Supply chain integration and performance relationship: a moderating effects review

• Date: 13 November 2017
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2016-0043
• Published date: 13 November 2017
• Pages: 1243-1271
• Author: Jorge Tarifa-Fernandez,Jerónimo De Burgos-Jiménez
• Subject Matter: Management science & operations,Logistics

Supply chain integration and

performance relationship: a

moderating effects review

Jorge Tarifa-Fernandez and Jerónimo De Burgos-Jiménez

Department of Economics and Business, University of Almería,

Almería, Spain

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to interpret the relationship between supply chain integration (SCI)

and performance and to find empirical evidence of the moderating factors that affects said relationship,

as well as to describe, classify, and discuss the empirical evidence.

Design/methodology/approach –A systematic review of 72 studies published during the period

2001-2015 is offered. A multi-criteria approach is used to sort, structure and classify papers with the purpose

of contributing to the discussion.

Findings –The direct relationship between SCI and performance shows mostly positive results; however,

the moderating effects analyzed show a clear lack of consistency since their effect and significance vary

depending on the measures used, both in SCI and performance.

Research limitations/implications –The use of specific keywords of SCI to select an initial sample of

papers may lead to a narrow perspective, although snowballing was used to include relevant papers

initially excluded.

Originality/value –The analysis and classification of moderating factors as well as the measure of their

tendency help to better understand the questions that remain unsolved regarding SCI and performance.

Propositions for further research are suggested.

Keywords Strategy, Supply chain integration, Performance, Uncertainty, Moderating effects,

Internal integration

Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction

The increasing global competence and the shortening product life-cycle are the two main

factors that encourage organizations to change their focus from competitive rivalry to

mutual beneficial relationship and cooperation (Lambert and Cooper, 2000; Wisner and

Keah, 2000). In this sense, organizations within the supply chains would align their strategy

with other supply chain members in an effort to be more responsive to the environment and,

therefore, remain competitive (Richey et al., 2009). This can be carried out by focusing on a

proactive search of efficient linkages, both among internal functions and external agents

that comprise the supply chain (Qi et al., 2011; Narasimhan and Kim, 2002). Therefore,

those organizations integrating their processes with external suppliers and customers

within a single supply chain seem to be more successful (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001;

Zailani and Rajagopal, 2005).

The approach most used for these integrating processes was proposed by

Flynn et al. (2010), which distinguishes between internal and external integration and

where the external dimension can also be split into supplier and customer integration.

The International Journal of

Logistics Management

Vol. 28 No. 4, 2017

pp. 1243-1271

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0957-4093

DOI 10.1108/IJLM-02-2016-0043

Received 6 February 2016

Revised 22 February 2016

9 July 2016

7 October 2016

21 November 2016

27 December 2016

Accepted 28 December 2016

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive

comments during the review process. The authors also gratefully acknowledge financial support from

the from the project P11-SEJ-7085 awarded by the Council of Economy, Innovation, and Science of the

Junta de Andalucía (Spain) And from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Science and the European

Regional Development Fund-ERDF/FEDER (National R&D Project ECO2015-66504-P).

1243

SCI and

performance

relationship

According to Flynn et al. (2010), supply chain integration (SCI) can be defined as the degree

to which a manufacturer strategically collaborates with partners within its supply chain and

collaboratively manages inter- and intra-organizational processes.

SCI may be considered as one of the managerial tools with the potential to generate

competitive advantages for organizations (Flynn et al., 2010; Vickery et al., 2003).

This ability allows organizations to complement resources with others and, thus, to improve

the performance of both the organizations. However, integration does not always imply a

balance in the mutual benefits. It might comprise additional coordination and control

activities that could eventually increase managerial costs.

Most of the empirical studies that analyze the relationship between SCI and

performance show positive results, which is in line with recent literature review and

meta-analysis (Leuschner et al., 2013); however, they are quite heterogeneous. They not

only show lack of consensus in their results, but also in measuring both SCI and

performance (Huo, 2012; Vickery et al., 2003). Nevertheless, SCI construct is measured

considering different instruments (unidimensional, multidimensional construct,

and even as a set of practices). Meanwhile, performance measurements show more

homogeneity, although mainly focused on operational performance (reliability, delivery

time, response capability) and, to a lesser extent, on financial performance (return on

assets or on investment). In addition, studies analyzing the relationships among different

SCI measures find that internal integration improves external integration (Droge et al.,

2004; Huo et al., 2014). Further, some studies suggest the existence of moderating

effects among the SCI measures (Danese and Romano, 2011, 2013; Flynn et al., 2010;

Wiengarten et al., 2014).

According to Kim (2013), most of the studies that address the direct relationship between

SCI and performance refer to publications from 2000 to 2006. In the same vein, Mackelprang

et al. (2014) founnd that more than half of the SCI/performance relationships analyzed are

subject to unknown moderating effects. Thus, performance measurements associated with

SCI might widely vary.

A deeper study is needed to classify and categorize these moderating factors and their

effects. The disparity and diversity of the moderating effects motivate this research in an

attempt to systemize and unify them. Thus, and as far as possible, general guidelines about

these effects could be provided.

The aim of this study is to carry out a systematic review of the empirical literature

considering moderating factors that affect the relationship between SCI and performance.

Previous studies concerning the SCI and performance use a restrictive criterion to select

the sample, usually limited to publications with a certain impact factor (Fabbe-Costes and

Jahre, 2008; Kim, 2013; van der Vaart and van Donk, 2008). Besides, results of effects vary

when they are combined with different integration and performance dimensions. This has

led to some confusion that this study tries to clarify. Although the importance of the

moderating effect has been recognized (Mackelprang et al., 2014), the literature on

the subject is scattered. Therefore, this study intends to develop and analyze them and

propose a classification.

There are three main contributions offered by this study. First, it offers an update and

greater understanding in the comprehension of the relationship between SCI and

performance. Second, an analysis is given of the main moderating factors affecting this

relationship. Third, delimitation and classification of moderating factors are provided that

can foster or restrict the effect of SCI over performance.

The reminder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the theoretical

background of the SCI/performance r elationship. Section 3 presents the r esearch

methodology of the systematic literature review and resumes the empirical papers

selected for analysis. Thereafter, Section 4 provides the definitions used in the papers

1244

IJLM

28,4