Aharonovitz 2018

The International Journal of Logistics Management
How logistics performance is affected by supply chain relationships

Miriam Catarina Soares Aharonovitz, José Geraldo Vidal Vieira, Suzi Sanae Suyama,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Miriam Catarina Soares Aharonovitz, José Geraldo Vidal Vieira, Suzi Sanae Suyama, (2018) "How
logistics performance is affected by supply chain relationships", The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 29 Issue: 1, pp.284-307, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-09-2016-0204
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW At 07:52 28 April 2018 (PT)
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-09-2016-0204
Downloaded on: 28 April 2018, At: 07:52 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 79 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 429 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2018),"Integration, supply chain resilience, and service performance in third-party logistics
providers", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 Iss 1 pp. 5-21 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2016-0283">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2016-0283</a>
(2018),"An exploratory study of Internet of Things (IoT) adoption intention in logistics and
supply chain management: A mixed research approach", The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 29 Iss 1 pp. 131-151 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2016-0274">https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2016-0274</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:327772 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm
IJLM
29,1 How logistics performance is
affected by supply chain
relationships
284 Miriam Catarina Soares Aharonovitz
Federal University of Sao Carlos, Sorocaba, Brazil
Received 7 September 2016
Revised 1 February 2017 José Geraldo Vidal Vieira
28 April 2017
19 June 2017
Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of Sao Carlos,
Accepted 20 June 2017 Sorocaba, Brazil, and
Suzi Sanae Suyama
CSCS, DHL Supply Chain, Campinas, Brazil
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effect of logistics collaboration, meetings, relationship
history, and supplier selection on the logistics performance of shippers, carriers, and logistics services
providers. Rather than focusing on collaboration and performance, the research provides a wide analysis of
how logistics collaboration and performance interact with other organizational practices.
Design/methodology/approach – To investigate the interaction among the constructs, the authors
proposed a structural equation model to understand the influence of meetings, relationship history,
supplier selection, and collaboration on logistics performance. The data were obtained through a survey of
199 managers of Brazilian companies in the retail sector.
Findings – Supplier selection has the strongest effect on logistics collaboration, and relationship history has
the strongest effect on logistics performance. Rather than meetings and operational features, the elements of
interpersonal skills, organizational culture, and communication appear to be the most important contributors
to logistics performance achievements; relationship history leads to better performance.
Originality/value – This study contributes to our understanding of how and with whom to collaborate
by highlighting the relationships among supplier selection, relationship history, meetings, and logistics
collaboration and logistics performance.
Keywords Supplier relations, Supply chain management, Logistics performance, Logistics collaboration
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In the modern environment, companies compete by reducing costs and improving service
levels, and to create added value in the supply chain, they must build collaborative
channels with partners (Fawcett et al., 2012). This directive applies to shippers, carriers,
and logistics services providers (LSPs), which choose long-term logistics partners to
promote performance improvements. For LSPs, partnerships can reduce the costs and
improve the performance of logistics through joint activities and information sharing.
For example, governance mechanisms in horizontal cooperation among LSPs improve the
efficiency of transportation networks, information sharing, and the speed of the
cooperation process, thereby enhancing firm performance and increasing market success
(Raue and Wieland, 2015). From a shipper’s point of view, collaborative relationships can
reduce inventories and increase effectiveness among trading partners, thereby reducing
managerial costs, expediting deliveries, and producing higher service levels for the end
client (Ellram and Cooper, 1990; Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002).
The International Journal of
Logistics Management The dimensions of collaboration have been widely studied in the supply chain
Vol. 29 No. 1, 2018
pp. 284-307 management literature (Heide and John, 1990; Ellram, 1991; Morgan and Hunt, 1994;
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-4093
DOI 10.1108/IJLM-09-2016-0204 This work was supported by the FAPESP Agency (Grant No. 2011/19271-9).
Barratt, 2004; Whan et al., 2005; Min et al., 2005; Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005a, b; Logistics
Daugherty et al., 2006; Nyaga et al., 2010; Fawcett et al., 2012). Barratt (2004) and performance
Vieira et al. (2009) identified the elements of supply chain collaboration and the main barriers
to implementation. Additionally, they emphasized the need to explore the issues of “when”
and “with whom” to collaborate, recalling the importance of supplier selection, including
meetings and relationship history, for effective collaboration implementation (Hong et al.,
2005; Min et al., 2005; Sandberg, 2007). Several authors have analyzed the impact of 285
collaboration on performance (Corsten and Felde, 2005; Stank et al., 2001; Krause et al., 2007;
Flynn et al., 2010; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Whipple et al., 2010; Simatupang and Sridharan,
2005a; Nyaga et al., 2010; Leuschner et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015) and the interaction of supply
management and performance (Ellram and Cooper, 1990; Liao et al., 2010; Prajogo et al., 2012).
Stank et al. (2001) emphasized the role of internal and external collaboration in achieving
logistical service performance. A high frequency of regular meetings positively impacts the
buyer-supplier relationship (Min et al., 2005). Prajogo and Olhager (2012) concluded that
long-term relationships and information integration lead to effective external integration, and
Thomas et al. (2015) investigated the impact of relationship history on negotiation strategy
expectations in long-term buyer-supplier relationships.
However, few studies investigate the interaction between logistics collaboration, supplier
selection, meetings, relationship history, and logistics performance as a unique structural
model from the perspective of the shipper-carrier-LSP logistics triad. The process by which
supplier selection and relationship history influence logistics collaboration and their
impact on performance remains unknown. The temporal element of the relationships
must be evaluated with respect to history because the relationships change over time
(Min et al., 2005). Therefore, it is important to investigate the impact of relationship history
on logistics performance.
This paper aims to evaluate the effect of logistics collaboration, meetings, relationship
history, and supplier selection on the logistics performance of shippers, carriers, and LSPs.
Considering the aspects that make up each of these concepts, we contribute to
understanding how Brazilian companies’ logistics performance is affected by supply chain
relationships. For example, an excellent supplier selection process and relationship history
can positively affect logistics performance (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Prajogo et al., 2012;
Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005a; Leuschner et al., 2014) and offer strong alternatives for
managers to build new differential capabilities in the supply chain. Additionally, having
frequent meetings with top managers contributes to better logistics collaboration (Sandberg,
2007) and thereby contributes to improving companies’ logistics performance (Vereecke and
Muylle, 2006). Because existing literature lacks research that addresses supplier selection,
meetings, relationship history, logistics collaboration, and logistics performance
simultaneously and because companies continue to have difficulty managing change, our
study has managerial implications in terms of facilitating the integration of these areas and
implementing company projects. In this way, having an appropriate supplier selection
process, regular meetings and a satisfactory relationship history between buyers and
suppliers can improve collaborative practices and thereby performance by eliminating
redundancies and necessary rework in logistics partners’ routine (Stank et al., 2001).
Long-term relationships also have a strong influence on logistics performance (Prajogo and
Olhager, 2012) and in the past decade have been expanded into integration with partners
(Prajogo et al., 2012). These relationships are described as long-term and contractual in
nature, requiring investment from both partners (buyer and supplier) and implying a wide
scope of logistics activities (Lu, 2003). Then, understanding the history of the relationship
between buyers and suppliers over time can help to measure the relationship’s long-term
impact (Thomas et al., 2015). In this way, a satisfactory relationship history can contribute to
better logistics performance.
IJLM From a theoretical perspective, our study presents the interaction of elements that have
29,1 been investigated to date separately or in pairs. For example, to our knowledge, no extant
study joins logistics collaborations, supplier selection, and logistics performance, which are
three important constructs of a unique model. Relationship history is also an important
construct that has been scarcely investigated, and meetings are studied in terms of regular
meetings, technical visits, and training. These important meetings have been used in
286 logistics collaborations among Brazilian partners, i.e. shipper-carriers and LSP-carriers.
This paper begins with a literature review in which we present the supplier selection,
logistics collaboration, meetings, and relationship history and logistics performance
concepts and then develop our hypothesis. Next, our presentation of the research
framework, including the sample, procedures, and scale measures, illustrates the surveyed
relationships and assumptions made on the basis of existing literature. We introduce our
structural model, path relationships, and effects, followed by a discussion of the main path
results. We conclude with a review of the research limitations.
Theoretical background and hypothesis development

Teece et al. (1997, p. 510) refer to the dynamic capabilities theory in which companies attempt
to identify specific capabilities that can be sources of advantage by means of “management
capabilities, difficult-to-imitate combinations of organizational, functional and technological
skills.” Supply chain integration can assist firms with reorganizing their internal and external
resources and capabilities to build a solid supply chain network (Huo, 2012). In line with this
concept, companies also explore internal and external collaboration (Stank et al., 2001) to
enhance their competitive advantage in changing environments. External integration,
strategic alliances, and buyer-supplier relations play a central role in acquiring external
competences and in strengthening internal core competences. Companies can develop
capabilities by obtaining the knowledge necessary to work more efficiently with their partners
and, at the same time, adapt processes to meet their needs (Pfohl and Buse, 2000). In addition,
the outsourcing of logistics operations has been widely implemented to reduce costs and
increase service levels, using the expertise of carriers and LSPs. It gives companies the
opportunity to focus on core operations that create value for their products and services, thus
offering added value to stakeholders and reinforcing the company’s position in the market
(Sislian and Satir, 2000; Hong et al., 2005; Leuschner et al., 2013).
Supplier selection is critical for building a dynamic collaboration capability that achieves
differential performance (Liao et al., 2010). For instance, Coltman et al. (2011) found that, when
selecting a third-party logistics service provider, buyers who focus more on operational
capabilities place emphasis on transaction relationships, while those who emphasize relational
capabilities call on strategic supplier selection criteria, such as reliable performance, supply
chain flexibility, professionalism, and relationship orientation. In this way, they value
information flows, professionalism, and previous relationship history, which are precursors
for establishing a strong partnership toward performance improvements. Through strategic
partnerships involving top managers in the meetings (Sandberg, 2007), firms can jointly
improve their business processes and develop organizational capabilities through mutual
adjustment and transfer of knowledge (Pfohl and Buse, 2000). The frequency of meetings
among partners is important to define the goals and to start the development of a new project
(Vieira et al., 2009). With the understanding of the role that establishment of partnerships
takes on in a company’s strategy, this paper focuses on the impact of supplier selection,
meetings, relationship history, and logistics collaboration on logistics performance.
Supplier selection
In the supplier selection process, which is generally lengthy, a supplier is evaluated by its
partner (a buyer) in terms of several criteria (Bhutta and Huq, 2002); in other words, it is a
multiple-criteria decision-making process (Huang and Keskar, 2007). In the manufacturer-LSP Logistics
relationship, both partners have an interest in meeting consumers’ service and quality performance
expectations in product delivery (El-Ansary, 1992). However, this relationship is complex, as
the selection process encompasses various criteria, such as timeliness, price, service offered,
quality, technology, delivery reliability, lead time to order, response to inquiry, and response to
change (Bhutta and Huq, 2002; Hong et al., 2005; Ting and Cho, 2008). There are additional
criteria for the LSP selection process: reputation, culture, delivery speed, transportation safety, 287
global network, parity price, proactive innovation, quality certification, relationship
orientation, reliable performance, service handling and support, capacity and flexibility in
the supply chain, and track and trace (Coltman et al., 2011; Hwang and Shen, 2015).
Companies that apply these criteria seek to maintain strong relationships over time and high
performance standards; that is, they are driven to build collaborative relationships rather than
transactional ones.
Logistics collaboration
“Collaboration can be defined as a relationship characterized by openness and trust where
risks, rewards and costs are shared between the parties” (Sandberg, 2007, p. 275).
Firms work with supply chain partners to manage internal and external organizational
processes (Stank et al., 2001), to optimize the use of resources in a trusting and mutual
environment, and to share information, risks, and rewards with the aim of achieving
performance improvements (Flynn et al., 2010; Ellram and Cooper, 1990; Whipple et al., 2002;
Hwang and Seruga, 2011). Additionally, in supply chain collaboration, two or more
independent firms work jointly to plan and perform their supply chain operations because it
is better than acting individually (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002).
In logistics collaboration, logistics activities involve joint planning and information
sharing, with less focus on strategic planning (Sandberg, 2007). These logistics
activities include customer service, demand forecasting and planning, transportation,
order processing, warehousing, inventory management, material handling and
packaging, reverse logistics, and logistics communication (Hotrawaisaya et al., 2014).
However, we conduct a broad overview of logistics collaboration that covers many aspects
of supply chain collaboration (Sandberg, 2007). We analyze logistics collaboration based
on the strategic, tactical, and interpersonal elements established by Vieira et al. (2009).
Strategic collaboration refers to a relationship based on both companies’ top management
becoming involved in projects (Crum and Palmatier, 2004; Min et al., 2005) and knowledge
of the partner’s difficulties and strategies (Vieira et al., 2009). Tactical collaboration
comprises shared logistics and commercial information, joint business plans,
communication, technology support for information exchange, involvement of teams or
individuals in specific projects, and joint actions for “resolution of logistics contingencies,”
including joint problem solving for routing and shipping operations, pallet size, and
packaging tasks (Min et al., 2005; Vieira et al., 2009; Leuschner et al., 2013; Crum and
Palmatier, 2004). Interpersonal collaboration is based on open communication and
shared values, which increase trust and, in turn, directly influence commitment
(Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Whan et al., 2005; Nyaga et al., 2010; Min et al., 2005). Research
shows that trust and commitment lead to performance improvements (Vieira et al., 2015);
however, it has also found that commitment may be less relevant for the supplier’s
performance, which highlights the differences between supplier and customer perceptions
(Nyaga et al., 2010).
Meetings
Meetings include frequent meetings on a regular basis (Fawcett et al., 2012), training
sessions (Vieira et al., 2016), and technical visits (Vieira et al., 2009), which heighten
IJLM communication between partners and help them to identify opportunities and areas for
29,1 improvement (Min et al., 2005). Cross-functional meetings are an effective way to build
intra/interorganizational team structures (Fawcett et al., 2012), which are important for
building a strong relationship with suppliers and for jointly improving logistics
performance. For instance, Simatupang and Sridharan (2005b) highlighted the importance
of frequent meetings and visits for assessments of current performance using metrics
288 agreed upon by both companies as part of a collaborative performance system based on
joint reviews and the continuous improvement of daily operations.
Relationship history
Relationship history consists of a series of buyer-supplier interactions over time as an
element of relationship development, and it is an important variable to consider in a
collaborative relationship (Thomas et al., 2015), as it is an outcome of joint relationship effort
and dedicated investments (Whipple et al., 2010; Piboonrungroj and Disney, 2012). A strong
relationship history helps cultivate commitment, which is necessary for a trust, flexibility,
and reciprocity, within the partnership (Min et al., 2005). Although several authors analyze
relationship satisfaction as a partnership outcome (Piboonrungroj and Disney, 2012;
Whipple et al., 2010), we understand relationship history as an antecedent of collaborative
relationships (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Li et al., 2015) due to the influence of continuity
expectations on joint actions (Heide and John, 1990).
Logistics performance
Logistics performance indicators and criteria include costs, time, and reliability
(Hotrawaisaya et al., 2014), which can be used to measure the logistics operations
performance among partners in the supply chain. Several specific criteria are particularly
important, including on-time delivery, lead time, error-free delivery, scheduled delivery
fulfillment, order fill rate, damaged orders, delivery of urgent orders, deliveries in
periods of high demand, short transit time, availability of cargo space, and the condition
of vehicles and containers (Lai et al., 2002; Lu, 2003; Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002;
Vieira et al., 2015).
Table AI (see Columns 2 and 5 in the Appendix) summarizes the criteria for all constructs
analyzed in this study and their respective references. The specific rationales of our research
hypothesis are presented in the next section.
Hypothesis development
Figure 1 presents our research framework. Logistics collaboration is composed of strategic,
tactical, and interpersonal elements that may interact with relationship history, meetings,
supplier selection, and logistics performance in logistics triads. We examine the
relationships among these constructs in relation to our hypotheses.
Supplier selection and logistics collaboration. The current market uncertainty pushes firms
to develop high levels of flexibility and responsiveness in order to create value for
customers. However, this dynamic environment requires firms to have more than strategic
flexibility. Companies can no longer be limited to their own resources; they must cross
borders to seek suppliers with specific capabilities that address their needs and that help
them achieve responsiveness through coordination, flexibility, and interorganizational
collaborative capabilities (Liao et al., 2010). To achieve collaboration, it is critical for
companies to select the optimal supplier by aligning their interorganizational needs
and capabilities (Min et al., 2005; Daugherty et al., 2006). Buyers must apply selection criteria
to verify the suppliers’ capabilities and thereby guarantee successful long-term partnerships
(Lu, 2003). The selection of LSPs involves relational and organizational factors that
Logistics
Supplier
selection
performance
H4
H1
H2 Logistics H5 Logistics 289

Meetings
collaboration performance
H3
H6
Relationship
history
Logistics
collaboration
Interpersonal Strategic Tactical

Figure 1.
collaboration collaboration collaboration
Research framework
enable collaboration, such as information sharing, trust, commitment, involvement of top

management, and cultural aspects (Coltman et al., 2011; Fawcett et al., 2012). Thus, we
propose that suppliers’ effective selection of LSPs leads to logistics collaboration:
H1. Supplier selection positively influences logistics collaboration.
Meetings and logistics collaboration

A high frequency of regular meetings (Fawcett et al., 2012), training sessions, and visits can
heighten communication among logistics partners and provide opportunities to understand
one another’s operational features, averting future problems, and identifying the areas for
improvement (Min et al., 2005; Krause et al., 2007). Moreover, these meetings are essential to
establishing and maintaining a collaborative relationship that involves top management of
both firms and that is focused on strategically defined objectives (Ellram, 1991; Sandberg,
2007). Vieira et al. (2009) emphasized the importance of frequent meetings to encourage
collaborative practices, such as information sharing, joint problem solving of logistics
issues, and alignment of objectives. Therefore, we posit the following:
H2. Meetings positively influence logistics collaboration.
Relationship history and logistics collaboration. Relationship history is essential for
strengthening logistics collaboration because it indicates that partners fulfill each other’s
needs and expectations and that mutually benefits maintain these dynamics. Lu (2003,
p. 411) explained that “the higher the shipper’s level of satisfaction, the more likely the
shipper will continue to maintain a shipper-carrier partnering relationship.” Relationship
history reinforces strategic collaboration in which a buyer and a supplier are strategically
aligned and focus on mutual objectives, which contributes to the long-term relationship
(Prajogo and Olhager, 2012). This relationship history creates expectations regarding
IJLM negotiation in buyer-supplier relationship (Thomas et al., 2015); in this way, relationship
29,1 history can contribute to logistics collaboration. Therefore, we propose the following:
H3. Relationship history positively influences logistics collaboration.
Supplier selection and logistics performance. It is well known that supplier performance acts
directly on buyer performance (Bhutta and Huq, 2002). The supplier’s capabilities influence
290 the cost reduction, profitability, and flexibility of the buyer (Ting and Cho, 2008), as well as
its responsiveness to market changes (Liao et al., 2010). Moreover, partners that link their
capabilities are likely to see their performance improve (Fawcett et al., 2012). For logistics
managers, ensuring that a supplier can offer the required capabilities is vital to achieving a
high level of service. For instance, careful evaluation of the supplier’s on-time delivery
history, transportation safety record, and other indicators of performance reliability can
ensure the selection of a LSP that ranks high in on-time delivery, lead time, error-free
delivery, and scheduled delivery fulfillment. Leuschner et al. (2014) demonstrated the
relevance of effective supplier selection, showing that logistics customer service strongly
affects operational and marketing performance. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
H4. Supplier selection positively influences logistics performance.
Logistics collaboration and logistics performance. Strategic, tactical, and interpersonal
collaboration play a central role in achieving logistics performance. Daugherty et al. (2006,
p. 63) claimed, “formalization of strategic collaboration can lead to an enhanced performance
by eliminating ambiguity and clarifying priorities.” Once companies are strategically
aligned, they often share the same goals and priorities and thereby enhance the mutual
benefits obtained from the relationship. In terms of tactical collaboration, information
sharing and technology can facilitate real-time exchanges of forecasting and operations
scheduling data (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012), such as order cycles, delivery schedules,
routes, and vehicle availability. Moreover, a successful collaboration is possible only when
companies are interdependent, committed, and trustworthy. Nyaga et al. (2010) argued that
trust and commitment lead to performance improvements; companies rely on each other to
exchange confidential information about strategic alignment and share operational data,
joint actions, and joint planning.
Overall, engaging in buyer-supplier collaboration increases service, flexibility, and
information sharing, and it improves visibility, inventory management, and resource use
(Daugherty et al., 2006). Collaboration also reduces costs and has positive effects on logistics
performance with regard to the fill rate, order cycle, and lead time (Whipple et al., 2010;
Fawcett et al., 2012). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
H5. Logistics collaboration positively influences logistics performance.
Relationship history and logistics performance. Several authors argue that long-term
partnerships are likely to experience performance improvements (e.g. Krause et al., 2007;
Leuschner et al., 2013). Additionally, a satisfactory relationship history precedes a long-term
relationship (Thomas et al., 2013). Relationship history practices lead to performance
improvements by fostering joint actions and information sharing, which positively impact
delivery performance (Whipple et al., 2010; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Vieira et al., 2015).
Vieira et al. (2015) identified psychosocial aspects as essential to the buyer-supplier
relationship; such aspects influence communication openness and partners’ capacities to
solve logistics problems and contingencies. Companies can work in collaborative activities
over time to develop effective logistics performance indicators to meet their clients’ needs.
For this reason, we hypothesize the following:
H6. Relationship history positively influences logistics performance.
Methodology Logistics
Our methodology includes a survey distributed to shippers, carriers, and LSPs in the performance
Brazilian retail sector. Shippers encompass the manufacturing industry, while carriers
provide primarily inbound and outbound transportation. We use the Brazilian Association
of Handling and Logistics’ (ABHL) definition of LSP: a specialist in embracing all or some
distribution activities. LSPs offer at least three basic activities, such as warehousing, stock
control and management, and transportation. LSPs not only offer these tangible resources 291
but also are able to identify and use intangible resources (know-how and information) from
their partners (Raue and Wieland, 2015). LSPs have been encouraged as a logistics solution
for partners of shippers, as they can maintain competitive costs through economies of scale
and scope with different carriers. Therefore, in the logistics triad, LSPs are simultaneously
suppliers and clients of logistics services.
We used a questionnaire to evaluate logistics triad relationships according to
partnership descriptions, meetings, relationship history, supplier selection, logistics

collaboration, and logistics performance criteria. We also characterized firms’ size and
operational sector.
To investigate the interactions among the constructs, we proposed a structural equation
model (SEM) to understand the influence of meetings, relationship history, supplier
selection, and collaboration on logistics performance.
Conceptual model
Previous studies have analyzed the effect of collaborative relationships and supply
management on performance, although most have done so separately (see Table AIII).
However, those studies inspired our model, in which we illustrate how Brazilian companies’
logistics performance is affected by supply chain relationships, considering the aspects that
make up each of these concepts. Based on our literature review, we detail H1, H2, H4, H5,
H6 below as our direct hypotheses.
Measuring the effects of supplier selection (H1 and H4). Supplier selection is an important
antecedent of logistics collaboration because it ensures that companies are strategically
aligned and therefore able to establish a collaborative buyer-supplier relationship
(Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002; Min et al., 2005; Daugherty et al., 2006; Liao et al., 2010;
Fawcett et al., 2012). Moreover, supplier selection can influence performance because a
supplier’s operations directly affect a buyer’s performance (Bhutta and Huq, 2002; Ting and
Cho, 2008); when partners are sufficiently aligned such that they share goals and
capabilities, they are more likely to see their performance improve (Fawcett et al., 2012).
Measuring the effects of meetings (H2). Meetings are vital for logistics collaboration; they
promote (intra) interorganizational team structures that allow companies to gain knowledge
about their partners’ operations and to establish stronger relationships (Vieira et al., 2009;
Fawcett et al., 2012; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012).
Measuring the effects of relationship history (H3 and H6). Relationship history is essential
for logistics collaboration (Thomas et al., 2013, 2015) and logistics performance
(Whipple et al., 2010), as it helps cultivate commitment and trust and boosts efforts to
maintain long-term partnerships (Lu, 2003; Min et al., 2005). Its effects on logistics
performance result from openness, communication, information sharing, and joint actions
(Min et al., 2005; Krause et al., 2007; Whipple et al., 2010; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012;
Vieira et al., 2015).
Measuring the effect of logistics collaboration (H5). In our model, collaboration is an
important precursor of logistics performance in regard to the fill rate, order cycle, and
lead time (Daugherty et al., 2006; Nyaga et al., 2010; Fawcett et al., 2012; Prajogo and
Olhager, 2012).
IJLM Sample and procedures
29,1 The data for this study were drawn from the managers of Brazilian manufacturers and
LSPs for the period between February 2012 and March 2013. The respondents were
randomly chosen from a mailing list of large LSPs, resulting in 2,200 surveys mailed and
199 (58 carriers, 68 LSPs, and 73 shippers) usable responses, for a response rate of
9.04 percent. The data were checked for bias using the response correlations of early and
292 late respondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977) based on the type of industry and the
number of employees. The χ2 tests for both categories indicated no significant difference
between the two groups of respondents.
The survey was developed based on the study of Churchill and Iacobucci (2009), which
suggested a seven-stage iteration-and-looping design; thereby it was compiled from various
validated instruments in the literature and evaluated using several pre-tests. Forza (2002)
advised that, during pre-testing, the survey should be sent to three types of individuals in
the study’s target population – research colleagues, experts, and organizations – and noted
that the first category of individuals helps to verify the survey’s alignment with the study’s
objectives, while the second category helps to prevent excluding obvious and important
questions. In this case, the survey was validated by two managers of large LSPs. Finally, the
last category provides feedback concerning the contingencies that may affect data
collection. The final model was developed and distributed to various firms using the
SurveyMonkey electronic platform with the aim of assessing the relationships among LSPs,
shippers, and carriers in the retail channel.
The questionnaire was distributed to specific companies. Each respondent had to choose
one of the company’s partners and then evaluated collaboration, supplier selection,
meetings, relationship history, and logistics performance in the partnership as follows:
• LSP: the chosen partner should be a carrier or shipper;
• carrier: the chosen partner should be an LSP or shipper; and
• shipper: the chosen partner should be an LSP or carrier.
Tables AI and AII show the variables used in the survey. Table AII analyzes the criteria and
their respective means and standard deviations.
The distribution of company size, measured by the number of employees, and annual
revenue from service activities was as follows: 76 percent of the carriers and 76.92 percent of
the LSPs were large (more than 100 employees and more than $1.2 million in annual
revenue), and 69.32 percent of the shippers were large (more than 500 employees and more
than $150 million in annual revenue). Most carriers (95.17 percent) had domestic capital; in
contrast, 49.98 percent of the shippers had foreign capital. Although only 38.46 percent of
the LSPs had foreign capital, they represented 10 of the 26 companies in the sample. These
26 companies represent 50 percent of the revenue of all LSPs in logistics services in the
Brazilian retail channel.
With regard to job positions, 83.2 percent of the respondents are managers and directors
averaging 7.45 years of work experience. The responses are evenly spread across the food and
drinks, spare vehicle parts, technology and telecommunications, electronics, hygiene, and
chemicals and pharmaceuticals sectors. Our data set is the same one used by Vieira et al. (2016)
to evaluate the extent to which Brazilian companies adopt sustainable practices.
The statistical adequacy of the sample was verified using G*Power 3.1.9.2 (Faul et al., 2007).
According to Cohen (1988) and Hair et al. (2014), the calculation should consider a power of the
test (power ¼ 1−βerror prob.II) of 0.80 and an effect size f ² ¼ 0.15 (medium effect).
The software designates a minimum sample size of approximately 77 answers to certify the
study’s validity. According to these criteria, the sample did not exhibit any problems regarding
sample size or firm representation.
Measure development Logistics
We developed our survey questions and criteria based on our literature review and on a case performance
study conducted in a large LSP, where several pre-tests were conducted to check the final
instrument, as mentioned above. We asked the respondents to analyze the buyer-supplier
relationship in terms of relationship history, supplier selection, logistics collaboration,
meetings and logistics performance, and we used a ten-point Likert scale to evaluate the
relevance of each of these criteria, with measures ranging from 0 to 10 (“no importance” to 293
“highest importance”). We tested Likert scales ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7
(“strongly agree”) and from 1 to 5, but the respondents felt more comfortable evaluating the
criteria – and responded more quickly – using a scale from 0 to 10.
Data analysis
The proposed model was fitted using partial least squares-structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM), a second-generation technique applied in exploratory studies to identify data

patterns and relationships (Hair et al., 2014). In contrast to covariance-based SEM, PLS-SEM
does not make any assumptions about data distributions; it is preferable when 40-50
(or more) variables are included (Lowry and Gaskin, 2014). In addition, PLS-SEM can be
applied to small sample sizes, requiring only ten times “the largest number of structural
paths directed at a particular construct in the structural model” (Chin, 1998, p. 316).
We estimated the measurement model and structural model using the SmartPLS 2.0
software package (Ringle et al., 2005).
Validity and reliability

We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the measures of all variables used in
our study simultaneously. We analyzed the measurement model based on internal
consistency reliability, convergent validity (AVE), and discriminant validity, as
recommended by Hair et al. (2014). To assess internal consistency reliability, we verified
the Cronbach’s α and composite reliability measures (Table I), accepting values between
0.60 and 0.95. Hair et al. (2014) stated that composite reliability is a more appropriate
measure of reliability because Cronbach’s α is sensitive to the numbers of items in the scale
and is likely to underestimate internal consistency.
We analyzed convergent validity based on AVE of 0.5 or higher and factorial loading
(outer loading) values above 0.70 (Table I). However, we accepted outer loadings between 0.40
and 0.70 when eliminating the respective indicator did not increase the composite reliability
above the recommended threshold value (Hair et al., 2014). We assessed discriminant validity
by verifying that the cross-loadings of indicators did not exceed their outer loadings.
Although COL1 (information sharing of vehicle need and availability) had a low factor
loading (0.450), we kept this item in our analyses due to its strong contribution to the content
validity of logistics collaboration. According to Vieira et al. (2009, p. 13), for appreciable
negotiation results, buyers need information on suppliers’ logistics, such as “vehicle
capacity,” “order frequency,” “lead times,” and “vehicle availability and supplier capability
in meeting urgent requests or during peak season.”
Moreover, we compared the square root of a construct’s AVE with the correlation among
latent variables (Table II) to ensure that a construct shared more variance with its indicators
than with other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Structural model
The results of our structural model are displayed in Figure 2. Meetings, supplier selection,
and relationship history are exogenous variables, while logistics collaboration and logistics
performance are endogenous.
IJLM Factorial Cronbach’s
29,1 Code Scale items loadings AVE CR α
Supplier selection
GR_ASP10 Commitment (service level) 0.710 0.523 0.934 0.923
GR_ASP11 Reputation (theft, accidents, financial health) 0.698
GR_ASP12 Flexibility of meeting prompt requests 0.737
294 GR_ASP13 Sustainability 0.741
GR_ASP14 Alignment of organizational cultures 0.681
GR_ASP15 Strategic relationship 0.758
GR_ASP3 Flexibility for adapting to market changes 0.618
GR_ASP4 Supply chain knowledge 0.767
GR_ASP5 Experience of distribution networks optimization 0.802
GR_ASP6 Capacity for improving processes efficiency 0.749
GR_ASP7 Technology 0.639
GR_ASP8 Stability of financial health 0.727

GR_ASP9 Infrastructure and delivery coverage 0.749
Logistics collaboration – tactical collaboration
COL1 Information sharing of vehicle need/availability 0.450 0.506 0.938 0.928
COL10 Communication openness to solve contingencies 0.732
COL11 Information sharing in demand forecast exchanging 0.735
COL12 Information sharing of destination data 0.732
COL13 Information sharing of specific events 0.751
COL14 Joint planning of specific events 0.773
COL15 Implementation of improvement processes 0.836
COL16 Risk sharing (theft, breakdown, accident) 0.651
COL2 Sharing of goals and joint business planning 0.708
COL23 Joint involvement in conferences and lectures 0.711
COL4 Joint involvement of both teams in logistics processes 0.764
COL5 Joint creation of logistics projects 0.737
COL7 Involvement of employees in both companies in 0.789
projects
COL8 Use of information system to automatically 0.571
exchange data
COL9 Joint planning of vehicle requests 0.636
Logistics collaboration – Interpersonal collaboration
COL17 Relationship interdependence 0.686 0.698 0.932 0.912
COL18 Trust in the interpersonal relationship 0.903
COL19 Trust in the interorganizational relationship 0.868
COL20 Commitment of both partners 0.888
COL21 Changing flexibility of logistics parameters 0.818
COL22 Mutuality 0.832
Logistics collaboration – Strategic collaboration
COL3 Top management involvement of both firms in 0.840 0.722 0.839 0.616
logistics projects
COL6 Knowledge about partner’s difficulties and strategies 0.859
Logistics performance
DLOG1 Scheduled collection fulfillment 0.677 0.527 0.929 0.916
DLOG10 Deliveries in period of high demand 0.773
DLOG11 Route planning/optimization 0.731
DLOG12 Condition/Cleaning of vehicles 0.652
DLOG13 Lead time 0.787
DLOG2 On-time delivery 0.853
Table I.
Validity and reliability (continued )
Factorial Cronbach’s
Logistics
Code Scale items loadings AVE CR α performance
DLOG3 Scheduled delivery fulfillment 0.841
DLOG4 Error-free delivery 0.762
DLOG5 Delivery of urgent orders 0.735
DLOG6 Breakdown/loss rate 0.526
DLOG8 Returned orders rate 0.529 295
DLOG9 Vehicle availability 0.761
Meetings
FREQ_TRE Frequency of training 0.620 0.652 0.782 0.542
FREQ_VIS Frequency of technical visits 0.959
HIST_REL Relationship history 1 1 1 1 Table I.
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5
No. 1. Logistics collaboration 0.690a 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

No. 2. Meetings 0.224b 0.796 0.000 0.000 0.000
No. 3. Logistics performance 0.597 –0.003 0.726 0.000 0.000
No. 4. Relationship history 0.573 0.147 0.654 Single-item 0.000
No. 5. Supplier Selection 0.602 0.175 0.581 0.504 0.723
Notes: aNumbers shown in italics on the diagonal denote the square root of the AVE; bthe other numbers Table II.
represent correlations between the latent variables Discriminant validity
Supplier
selection
H4 (+): 0.26***
H1 (+): 0.41***
H2 (+): 0.11* Logistics H5 (+): 0.20** Logistics

Meetings
collaboration performance
H3 (+): 0.34**
H6 (+): 0.42***
Relationship
history
Logistics
collaboration
0.85*** 0.96***
0.79***
Interpersonal Strategic Tactical

collaboration collaboration collaboration
Figure 2.
Path model results
Notes: *,**,***Significant at 10, 5 and 1 percent levels, respectively (two-tailed)
IJLM Given that a variance inflation factor test resulted in a value lower than the cut-off of 5.0,
29,1 we confirmed that there were no multicollinearity issues in the model (Hair et al., 2014).
The t-values were computed using 1,000 bootstrapping runs; the resulting path coefficients
were significant (Figure 2).
We analyzed the amount of variance explained in our model by using the R² value of
endogenous constructs. The logistics collaboration and logistics performance results
296 (R² ¼ 0.458 and R² ¼ 0.535, respectively) were substantial and suitable for this
model, according to Chin’s (1998) R² value assessment. The computed Q² values above
0 for the endogenous constructs indicated that the model had predictive relevance
(Henseler et al., 2009).
Discussion and managerial implications

We calculated the effect size ( f 2) and the explained variance of each construct in the model
(Table III), and the hypothesized effects are supported by the structural model results.
Our results show that supplier selection has the strongest effect on logistics collaboration
(H1). The supplier selection process requires intensive efforts from vendors; consequently,
they are likely to support high levels of joint actions, and the expectation of continuity leads to
increased adaptation to changes (Heide and John, 1990). When supplier selection enables
collaboration, the alignment of organizational needs with capabilities fosters a relationship
with responsiveness through coordination and interorganizational collaborative capabilities
(Liao et al., 2010; Min et al., 2005; Daugherty et al., 2006; Coltman et al., 2011). These capabilities
can create a strong collaborative supply chain with high levels of responsiveness, which is a
differential strategy that is difficult for competitors to imitate.
Relationship history has the strongest effect on logistics performance (H6).
A satisfactory relationship history signifies that both companies are committed to
attending to the other’s needs, and the accumulated outcomes enhance linkages among
companies, fostering relationship continuity (Piboonrungroj and Disney, 2012). For example,
Brazilian LSPs and carriers conduct a large range of activities and formal agreements with
their partner shippers annually. They build a relationship history by providing guaranteed
annual spaces in their warehouses, dedicated freight service routes and vehicles, cost
reduction incentives, and above-average transportation services (Lu, 2003). Long-term
partnerships are found to contribute to performance (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012),
demonstrating that a satisfactory relationship history can encourage information sharing
and conflict resolution initiatives, which support the continuity of the partnership (Whipple
et al., 2010; Mohr and Spekman, 1994). Relationship history also explains 42 percent of
logistics collaboration variance, confirming that committed partners are more likely to
encourage collaborative behavior, such as cross-functional tasks, communication openness,
information sharing, and trust (Nyaga et al., 2010).
Effects VAR %Total VAR Effect size ( f 2)a
Meetings → Logistics collaboration (H2) 0.02 0.05 0.02

Relationship history → Logistics Collaboration (H3) 0.19 0.42 0.24
Supplier selection → Logistics collaboration (H1) 0.25 0.53 0.33
46.43% 100.00%
Relationship history → Logistics performance (H6) 0.27 0.51 0.37
Supplier selection → Logistics performance (H4) 0.15 0.28 0.17
Table III. Collaboration → Logistics performance (H5) 0.12 0.22 0.13
Explained variance of 53.78% 100.00%
each latent variable Note: aEffect size contribution of each construct separately, values according to Cohen (1988)
In addition, we can infer from Table I that the implementation of an improvement process Logistics
variable is the largest contributor to tactical collaboration and that trust is the most performance
important indicator of interpersonal collaboration, which is congruent with the results found
by Vieira et al. (2009). Thus, organizational culture and corporate training are relevant for
maintaining a satisfactory level of collaboration in a trusting environment.
To test the mediation effect in our model, we followed the continuous mediation procedures
proposed by Hair et al. (2014) and Baron and Kenny (1986). The results show that 297
collaboration partially mediates the supplier selection effect on logistics performance,
representing 24 percent of the explained variance. A long-term supplier selection focus can
help foster logistics collaboration and deliver benefits of joint action and of information and
technology sharing, ultimately having positive impacts on performance. Moreover,
information sharing and joint effort may lead to commitment and trust (Nyaga et al., 2010),
reflecting the direct impact of relationship history on logistics performance and collaboration.
This study contributes to our understanding of “how” and “with whom” to collaborate
by highlighting the relationships among supplier selection, relationship history, meetings,
and logistics collaboration and logistics performance. However, managerial implications
may vary according to a firm’s industry and competitive strategy. Our overall results
confirm that investing in supplier selection and relationship history can positively affect
logistics performance (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Prajogo et al., 2012; Simatupang and
Sridharan, 2005a; Leuschner et al., 2014), which offers insights for managers in building new
differential capabilities in the supply chain. The measurement model may assist with
building a new organizational process, as it sheds light on the main elements necessary for
gathering logistics performance outcomes.
Although we expected logistics collaboration to significantly influence logistics
performance (Corsten and Felde, 2005), relationship history is the main overall contributor
to logistics performance. Relational elements are important for effective partnerships
(Coltman et al., 2011) and strategic advantage (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Nyaga et al., 2010;
Ellram, 1991), mandating their inclusion in the supplier selection process to foster
collaborative practices and thereby improve performance by eliminating redundancies and
necessary rework in logistics partners’ routines (Stank et al., 2001). Logistics performance
can be exploited through various paths, such as investment in supplier selection, logistics
collaboration (including meetings), and relationship history, and this study sheds light on
the main antecedents of these practices in the buyer-carrier-LSP triad.
Final considerations and limitations

Our work provides a theoretical understanding of the effects of meetings, relationship history,
supplier selection, and logistics collaboration on logistics performance by taking into account
the opinions of shippers, carriers, and LSPs in the Brazilian retail sector. Rather than adopting
a narrow focus on logistics collaboration and performance, our model provides a broad
analysis of how these two elements interact with other organizational practices. Our results
should be of interest to firms considering the development of collaborative partnerships
because they identify ways to increase logistics performance through routine behaviors.
For instance, we suggest that supplier selection – followed by the relationship history – have
the greatest influence on logistics collaboration. Rather than meetings and operational
features, interpersonal skills, organizational culture, and communication appear to be the most
important contributors to logistics performance achievements, while relationship history leads
to better performance. We find that relationship history is the primary construct, as it has the
greatest effect on logistics collaboration and performance.
Further research could assess the effect of organizational culture on logistics
collaboration and performance by measuring the influence of social behaviors on
relationship history and, accordingly, the impact of relationship history on collaboration
IJLM and performance. Because carriers, shippers, and LSPs have different strategies and
29,1 operations, the sample could be expanded in order to build one SEM for each company type.
A comparison of the points of view for each company type could indicate how companies
implement and improve their collaborative partnerships and help managers make better
decisions about outsourcing logistics operations.
298
References
Aguezzoul, A. (2014), “Third-party logistics selection problem: a literature review on criteria and
methods”, Omega, Vol. 49, pp. 69-78.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1984), “A model of the distributor’s perspective of distributor-
manufacturer working relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 62-74.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Barratt, M. (2004), “Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Barratt, M. and Oliveira, A. (2001), “Exploring the experiences of collaborative planning initiatives”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 266-289.
Behrends, S., Lindholm, M. and Woxenius, J. (2008), “The impact of urban freight transport: a definition
of sustainability from an actor’s perspective”, Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 31
No. 6, pp. 693-713.
Bhutta, K.S. and Huq, F. (2002), “Supplier selection problem: a comparison of the total cost of ownership
and analytic hierarchy process approaches”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 126-135.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Business Research Methods, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Churchill, G.A. and Iacobucci, D. (2009), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations,
Cengage Learning.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, The Concept of Power Analysis,
2nd ed., Psychology Press, New York, NY.
Coltman, T.R., Devinney, T.M. and Keating, B.W. (2011), “Best-worst scaling approach to predict
customer choice for 3PL services”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Corsten, D. and Felde, J. (2005), “Exploring the performance effects of key-supplier collaboration”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 445-461.
Crum, C. and Palmatier, G.E. (2004), “Demand collaboration: what’s holding us back?”, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 54-61.
Daugherty, P.J., Richey, R.G., Roath, A., Min, S., Chen, H., Arndt, A.D. and Genchev, S.E. (2006),
“Is collaboration paying off for firms?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 61-70.
El-Ansary, A.I. (1992), “A strategic perspective of communication and information systems in
marketing channels”, Journal of Marketing Channels, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 3-16.
Ellram, L.M. (1991), “Life-cycle patterns in industrial buyer-seller partnerships”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 12-21.
Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1990), “Supply chain management, partnership, and the shipper – third
party relationship”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G. and Buchner, A. (2007), “G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power Logistics
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences”, Behavior Research performance
Methods, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 175-191.
Fawcett, S.E.M., Fawcett, A.M., Watson, B.J. and Magnan, G.M. (2012), “Peeking inside the black box:
toward an understanding of supply chain collaboration dynamics”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 44-72.
Feng, B., Fan, Z. and Ma, J. (2010), “A method for partner selection of codevelopment alliances using 299
individual and collaborative utilities”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 124
No. 1, pp. 159-170.
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B. and Zhao, X. (2010), “The impact of supply chain integration on performance:
a contingency and configuration approach”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 58-71.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Forza, C. (2002), “Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 152-194.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hartmann, E. and Grahl, A. (2011), “The flexibility of logistics service providers and its impact on
customer loyalty: an empirical study”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47 No. 3,
pp. 63-85.
Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1990), “Alliances in industrial purchasing: the determinants of joint action in
buyer-supplier relationship”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 24-36.
Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1992), “Do norms matter in marketing relationships?”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 32-44.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, New Challenges to International Marketing, Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, pp. 277-319.
Hong, G.H., Park, S.C., Jang, D.S. and Hyung, M.R. (2005), “An effective supplier selection method for
constructing a competitive supply-chain relationship”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 629-639.
Hotrawaisaya, C., Chandraprakaikul, W. and Suthikarnarunai, N. (2014), “Performance improvement
by logistics collaboration management model for orchid flower industry in Thailand”,
Engineering Management Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 52-68.
Huang, S.H. and Keskar, H. (2007), “Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 510-523.
Hwang, H.J. and Seruga, J. (2011), “An intelligent supply chain management system to enhance
collaboration in textile industry”, International Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and
Technology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 47-62.
Huo, B. (2012), “The impact of supply chain integration on company performance: an organizational
capability perspective”, Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 596-610.
Hwang, B.N. and Shen, Y.C. (2015), “Decision making for third-party logistics supplier selection in
semiconductor manufacturing industry: a nonadditive fuzzy integral approach”, Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2015, 12pp, doi: org/10.1155/2015/918602.
Kanter, R.M. (1994), “Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 96-108.
Krause, D.R., Handfield, R.B. and Tyler, B.B. (2007), “The relationship between supplier development,
commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement”, Journal of Operations
IJLM Lai, K., Ngai, E.W.T. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2002), “Measures for evaluating supply chain performance in
29,1 transport logistics”, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 439-456.
Leuschner, R., Rogers, D.S. and Charvet, F.F. (2013), “A meta-analysis of supply chain integration and
firm performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 34-57.
Leuschner, R., Carter, C.R., Goldsby, T.J. and Rogers, Z.S. (2014), “Third-party logistics: a meta-analytic
review and investigation of its impact on performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
300 Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 21-43.
Li, G., Fan, H., Lee, P.K.C. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2015), “Joint supply chain risk management: and
agency and collaboration perspective”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 164,
pp. 83-94.
Liao, Y., Hong, P. and Rao, S.S. (2010), “Supply chain management, supply flexibility and performance
outcomes: an empirical investigation of manufacturing firms”, Journal of Supply Chain
Lowry, P.B. and Gaskin, J. (2014), “Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for
building and testing behavioral causal theory: when to choose it and how to use it”, IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 123-146.
Lu, C. (2003), “The impact of carrier service attributes on shipper-carrier partnering relationships:
a shipper’s perspective”, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 399-415.
Min, S., Roath, A.S., Daugherty, P.J., Genchev, S.E., Chen, H., Arndt, A.D. and Richey, G.R. (2005),
“Supply chain collaboration: what is happening?”, International Journal of Logistics
Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes,
communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-152.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Nyaga, G.N., Whipple, J.M. and Lynch, D.F. (2010), “Examining supply chain relationships: do buyer
and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ?”, Journal of Operations
Pereira, D., Vieira, J.G.V., Silva, J.E.A. and Possidônio, E.F. (2015), “Assessing carriers’ logistical
performance indicator by shippers in the São Paulo metropolitan area”, Journal of Transport
Literature, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 30-34.
Pfohl, H.C. and Buse, H.P. (2000), “Inter-organizational logistics systems in flexible production
networks”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 388-408.
Piboonrungroj, P. and Disney, S.M. (2012), “Supply chain collaboration, inter-firm trust and logistics
performance: evidence from the tourism sector”, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University,
SSRN 2050703.
Portugal, L., da, S., Morgado, A.V. and Lima_Junior, O. (2011), “Location of cargo terminals in
metropolitan areas of developing countries: the Brazilian case”, Journal of Transport Geography,
Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 900-910.
Prajogo, D. and Olhager, J. (2012), “Supply chain integration and performance: the effects of long-term
relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 514-522.
Prajogo, D., Chowdhury, M., Yeung, A.C.L. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2012), “The relationship between
supplier management and firm’s operational performance: a multi-dimensional perspective”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 136 No. 1, pp. 123-130.
Raue, J.S. and Wieland, A. (2015), “The interplay of different types of governance in horizontal
cooperations: a view on logistics service providers”, International Journal of Logistics
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0, University of Hambrug, Hamburg, available Logistics
at: www.smartpls.de (accessed June 2, 2015). performance
Sandberg, E. (2007), “Logistics collaboration in supply chains: practice vs. theory”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 274-293.
Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas, S. (2013), “Critérios de classificação de
empresas: EI – ME – EPP”, available at: www.sebrae-sc.com.br/leis/default.asp?vcdtexto=4154i
(accessed August 12, 2015) (in Portuguese). 301
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2002), “The collaborative supply chain”, The International Journal
of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 15-30.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2005a), “The Collaboration Index: a measure for supply chain
collaboration”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35
No. 1, pp. 44-62.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2005b), “An integrative framework for supply chain
collaboration”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 257-274.
Sislian, E. and Satir, A. (2000), “Strategic sourcing: a framework and a case study”, Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 4-11.
Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B. and Daugherty, P.J. (2001), “Supply chain collaboration and logistical service
performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Thomas, S.P., Manrodt, K.B. and Eastman, J.K. (2015), “The impact of relationship history on
negotiation strategy expectations: a theoretical framework”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 794-813.
Thomas, S., Thomas, R., Manrodt, K. and Rutner, S. (2013), “An experimental test of negotiation
strategy effects on knowledge sharing intentions in buyer-supplier relationships”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 96-113.
Ting, S.C. and Cho, D.I. (2008), “An integrated approach for supplier selection and purchasing
decisions”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 116-127.
Ting, S.-C.S. and Cho, T.D. (2008), “An integrated approach for supplier selection and purchasing
decisions”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 116-127.
Vereecke, A. and Muylle, S. (2006), “Performance improvement through supply chain collaboration
in Europe”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 11,
pp. 1176-1198, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570610705818
Vieira, J.G.V., Mendes, J.V. and Suyama, S.S. (2016), “Shippers and freight operators perceptions of
sustainable initiatives”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 54, pp. 173-181.
Vieira, J.G.V., Yoshizaki, H.T. and Ho, L.L. (2015), “The effects of collaboration on logistics performance
and transaction costs”, International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Vieira, J.G.V., Yoshizaki, H.T.Y. and Ho, L.L. (2009), “Collaboration intensity in the Brazilian
supermarket retail chain”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 11-21.
Vlachos, I.P. and Bourlakis, M. (2006), “Supply chain collaboration between retailers and
manufacturers: do they trust each other?”, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 70-80.
Whan, I., Kwon, G. and Suh, T. (2005), “Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chain
management: a path analysis”, Supply Chain Management: and International Journal, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 26-33.
Whipple, J.M., Frankel, R. and Daugherty, P.J. (2002), “Information support for alliances: performance
implications”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 67-82.
IJLM Whipple, J.M., Lynch, D.F. and Nyaga, G.N. (2010), “A buyer’s perspective on collaborative versus
29,1 transactional relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 507-518.
Xing, Y., Grant, D.B., McKinnon, A.C. and Fernie, J. (2011), “The interface between retailers and
logistics service providers in the online market”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 No. 3,
pp. 334-357.
Xiu, G. and Chen, X. (2012), “The third party logistics supplier selection and evaluation”, Journal of
302 Software, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 1783-1790.
Zaheer, A. and Venkatraman, N. (1995), “Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: an
empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 373-392.
Appendix Logistics
performance
Descriptive statistics
Code Items scale Mean SD References
Supplier Selection – Question: The follow items are related to supplier selection. Please, leave your opinion in 303
terms of the level of importance of each item:
Scale from 0 to 10 (“no importance”–“highest importance”)
GR_ASP1 Freight price 8.121 1.762 Ting and Cho (2008), Hwang and Shen (2015),
Lu (2003)
GR_ASP2 Appropriate vehicles as 8.006 2.041 Aguezzoul (2014)
ensured in contract
GR_ASP3 Flexibility for adapting to 7.943 1.881 Ting and Cho (2008), Aguezzoul (2014)
market changes
GR_ASP4 Supply chain knowledge 7.885 2.220 Feng et al. (2010), Lu (2003)
GR_ASP5 Experience of distribution 7.857 2.223 Lai et al. (2002)
networks optimization
GR_ASP6 Capacity for improving 8.026 2.006 Lai et al. (2002)
processes efficiency
GR_ASP7 Technology 7.984 2.100 Hwang and Shen (2015), Feng et al. (2010), Xiu
and Chen (2012)
GR_ASP8 Stability of financial health 8.068 2.008 Hwang and Shen (2015), Feng et al. (2010)
GR_ASP9 Infrastructure and delivery 8.374 1.758 Coltman et al. (2011)
coverage
GR_ASP10 Commitment (service level) 8.736 1.556 Aguezzoul (2014), Xiu and Chen (2012)
GR_ASP11 Reputation (theft, accidents, 8.332 1.970 Aguezzoul (2014), Coltman et al. (2011),
financial health) Hwang and Shen (2015), Lu (2003)
GR_ASP12 Flexibility of meeting prompt 8.358 1.682 Coltman et al. (2011), Lai et al. (2002)
requests
GR_ASP13 Sustainability 6.538 2.969 Xiu and Chen (2012)
GR_ASP14 Alignment of organizational 6.947 2.655 Coltman et al. (2011), Feng et al. (2010), Xiu
cultures and Chen (2012)
GR_ASP15 Strategic relationship 7.948 2.171 Coltman et al. (2011), Feng et al. (2010)
Logistics Collaboration – Question: The follow items are related to logistics collaboration. Please, leave your
opinion in terms of the level of importance of each item:
Scale: from 0 to 10 (“no importance”–“highest importance”)
Tactical collaboration
COL1 Information sharing of 7.938 1.702 Vieira et al. (2009)
vehicle need/availability
COL2 Sharing of goals and joint 7.052 2.174 Kanter (1994)
business planning
COL4 Joint involvement of both 7.340 1.939 Simatupang and Sridharan (2005b)
teams in logistics processes
COL5 Joint creation of logistics 6.510 2.236 Min et al. (2005)
projects
COL6 Knowledge about partner’s 6.776 1.936 Pfohl and Buse (2000)
difficulties and strategies
COL7 Involvement of employees in 7.103 2.072 Vieira et al. (2009)
both companies in projects
COL8 Use of information system to 7.219 2.547 Whipple et al. (2002), Barratt (2004)
automatically exchange data
COL9 Joint planning of vehicle 7.165 2.383 Vieira et al. (2009)
requests
Table AI.
(continued ) Measurement items
IJLM Descriptive statistics
29,1 Code Items scale Mean SD References
COL10 Communication openness to 7.611 1.799 Barratt (2004), Anderson and Narus (1984)
solve contingencies
COL11 Information sharing in 7.171 2.252 Whipple et al. (2002), Daugherty et al. (2006),
demand forecast exchanging Barratt and Oliveira (2001)
304 COL12 Information sharing of 7.466 2.154 Simatupang and Sridharan (2005a)
destination data
COL13 Information sharing of 7.340 2.296 Simatupang and Sridharan (2005a)
specific events
COL14 Joint planning of specific 6.933 2.346 Simatupang and Sridharan (2005a)
events
COL15 Implementation of 7.015 2.054 Simatupang and Sridharan (2002), Stank et al.
improvement processes (2001), Flynn et al. (2010)
COL16 Risk sharing (theft, 7.136 2.493 Vieira et al. (2009)

breakdown, accident)
COL23 Joint involvement in 5.106 2.917 Vieira et al. (2009)
conferences and lectures
Interpersonal collaboration
COL17 Relationship 7.444 2.288 Mohr and Spekman (1994), Heide and John
interdependence (1992), Simatupang and Sridharan (2002)
COL18 Trust in the interpersonal 8.092 1.649 Barratt (2004), Morgan and Hunt (1994),
relationship Whan et al. (2005)
COL19 Trust in the 8.108 1.603 Ellram and Cooper (1990), Barratt (2004),
interorganizational Morgan and Hunt (1994), Min et al. (2005),
relationship Li et al. (2015), Leuschner et al. (2013)
COL20 Commitment of both 8.124 1.656 Morgan and Hunt (1994), Mohr and Spekman
partners (1994), Min et al. (2005), Whan et al. (2005),
Hartmann and Grahl (2011)
COL21 Changing flexibility of 7.332 1.811 Vieira et al. (2009)
logistics parameters
COL22 Mutuality 7.526 1.716 Ellram and Cooper (1990), Barratt (2004),
Zaheer and Venkatraman (1995), Min et al.
(2005)
Strategic collaboration
COL3 Top management 7.569 2.082 Kanter (1994)
involvement of both
companies in logistics projects
COL6 Knowledge about partner’s 6.776 1.936 Pfohl and Buse (2000)
difficulties and strategies
Logistics Performance – Question: The follow items are related to logistics performance. Please, leave your
opinion in terms of the level of importance of each item:
Scale from 0 to 10 (“no importance”–“highest importance”)
DLOG1 Scheduled collection fulfilment 7.916 1.478 Lai et al. (2002), Lu (2003)
DLOG2 On-time delivery 8.036 1.408 Lai et al. (2002), Vlachos and Bourlakis (2006)
DLOG3 Scheduled delivery fulfilment 8.115 1.462 Lai et al. (2002), Xing et al. (2011)
DLOG4 Error-free delivery 7.718 1.651 Lu (2003), Vlachos and Bourlakis (2006)
DLOG5 Delivery of urgent orders 8.387 1.576 Vieira et al. (2015)
DLOG6 Breakdown/loss rate 7.099 2.626 Lu (2003)
DLOG7 Thefts 7.926 2.489 Portugal et al. (2011)
DLOG8 Returned orders rate 7.737 2.234 Xing et al. (2011)
DLOG9 Vehicle availability 8.291 1.410 Lu (2003)
DLOG10 Deliveries in period of high 8.068 1.573 Vieira et al. (2009), Xing et al. (2011)
demand
Table AI. (continued )

Descriptive statistics
Logistics
Code Items scale Mean SD References performance
DLOG11 Route planning/optimization 7.799 2.026 Behrends et al. (2008)
DLOG12 Condition/cleaning of vehicles 8.121 1.697 Pereira et al. (2015)
DLOG13 Lead time 8.124 1.562 Prajogo and Olhager (2012), Lu (2003)
Relationship history: How strong has been the relationship in the last 2 years? 305
Scale: from 0 to 10 (“very weak” – “very strong”)
HIST_REL Relationship history 7.568 1.444 Anderson and Narus (1984)
Meetings – What is the frequency of the Mode Median
following items?
Scale: 1-Monthly; 2-Quarterly; 3- Half-yearly/
Yearly; 4-Never occurred
FREQ_REU Frequency of logistics 4 4 Min et al. (2005)

meetings
FREQ_TRE Frequency of trainings 2 2 Min et al. (2005)
FREQ_VIS Frequency of technical visits 3 2 Vieira et al. (2009) Table AI.
Questions
1. Indicate your current job position
2. Indicate the work of experience in your area (by years)
3. Indicate the main sectors that your company act
Food and drink
Vehicle spare parts
Electronics
Technology and telecommunication
Hygiene
Chemical and pharmaceuticals
Others
4. Indicate which the ownership pattern
Domestic company
Foreign company
5. Indicate how many employees the company havea
Industry Service
o 20 o10
20-99 10-49
100-499 50-99
W 500 W100
6. Indicate the annual revenue of the company(U$)b
Industrial sector Service sector
o 1.2 M o 120,000
1.2 M-8 M 120,000-1,2 M
8 M-45 M W 1,2 M
45 M-150 M –
W 150 M –
Notes: aBased on the Brazilian Small Business Bureau (Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas
Empresas, 2013) classification, which establishes firm size, focusing on the industrial and service sectors.
For instance, the number of employees in the industrial sector is divided into four groups: micro (1-19 employees),
small (20-99 employees), medium (100-499 employees) and large (500 or more employees); balso based on the Table AII.
Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas (2013) classification following the same rank above Control variables
IJLM Authors Scope Constructs Methodology Major findings
29,1
Prajogo and Investigates the integration Long-term relationship; CFA, SEM Long-term relationships
Olhager of both information and Information technology; and information
(2012) material flows and their Information sharing; integration lead to
influence on operational Logistics integration; effective external
performance performance logistics integration
306 Leuschner Employs transaction cost Relational governance Meta-analytic Shippers and LSPs can
et al. (2014) theory and a resource- structure; logistics SEM enhance their logistics
based view to hypothesize customer service; customer service by
a structural model of the operational establishing more
relationships between performance; financial collaborative relational
relational governance, performance; market governance structures
logistics customer service performance
and firm performance
Liao et al. Addresses the relationship Supply management; SEM Supply management
(2010) of supply management supply flexibility; practices strongly
and supply flexibility on supply network influence supply
supply chain performance flexibility; supply chain flexibility that, in turn,
performance influences supply chain
performance
Nyaga et al. Compares buyers’ and Information sharing; SEM, Buyers’ and suppliers’
(2010) suppliers’ perceptions of Joint relationship effort; invariance perceptions seem to be
collaborative relationships dedicated investments; tests more similar, which
and their relation to commitment; trust; may facilitate
performance outcomes performance; collaboration
satisfaction with results; implementation and its
satisfaction with benefits on performance
relationship and satisfaction
Stank et al. Analyzes the influence of Internal collaboration; Principal Internal collaboration
(2001) internal and external external collaboration; components, strongly contributes to
integration on logistical logistical service CFA, multiple logistical performance
service performance performance regression
analysis
Prajogo Evaluates the effects of Supplier assessment; CFA, SEM Different supplier
et al. (2012) strategic long-term strategic long-term management practices
relationship, supplier relationship; logistics differ in their influence
assessment and logistics integration; quality; on operational
integration on operational delivery; flexibility; cost performance; Logistics
performance measures integration positively
influences delivery,
flexibility and cost
outcomes
Fawcett Investigates how IT can be SC connectivity; CFA, SEM Investments in IT
et al. (2012) explored to obtain supply Information sharing greatly contribute to
chain advantage culture; SC competitive advantage
collaboration; when they enable
operational dynamic supply chain
performance; customer collaboration capability
satisfaction; growth;
profitability
Barratt Studies the elements of Cultural elements; Literature Major barriers include a
(2004) supply chain collaboration collaboration; strategic review poor understanding of
elements collaboration concepts:
Table AIII. when and with whom to
Representative studies collaborate
in collaboration and
performance
relationship (continued )
Authors Scope Constructs Methodology Major findings
Logistics
performance
Vieira et al. Identifies collaboration Strategic collaboration; Factorial Interpersonal
(2009) elements and evaluates joint actions; sharing of analysis, collaboration is the main
their intensity logistic costs and gains; t-tests, contributor to
sharing of logistic and ANOVA collaborative
commercial information; partnerships
interpersonal 307
collaboration
Corsten and Studies the contexts in Supplier collaboration; SEM, multi- Collaboration positively
Felde (2005) which collaboration is dependence; trust; group influences buyers’
beneficial for buyers innovation; purchasing comparison performance
cost reduction; financial
performance Table AIII.
Corresponding author
José Geraldo Vidal Vieira can be contacted at: jose-vidal@ufscar.br
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Aharonovitz 2018

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Aharonovitz 2018

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The International Journal of Logistics Management

How logistics performance is affected by supply chain relationships

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

CSCS, DHL Supply Chain, Campinas, Brazil

results. We conclude with a review of the research limitations.

Theoretical background and hypothesis development

H2 Logistics H5 Logistics 289

Interpersonal Strategic Tactical

enable collaboration, such as information sharing, trust, commitment, involvement of top

Meetings and logistics collaboration

partnership descriptions, meetings, relationship history, supplier selection, logistics

(PLS-SEM), a second-generation technique applied in exploratory studies to identify data

Validity and reliability

GR_ASP8 Stability of financial health 0.727

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5

No. 1. Logistics collaboration 0.690a 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

H2 (+): 0.11* Logistics H5 (+): 0.20** Logistics

Interpersonal Strategic Tactical

Discussion and managerial implications

Effects VAR %Total VAR Effect size ( f 2)a

Meetings → Logistics collaboration (H2) 0.02 0.05 0.02

Final considerations and limitations

COL16 Risk sharing (theft, 7.136 2.493 Vieira et al. (2009)

Table AI. (continued )

FREQ_REU Frequency of logistics 4 4 Min et al. (2005)

Potrebbero piacerti anche