Linking relation-specific investments and sustainability performance: the mediating role of supply chain learning

PurposeDespite the growing interest in the role of relation-specific investments (RSIs) in superior firm performance, their impact on sustainability performance remains unexplored, as do the underlying mechanisms of such effects. Drawing on the relational view and resource orchestration theory (ROT), the authors propose that supply chain learning (SCL) mediates the link between RSIs and sustainability performance.Design/methodology/approachA multi-method approach was adopted, combining a case study and survey. An exploratory case study of four Chinese manufacturing firms was first conducted to develop research hypotheses. A quantitative survey of data collected from 269 firms was then undertaken to test hypotheses.FindingsProperty-based, knowledge-based and personal-based RSIs positively impact firm sustainability performance and SCL. SCL fully mediates the relationship between knowledge-as well as personal-based RSIs and sustainability performance, and partially mediates the relationship between property-based RSIs and sustainability performance.Practical implicationsThe study unveils important practical insights and approaches for firms endeavouring to achieve sustainability performance through RSIs and SCL.Originality/valueThe study extends the RSIs literature by linking RSIs and sustainability performance and differentiating the effects of different types of RSIs on sustainability performance. The theorized underlying mechanism advances the understanding of SCL in the link between RSIs and sustainability performance.

[1]  F. Jia,et al.  Supply chain followership: the case of Tetra Pak’s recyclers in China , 2023, The International Journal of Logistics Management.

[2]  Lujie Chen,et al.  The Impact of Supplier Instability on Corporate Social Responsibility Performance over the Firm Lifecycle: A Social Systems Theory Perspective , 2022, British Journal of Management.

[3]  S. Seuring,et al.  Supply chain collaboration and sustainability performance in circular economy: A systematic literature review , 2021, International Journal of Production Economics.

[4]  Antônio Márcio Tavares Thomé,et al.  An integrative conceptual framework for supply chain sustainability learning: A process-based approach , 2021 .

[5]  L. Hendry,et al.  Supply chain sustainability learning: the COVID-19 impact on emerging economy suppliers , 2021, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.

[6]  David G. Sirmon,et al.  The Evolution of Resource-Based Inquiry: A Review and Meta-Analytic Integration of the Strategic Resources–Actions–Performance Pathway , 2021 .

[7]  Antony Potter,et al.  Exploring supplier–supplier innovations within the Toyota supply network: A supply network perspective , 2020 .

[8]  Bruno S. Silvestre,et al.  Reactive and proactive pathways to sustainable apparel supply chains: Manufacturer's perspective on stakeholder salience and organizational learning toward responsible management , 2020 .

[9]  Verónica H. Villena,et al.  Untangling Drivers for Supplier Environmental and Social Responsibility: An Investigation in Philips Lighting’s Chinese Supply Chain , 2020, Journal of Operations Management.

[10]  Bruno S. Silvestre,et al.  Supply chain sustainability trajectories: learning through sustainability initiatives , 2020, International Journal of Operations & Production Management.

[11]  L. Harris,et al.  The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy , 2020, Journal of Business Research.

[12]  Florian Hofmann.  Circular business models: Business approach as driver or obstructer of sustainability transitions? , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[13]  M. Huang,et al.  How transaction-specific investments influence firm performance in buyer-supplier relationships: The mediating role of supply chain integration , 2019, Asia Pacific Management Review.

[14]  F. Jia,et al.  Towards an integrated conceptual model of supply chain learning: an extended resource-based view , 2019, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.

[15]  Joe Miemczyk,et al.  Achieving triple bottom line sustainability in supply chains , 2019, International Journal of Operations & Production Management.

[16]  Joe Miemczyk,et al.  The regenerative supply chain: a framework for developing circular economy indicators , 2018, Int. J. Prod. Res..

[17]  Harbir Singh,et al.  The relational view revisited: A dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture , 2018 .

[18]  Pankaj C. Patel,et al.  Supply chain organizational learning, exploration, exploitation, and firm performance: A creation-dispersion perspective , 2018, International Journal of Production Economics.

[19]  Gopal Kumar,et al.  Missing link between sustainability collaborative strategy and supply chain performance: Role of dynamic capability , 2018, International Journal of Production Economics.

[20]  Erin Çavuşgil,et al.  Always trust in old friends? Effects of reciprocity in bilateral asset specificity on trust in international B2B partnerships , 2018, Journal of Business Research.

[21]  Robert Dahlstrom,et al.  Exploring the pursuit of sustainability in reverse supply chains for electronics , 2018, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[22]  P. Hopkinson,et al.  Value creation from circular economy-led closed loop supply chains: a case study of fast-moving consumer goods , 2018 .

[23]  F. Jia,et al.  Supply chain learning of sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: A resource orchestration perspective , 2018 .

[24]  O. Tang,et al.  Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: A literature review and future research agenda , 2017 .

[25]  J. Chiou,et al.  The use of asset specific investments to increase customer dependence: A study of OEM suppliers , 2017 .

[26]  V. Iglesias,et al.  Manufacturer–distributor relationships: role of relationship-specific investment and dependence types , 2017 .

[27]  Anis Khedhaouria,et al.  Time pressure and team member creativity within R&D projects: The role of learning orientation and knowledge sourcing , 2017 .

[28]  O. Tang,et al.  Impacts of demand and supply factors on the capacity scheduling performance of logistics service supply chain with mass customisation service modes: an empirical study from China , 2017 .

[29]  Raja Ariffin Raja Ghazilla,et al.  The impact of sustainable manufacturing practices on sustainability performance: Empirical evidence from Malaysia , 2017 .

[30]  Steve Brown,et al.  The role of supply chain leadership in the learning of sustainable practice: toward an integrated framework , 2016 .

[31]  Divesh Ojha,et al.  Supply chain organizational infrastructure for promoting entrepreneurial emphasis and innovativeness: The role of trust and learning , 2016 .

[32]  K. Sivakumar,et al.  Relationships among supply chain strategies, organizational performance, and technological and market turbulences , 2016 .

[33]  Tsan-Ming Choi,et al.  Multi‐Methodological Research in Operations Management , 2016 .

[34]  Bruno S. Silvestre,et al.  Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies: Environmental turbulence, institutional voids and sustainability trajectories , 2015 .

[35]  Paulo J. Gomes,et al.  The role of TQM in strategic product innovation: an empirical assessment , 2014 .

[36]  Xiaoyan Wang,et al.  Investing in guanxi: An analysis of interpersonal relation-specific investment (RSI) in China , 2014 .

[37]  B. Lawson,et al.  Developing social capital in buyer–supplier relationships: The contingent effect of relationship-specific adaptations , 2014 .

[38]  David S. Preston,et al.  Enhancing hospital supply chain performance: A relational view and empirical test , 2013 .

[39]  Vincent S. Lai,et al.  Transaction-Specific Investments, Relational Norms, and ERP Customer Satisfaction: A Mediation Analysis , 2013, Decis. Sci..

[40]  Yaping Gong,et al.  A Multilevel Model of Team Goal Orientation, Information Exchange, and Creativity , 2013 .

[41]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems , 2013, MIS Q..

[42]  William T. Ross,et al.  The interplay of drivers and deterrents of opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships , 2013 .

[43]  Donna F. Davis,et al.  Implementing mixed methods research in supply chain management , 2012 .

[44]  Samuel Aryee,et al.  Impact of high-performance work systems on individual- and branch-level performance: test of a multilevel model of intermediate linkages. , 2012, The Journal of applied psychology.

[45]  Yung-Chul Kwon.  Relationship-specific investments, social capital, and performance: The case of Korean exporter/foreign buyer relations , 2011 .

[46]  Catherine L. Wang,et al.  The Many Faces of Asset Specificity: A Critical Review of Key Theoretical Perspectives , 2011 .

[47]  Andreas Kuckertz,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Strategies, Profit Performance, and the Mediating Role of Strategic Learning: Escaping the Exploitation Trap , 2011 .

[48]  N. Piercy,et al.  The impact of aligned rewards and senior manager attitudes on conflict and collaboration between sales and marketing , 2011 .

[49]  K. Lai,et al.  Environmental Supply Chain Cooperation and Its Effect on the Circular Economy Practice‐Performance Relationship Among Chinese Manufacturers , 2011 .

[50]  Ying Huang,et al.  Guanxi practice and Chinese buyer–supplier relationships: The buyer's perspective , 2011 .

[51]  M. Cao,et al.  Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance , 2011 .

[52]  Yanhui Zhao,et al.  The impact of relation-specific investment on channel relationship performance: evidence from China , 2011 .

[53]  Claudia Rebolledo,et al.  Learning from suppliers in the aerospace industry , 2011 .

[54]  J. Mentzer,et al.  Does relationship learning lead to relationship value? A cross-national supply chain investigation , 2010 .

[55]  R. Duane Ireland,et al.  Resource Orchestration to Create Competitive Advantage , 2010 .

[56]  Christina Fang,et al.  Balancing Exploration and Exploitation through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organization Learning , 2008 .

[57]  Daniel F. Lynch,et al.  Examining supply chain relationships: Do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ? , 2010 .

[58]  Rudolf R. Sinkovics,et al.  Drivers and Performance Outcomes of Relationship Learning for Suppliers in Cross-Border Customer–Supplier Relationships: The Role of Communication Culture , 2010 .

[59]  Alex S. L. Tsang,et al.  Power, conflict, and cooperation: The impact of guanxi in Chinese marketing channels , 2010 .

[60]  Yadong Luo,et al.  Relationship Investment and Channel Performance: An Analysis of Mediating Forces , 2009 .

[61]  G. Hoetker,et al.  Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: matching alliance governance to asset type , 2009 .

[62]  Yadong Luo,et al.  Governing buyer–supplier relationships through transactional and relational mechanisms: Evidence from China , 2009 .

[63]  Willem J. Selen,et al.  Dynamic Capability Building in Service Value Networks for Achieving Service Innovation , 2009, Decis. Sci..

[64]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  Why firms make unilateral investments specific to other firms: the case of OEM suppliers , 2009 .

[65]  David G. Sirmon,et al.  Resource Management in Dyadic Competitive Rivalry: The Effects of Resource Bundling and Deployment , 2008 .

[66]  Kenneth K. Boyer,et al.  Empirical Elephants—Why Multiple Methods are Essential to Quality Research in Operations and Supply Chain Management , 2008 .

[67]  D. Flint,et al.  Exploring processes for customer value insights, supply chain learning and innovation: An international study , 2008 .

[68]  Donald F. Gotcher,et al.  Safeguarding investments and creation of transaction value in asymmetric international subcontracting relationships: The role of relationship learning and relational capital , 2007 .

[69]  David G. Sirmon,et al.  Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box , 2007 .

[70]  C. Droge,et al.  Service quality, trust, specific asset investment, and expertise: Direct and indirect effects in a satisfaction-loyalty framework , 2006 .

[71]  G. Hoetker,et al.  DEATH HURTS, BUT IT ISN'T FATAL: THE POSTEXIT DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE CREATED BY INNOVATIVE COMPANIES. , 2005 .

[72]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[73]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[74]  F. Selnes,et al.  Promoting Relationship Learning , 2003 .

[75]  David G. Sirmon,et al.  Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources, Management, and Wealth Creation in Family Firms , 2003 .

[76]  Bryan S. Schaffer,et al.  A Review of Cross-Cultural Methodologies for Organizational Research: A Best- Practices Approach , 2003 .

[77]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Safeguarding Investments in Asymmetric Interorganizational Relationships: Theory and Evidence , 2003 .

[78]  Glenn Johansson,et al.  Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development , 2002 .

[79]  Sandy D. Jap,et al.  Control Mechanisms and the Relationship Life Cycle: Implications for Safeguarding Specific Investments and Developing Commitment , 2000 .

[80]  Thomas H. Brush,et al.  Asset Specificity, Uncertainty and Relational Norms: An Examination of Coordination Costs in Collaborative Strategic Alliances , 2000 .

[81]  Wujin Chu,et al.  The Determinants of Trust in Supplier-Automaker Relationships in the U.S., Japan and Korea , 2000 .

[82]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

[83]  Ritu Lohtia,et al.  What constitutes a transaction-specific asset?: An examination of the dimensions and types , 1994 .

[84]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[85]  Jan B. Heide,et al.  The Role of Dependence Balancing in Safeguarding Transaction-Specific Assets in Conventional Channels , 1988 .

[86]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[87]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .