strong pesticides will harm the soil and the flower bulbs. And although company A has the option to focus on the market outside Europe, where sustainability is less an issue, it does hope that the customer is going to value sustainability more. As their downstream manager states: “We hope more pressure will be put on the customer to enhance sustainability, we are ready!”. At company B it is even more evident that sustainability is part of daily practice, sustainable products arrive at company B in bulk and a lot of testing is done to ensure the product is of good quality. For them sustainability is common practice, as a result, they are hardly faced with decisions concerning sustainability, they mention: “Nobody has a choice, and everyone has to participate.” There are so many rules and regulations that there is barely room for decisions. They have to stay within these strict boundaries and what remains is the importance of continuing business, or as the downstream manager says: “We also just have to earn a living”.
7. DISCUSSION
After the literature review, several hypotheses have been established after which a SBRP experiment has been performed. To confirm our findings in the first study and to further explore the sustainable decision-making process, a case study has been performed. Several interesting findings have been found which contribute to theory. Next, we will discuss the managerial implications, limitations and directions for future research.
7.1 Findings
This study provides more insight into sustainable decision making. First of all, In the upstream, a negative effect has been found between competition and the willingness to report to business partners, colleagues, managers, and supervisors. If the competition is higher there is less willingness to report. Having a higher relational orientation leads to more sharing information in both high and low competition. This confirms our expectation: Pierce et al. (2013) indicated a higher level of competition can lead to undesirable behaviour, in this case not sharing that an unsustainable decision.
Third, in the downstream we have found a positive effect between competition and the sharing of information, higher competition leads to more sharing of information. This contradicts with our literature view and the findings of Pierce et al. (2013). The moderating effect of relational orientation can explain this contradicting effect. When taking into account the relational orientation, higher competition leads to less willingness to report, as was expected in our hypothesis. We find relational orientation leads to more willingness to report when there is low competition, a minor effect is found for high competition. Based on these two findings, we first conclude, low competition leads to more willingness to report information. Second, we have found that a relational orientation can lead to more willingness to report in the case of low competition in both the up and downstream. The case study has confirmed the importance of a relational orientation. Moreover, we were able to explore which stakeholders are important in order to diminish the sustainable decision making. Having good relationships with suppliers leads to more trust and insurance that the suppliers will also make the same sustainable decisions. Customers, mainly the end-consumer, must become more aware of the dynamics surrounding sustainability. Consumers are lacking knowledge concerning this and the willingness to pay is too low. The companies are ready and willing to become more sustainable, however, the consumer and therefore also the direct customers of the businesses, are not interested in these products. Lastly, the government has issued rules and regulations which has led to an increase in sustainability. Moreover, the community surrounding the firms can enhance sustainable decision making.
Fourth, we have found that relational orientation indeed can compensate for competition. We found that managers do not experience competition to be an important factor, as they have established very good relationships with their partners. Even though some higher level of competition was present this did not affect the decision making. As we have found in our literature review, having a relational orientation entails trust between partners and a focus on the long term (Cao & Lumineau, 2015). Clearly, the case study has shown us that there is high trust between the partners, the managers do not doubt whether their business partners will act in their interest and relationships have already existed for a long time. As the longevity of the relationships is highly valued, the decision making will always be in the interest of the partners as well. Therefore, even if there is competition, the relationships are more important and more sustainable choices are made.
7.2 Contributions
three pillars and still maximizing profit, social and environmental sustainability are put first, and the focus is on minimizing harm. In this thesis, we discussed the negative effects of competition, which might stimulate managers to put profitability before sustainability. We have found that managers are already quite active in setting sustainability first as managers see the value of sustainability. They even consider sustainability and profitability to go hand in hand. We did find negative effects for competition on the willingness to report or share information, however, a relational orientation enhances the long-term orientation, which compensates for this. This follows Montabon et al. (2016), who argued that focusing on the long term will lead to a truly sustainable supply chain. Lastly, Montabon et al. (2016) mentioned considering a wide range of stakeholders. In our research, we first focused on suppliers and customers solely, however, during the case study we have found several other stakeholders, for example the community, who can stimulate companies to become more sustainable.
7.3 Managerial implications
To enhance sustainable decision making, taking on a relational orientation will enhance sustainable decision making. In our thesis, we have found that this can compensate for competition, having a good relationship will lead to always having a good supplier and the ability to sell the products. Moreover, having these trustworthy partners and long-term orientation leads to making sustainable decisions which is a shared goal in the supply chain. Second, managers should be stimulated to see the value of sustainability. This entails showing that sustainability has positive outcomes, concerning profitability but also positive reactions from, for example, the community. Interestingly, the company in our case study that is not subject to high regulations is more motivated to become sustainable. Third, managers should be stimulated to communicate their sustainable decision making more. Currently, consumers know little of sustainability and are therefore less willing to purchase sustainable goods. Managers are the experts in their field, showing the customers what sustainability can do and how they can contribute to this, will hopefully lead to more sustainable purchases by consumers. This is, of course, a very difficult task, however, in our case study, we have seen that this can have an effect.
7.4 Limitations and future research
found for either environmental and social sustainability. Moreover, the order in which the cases are presented had some effect. The results were inconclusive throughout this thesis; therefore, future research should find out whether or not respondents react differently to environmental or social sustainability.
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. 2014. Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experimental Vignette Methodology Studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4): 351–371. Ahi, P., Jaber, M. Y., & Searcy, C. 2016. A comprehensive multidimensional framework for assessing the performance of sustainable supply chains. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40(23–24): 10153–10166.
Ahi, P., & Searcy, C. 2013. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52: 329–341.
Ansari, Z. N., & Kant, R. 2017. A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of focus on sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142: 2524–2543.
Antonakis, J. 2017. On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. Leadership Quarterly, 28(1): 5–21.
Bennett, V. M., Pierce, L., Snyder, J., & Toffel, M. W. 2013. Customer-Driven Misconduct: How Competition Corrupts Business Practices. Management Science, 59(8): 1725–1742.
Beske-Janssen, P., Johnson, M. P., & Schaltegger, S. 2015. 20 Years of Performance Measurement in Sustainable Supply Chain Management – What Has Been Achieved? Supply Chain Management, 20(6): 664–680.
Brown, J. R., Weaven, S. K., Dant, R. P., & Crosno, J. 2016. Boosting the effectiveness of channel governance options: The moderating role of relational norms. European Journal of Marketing, 50(1/2): 29–57.
Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. 2015. Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 33–34: 15– 42.
Charness, G., Masclet, D., & Villeval, M. C. 2014. The Dark Side of Competition for Status. Management Science, 60(1): 38–55.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research, 14(4): 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory Building from Cases : Opportunities and Challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25–32.
Griffith, D. A., & Myers, M. B. 2005. The performance implications of strategic fit of relational norm governance strategies in global supply chain relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3): 254–269.
Hjort, J. 2016. Exchange rate regime, financial market bubbles and long-term growth in China: Lessons from Japan.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9): 1277–1288.
Jap, S. D., & Ganesan, S. 2000. Control Mechanisms and the Relationship Life Cycle: Implications for Safeguarding Specific Investments and Developing Commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2): 227–245.
Kaiser, F. G., Hübner, G., & Bogner, F. X. 2005. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10): 2150–2170.
Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. 2017. An Analysis of Data Quality: Professional Panels, Student Subject Pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46(1): 141–155. Kilduff, G. J., Elfenbein, H. A., & Staw, B. M. 2010. the Psychology of Rivalry: a Relationally Dependent
Analysis of Competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5): 943–969.
Kolk, A., & Perego, P. 2014. Sustainable Bonuses: Sign of Corporate Responsibility or Window Dressing? Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1): 1–15.
Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. 2015. An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, mechanical turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2): 142–164.
Liu, Y. H. S., Deligonul, S., Cavusgil, E., & Chiou, J. S. 2018. Always trust in old friends? Effects of reciprocity in bilateral asset specificity on trust in international B2B partnerships. Journal of Business Research, 90: 171–185.
Madani, S. R., & Rasti-Barzoki, M. 2017. Sustainable supply chain management with pricing , greening and governmental tariffs determining strategies : A game-theoretic approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 105: 287–298.
Markman, G. D., & Krause, D. 2016. Theory Building Surrounding Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Assessing What We Know, Exploring Where to Go. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(2): 3–10.
McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., et al. 2007. The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(30): 1–8.
Montabon, F., Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. 2016. Making Sustainability Sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(2): 11–27.
Mudd, G. M. 2010. The Environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: key mega-trends and looming constraints. Resources Policy, 35(2): 98–115.
Pierce, J. R., Kilduff, G. J., Galinsky, A. D., & Sivanathan, N. 2013. From Glue to Gasoline: How Competition Turns Perspective Takers Unethical. Psychological Science, 24(10): 1986–1994. Rajeev, A., Pati, R. K., Padhi, S. S., & Govindan, K. 2017. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain
management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162: 299–314.
Reefke, H., & Sundaram, D. 2017. Key themes and research opportunities in sustainable supply chain management – identification and evaluation. Omega, 66: 195–211.
Rhodes, C. 2016. Democratic Business Ethics: Volkswagen’s Emissions Scandal and the Disruption of Corporate Sovereignty. Organization Studies, 37(10): 1501–1518.
Rungtusanatham, M., Wallin, C., & Eckerd, S. 2011. The vignette in a scenario-based role-playing experiment. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(3): 9–16.
Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. 2014. Measuring and managing sustainability performance of supply chains: Review and sustainability supply chain management framework. Supply Chain Management, 19(3): 232–241.
Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2): 294–308.
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15): 1699–1710.
Stindt, D. 2017. A generic planning approach for sustainable supply chain management - How to integrate concepts and methods to address the issues of sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 153: 146–163.
Sturgis, P., & Smith, P. 2010. Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: What kind of trust are we measuring. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1): 74–92.
Wang, Z., Ye, F., & Tan, K. H. 2014. Effects of managerial ties and trust on supply chain information sharing and supplier opportunism. International Journal of Production Research, 52(23): 7046– 7061.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. 2011. Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6): 577–590.
APPENDIX A
Hypothesis conceptual model
Below the conceptual can be found again in figure A.1 and the corresponding hypotheses.
Figure A.1: Conceptual model
Hypothesis 1: High competition will lead to less sustainable decision making
Hypothesis 1aupstream : High competition will lead to less sustainable sourcing decision Hypothesis 1adownstream : High competition will lead to less sharing of information
Hypothesis 1bupstream : High competition will lead to less willingness to report in the upstream Hypothesis 1b downstream : High competition will lead to less willingness to report in the downstream
Hypothesis 2: A higher level relational orientation will decrease the negative effect of competition on sustainable decision making
Hypothesis 2aupstream : A higher level of relational orientation will decrease the negative effect of competition on sustainable sourcing decision
Hypothesis 2adownstream : A higher level of relational orientation will decrease the negative effect of competition on sharing of information
Hypothesis 2bupstream : A higher level of relational orientation will decrease the negative effect of competition on willingness to report in the upstream Hypothesis 2bdownstream : A higher level of relational orientation will decrease the negative
