Inhibitors and enablers of supply chain integration across multiple supply chain tiers: evidence from Malawi

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-06-2019-0161
• Published date: 11 December 2020
• Date: 11 December 2020
• Pages: 618-649
• Subject Matter: Management science & operations,Logistics
• Author: Kizito Elijah Kanyoma,Frank Wogbe Agbola,Richard Oloruntoba

Inhibitors and enablers of supply

chain integration across multiple

supply chain tiers: evidence

from Malawi

Kizito Elijah Kanyoma

Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Commerce, Malawi Polytechnic,

The University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi

Frank Wogbe Agbola

Newcastle Business School, College of Human and Social Futures,

The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia, and

Richard Oloruntoba

Faculty of Business and Law, School of Management, Curtin Business School,

Curtin University, Bentley, Australia

Abstract

Purpose –This paper investigates the inhibitors and enablers of supply chain integration (SCI) across

multiple tiers in the supply chains of manufacturing-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in

Malawi.

Design/methodology/approach –Following a qualitative approach, data were collected through face-to-

face interviews across three supply chains, each consisting of a focal manufacturer, a major supplier and a

retailer.

Findings –The research identified interpersonal relationships, supplier cost transparency and joint supply

chain management (SCM) investments as key enablersof SCI. Concerning the inhibitors of SCI, the study found

that a lack of external integration inhibited internal integration by acting as a source of disruption to intra-firm

processes and relationships. Further, the research found weaker links between manufacturer–-retailer dyads

than in manufacturer–supplier dyads, which constrained the ability to achieve multi-tier supplier–

manufacture–retailer integration. The study also revealed that resource and infrastructural deficiencies, a

culture of fear and intimidation within and between firms, corruption in sourcing transactions and a lack of

inter-firm trust inhibited SCI.

Research limitations/implications –The paper extends earlier evidence that internal integration is a

prerequisite for external integration demonstrating that a basic level of external integration is necessary to

prevent disruptions to internal integration.

Originality/value –This study is one of the few to go beyond the focal firm perspective and explore the

inhibitors and enablers of SCI across multiple supply chain positions, and provides new evidence on the role of

external integration in achieving internal integration.

Keywords Inhibitors, Enablers, Supply chain integration, Case study, Multi-tier supply chains, Relational

view theory, Institutional theory, Africa

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Scholars and practitioners widely consider supply chain integration (SCI) as a core

philosophy for the implementation of supply chain management (SCM) in practice (Richey

et al., 2010;Vallet-Bellmunt and Rivera-Torres, 2013). SCI improves both financial and

operational performance by allowing firms to integrate resources and capabilities with

trusted supply chain (SC) partners and compete as a chain rather than as individual firms

(Huo et al., 2019a,b;Zhang et al., 2019). Although many firms struggle to implement SCI in

practice, there remains limited research into the inhibitors of SCI which, if addressed, could

IJLM

32,2

618

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0957-4093.htm

Received 5 June 2019

Revised 11 May 2020

23 June 2020

21 September 2020

20 November 2020

Accepted 22 November 2020

The International Journal of

Logistics Management

Vol. 32 No. 2, 2021

pp. 618-649

© Emerald Publishing Limited

0957-4093

DOI 10.1108/IJLM-06-2019-0161

potentially enhance SCI adoption among firms (Jin et al., 2013;Sweeney et al., 2018;Yuen and

Thai, 2017a). Similarly, the subject of enablers of SCI has received limited attention in the

literature (Fawcett et al., 2015;Jin et al., 2013). From the perspective of developing countries

and based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), research into the inhibitors and

enablers of SCI is even rare (Kanyoma et al., 2018). The purpose of this research, therefore, is

to examine the inhibitors and enablers of SCI across multiple tiers within the SCs of

manufacturing-based SMEs in a developing country, Malawi.

SCI has been defined as the “comprehensive collaboration between supply chain network

members in strategic, tactical and operational decision-making”(Alfalla-Luque et al., 2013,

p. 801). It is a multidimensional construct that is often studied from multiple perspectives

such as information, operational, process and relationship integration (Shee et al., 2018).

Complementary to these perspectives, SCI may also be classified as internal, customer and

supplier integration (Shee et al., 2018;Song et al., 2019). Internal integration entails intra-firm

interactions and communications associated with cross-functional activities and processes

(Vallet-Bellmunt and Rivera-Torres, 2013;Yuen and Thai, 2017b). In contrast, customer and

supplier integration, jointly called external integration, entails inter-firm socialisation, and

focuses on the integration of flows, processes, technologies and systems as well as

relationships with upstream and downstream SC partners (Schoenherr and Swink, 2012;Shee

et al., 2018). Internal integration is considered to be the prerequisite for the effectiveness of

external integration in improving firm performance (Horn et al., 2014;Zhang et al., 2019).

Since Frohlich and Westbrook (2001), the SCI literature has focused on the three

dimensions of SCI (internal, customer and supplier integration) and various combinations of

these dimensions (Horn et al., 2014;Huo et al., 2019b;Zhang et al., 2019). A significant number

of studies has investigated the relationship between SCI and financial performance (e.g. Song

et al., 2019;Wiengarten et al., 2019), and SCI and operational performance (e.g. Lyu et al., 2019;

Yuen and Thai, 2017b). Some studies have examined the moderating effects of one dimension

of SCI on the other (e.g. Kim and Schoenherr, 2018;Schoenherr and Swink, 2012), and the

degree and span of SCI (Mackelprang et al., 2014). While earlier evidence shows that higher

degrees of SCI led to increased firm performance (Mackelprang et al., 2014), recent evidence

suggests that higher degrees of SCI do not always lead to higher firm performance

(Wiengarten et al., 2019;Wiengarten and Longoni, 2015). Rather, various degrees and widths

of SCI influence various aspects of firm performance (Wiengarten and Longoni, 2015).

Some scholars have examined types of integration such as process integration (Shee et al.,

2018), technology integration (de Vass et al., 2018) and information integration (Yu et al.,

2018). Others have examined logistics integration (Lyu et al., 2019;Song et al., 2019), and

quality integration (Zhang et al., 2019). However, some studies are cross-cutting and touch on

several combinations of the preceding aspects of SCI concurrently (e.g. de Vass et al., 2018).

Whereas the majority of authors focus on the manufacturing-related industries, some have

examined SCI within the services industry (e.g. Liu et al., 2015). An increasing number of

studies has also investigated the relationship between SCI and SC risk management

(e.g. Chaudhuri et al., 2018), and SCI and SC flexibility (Chaudhuri et al., 2018;Yu et al., 2018).

Whatever the focus, there is consensus in the literature that SCI improves various aspects of

the firm and SC performance (Huo et al., 2019b;Zhang et al., 2019).

Notwithstanding the popularity of SCI among scholars and practitioners, the number of

firms embracing SCI in practice is small as many firms struggle to integrate their SCs

(Fawcett et al., 2015;Yuen and Thai, 2017a). The conceptual work of Kull et al. (2013) shows

that external integration could negatively affect internal integration by threatening the social

positions of some individuals and functions, leading to cross-functional conflict. In contrast,

Gimenez and Ventura (2005) found that external integration influences internal integration

by acting as an incentive, given the reliance of external integration on internal integration.

Supply chain

integration

619

This research contributes new evidence on how the lack of external integration affects

internal integration by acting as a source of disruption to internal integration.

External integration involves focal firms, customers and suppliers. However, it has

primarily been investigated and understood from the focal manufacturer’s perspective

(Wiengarten et al., 2019;Zhang et al., 2019). There has been limited SCI and SCM research that

includes the views of suppliers, focal manufacturers and customers within the context of the

same SC. Such an approach could provide unique insights that advance SCM theory and

practice (Sweeney et al., 2018). Consequently, there have been calls for SCM and SCI research

to advance beyond the focal firm approach towards a dyadic, triadic or network perspective

(Huo et al., 2019b;Sweeney et al., 2015). This paper responds to these calls and investigates the

inhibitors and enablers of SCI from the perspective of multiple SC tiers comprising focal

manufacturers and their key suppliers and customers.

Contemporary SCI research has primarily reflected the context of large multinational

manufacturers in developed countries, particularly from the USA and Western Europe (e.g.

Huo et al., 2019b;Wiengarten et al., 2019). The perspective of developing economies and SMEs

remains underrepresented in the literature. Yet, it is argued that social-cultural, political and

economic environments within which firms interact play an essential role in collaborative

arrangements such as SCI, and these are known to vary significantly across countries (Davis-

Sramek et al., 2019;Turkulainen et al., 2017). For example, SCI research is conducted under the

assumption of adequate national infrastructure and thriving economies in which firms can

meet basic contractual financial obligations to their SC partners. Such silent but widely held

assumptions do not always hold for developing countries like Malawi. Thus, there is a gap

regarding the applicability of some SCI constructs and their implications in developing

country settings (Annala et al., 2019;El Baz et al., 2019). In this regard, this research

contributes to a developing country perspective of the inhibitors and enablers of SCI. It

highlights how managers in developing countries like Malawi have to overcome a unique set

of factors to integrate their SCs. Overall, there is an adequate basis in the literature to warrant

the investigation of the inhibitors and enablers of SCI from the perspective of a developing

country’s institutional context. The paper, therefore, seeks to answer the following research

questions (RQs):

RQ1. What are the inhibitors and enablers of SCI in the SCs of manufacturing-based

SMEs in Malawi?

RQ2. How do differences in SC positions influence SCI in the SCs of manufacturing-based

SMEs in Malawi?

RQ3. How can the inhibitors of SCI within the SCs of manufacturing-based SMEs in

Malawi be mitigated?

The rest of the paper is organised sequentially, as follows: theoretical framework and

literature review, description of the research methodology, presentation of results and

findings, discussion of the implications and limitations of the study and conclusions.

2. Theoretical framework and literature review

2.1 Relational view theory

Several theories have emerged over the last few decades explaining the nature of inter-firm

exchanges and the importance of collaborative relationships in achieving competitive

advantage (Colman and Rouzies, 2019;Dyer and Singh, 1998). One such theory is the

relational view (RV) theory, which is an extension of the resource-based view (RBV). In

contrast to the RBV theory, which argues that a firm’s competitiveness derives from intra-

firm resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991), the RV advances that competitiveness does

IJLM

32,2

620