The impact of buyer–supplier interaction on ambidextrous innovation and business performance: the moderating role of competitive environment

• Published date: 01 February 2021
• Pages: 673-695
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-05-2019-0141
• Date: 01 February 2021
• Subject Matter: Management science & operations,Logistics
• Author: Yu Wang,Hongyi Sun,Tao Jia,Jinliang Chen

The impact of buyer–supplier

interaction on ambidextrous

innovation and business

performance: the moderating role

of competitive environment

Yu Wang

School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China and

Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management,

City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

Hongyi Sun

Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management,

City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

Tao Jia

School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China, and

Jinliang Chen

Business School, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China

Abstract

Purpose –This study is based on knowledge-based view to examine the relationships among buyer–supplier

interaction, ambidextrous innovation and business performance. It includes competitive intensity and

dysfunctional competition to clarify boundary conditions.

Design/methodology/approach –The ordinary least squaresregression was conducted to test hypotheses.

The survey data were collected from 182 Hong Kong manufacturing firms.

Findings –Buyer–supplier interaction facilitates ambidextrous innovation, namely exploitative innovation

and exploratory innovation. In turn, exploitative innovation enhances business performance, whereas

exploratory innovation has no influence on business performance. Competitive intensity strengthens while

dysfunctional competition weakens the impact of buyer–supplier interaction on ambidextrous innovation.

Research limitations/implications –This study is based on the knowing processes of knowledge-based

view. It contends that business performance is derived from ambidextrous innovation, which depends on the

utilization of acquired supplier knowledge and the influence of external competitive environment. The test of

relationships is constrained by the single-source and cross-sectional data.

Practical implications –Firms should engage in buyer–supplier interaction to acquire and utilize supplier

knowledge. Meanwhile, they should monitor competitive environment to seize opportunities and avoid threats.

Originality/value –This study builds a holistic framework for buyer–supplier interaction, which reconciles

the mixed arguments by distinguishing its effects on ambidextrous innovation, and by clarifying boundary

conditions in terms of competitive intensity and dysfunctional competition.

Keywords Buyer–supplier interaction, Exploitative innovation, Exploratory innovation, Competitive

intensity, Dysfunctional competition, Knowledge-based view

Paper type Research paper

The impact of

buyer–supplier

interaction

673

The authors thank the Editors Britta Gammelgaard and Zach Zacharia, and all the anonymous

reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments. This study was supported by the 2020

Education and Teaching Reform Project of Central University of Finance and Economics under Grant

No. 2020ZXJG12, the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos 71302128,

71732006 and the National Social Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 19BGL096.

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 19 May 2019

Revised 23 October 2019

22 March 2020

10 July 2020

3 November 2020

Accepted 11 January 2021

The International Journal of

Logistics Management

Vol. 32 No. 2, 2021

pp. 673-695

© Emerald Publishing Limited

0957-4093

DOI 10.1108/IJLM-05-2019-0141

1. Introduction

As the focus of competition is shifting from individual firms to supply chains, it is advisable

for firms to seek external knowledge throughout supply chains to innovate and improve

performance (Nix and Zacharia, 2014;Whitehead et al., 2019). Suppliers, the most relevant

and accessible knowledge source, bring obvious advantages for the focal firm (Un et al., 2010;

Davis-Sramek et al., 2019). Therefore, it is important for firms to obtain supplier knowledge.

According to the industrial network approach, integration and interaction are central

concepts within buyer–supplier relationships (Anderson et al., 1998;Laursen and Andersen,

2016). Supplier integration is structure oriented and offers opportunities to make supplier

knowledge available; buyer–supplier interaction is process oriented and consists of a series of

behaviors to acquire supplier knowledge (Abrahamsen and H



akansson, 2015).

Supplier integration describes relationship structures, within which the focal firm can

collaborate and synchronize with suppliers (Huo, 2012;Peng et al., 2013). On the contrary,

buyer–supplier interaction describes relationship developing processes, during which

exchange, coordination and adaptation occur among actors to transform resources and

activities (H



akansson, 1982;Baptista, 2013;Laursen and Andersen, 2016). Consistent with the

role theory, supplier integration emphasizes a state of synergy, specifying the positions of

suppliers; buyer–supplier interaction focuses on processes of influencing and being

influenced, elaborating the roles played by suppliers (Anderson et al., 1998;Laursen and

Andersen, 2016).

To our knowledge, the research on supplier integration yields abundant empirical

findings. Supplier integration facilitates improvement and innovation capabilities (Peng et al.,

2013). Its performance implications are examined on innovation performance, operational

performance and business performance (Flynn et al., 2010;Yeniyurt et al., 2014). Furthermore,

boundary conditions are clarified in terms of organizational capabilities and market forces

(Salvador and Villena, 2013;Wang et al., 2016). Comparing with supplier integration, buyer–

supplier interaction is less researched (Laursen and Andersen, 2016). Extant studies advocate

the positive effects of buyer–supplier interaction directly on innovation and performance

(Baptista, 2013;H



akansson and Waluszewski, 2013). However, buyer–supplier interaction

can hamper innovation and be counterproductive (H



akansson and Ford, 2002;Yan and

Dooley, 2014). These mixed arguments necessitate investigating nuanced effects on

subdivided outcomes and their boundary conditions. Thereby, this study is motivated to

investigate the nuanced effects of buyer–supplier interaction on different types of innovation

and their boundary conditions.

First, this study focuses on the effects of buyer–supplier interaction on different types of

innovation, which are underinvestigated. Exploitative innovation and exploratory

innovation (collectively known as ambidextrous innovation) are d ominant types of

technological innovation. Exploitative innovation is characterized by small changes within

the focal firm’s existing technological trajectories to satisfy current customers, while

exploratory innovation is typical of fundamental changes in a novel technological trajectory

to occupy emerging markets (Benner and Tushman, 2003;Jansen et al., 2006). Since

exploitative innovation and exploratory innovation are distinguishing, they can have

contrasting determinants and outcomes (Benner and Tushman, 2003). Therefore, this study

distinguishes the effects of buyer–supplier interaction on exploitative innovation and

exploratory innovation to enhance business performance.

Second, this study clarifies boundary conditions for the impact of buyer–supplier

interaction on ambidextrous innovation by examining the moderation of situation factors.

Extant studies stress that buyer–supplier interaction must be considered in the external

environment, such as market structure and dynamism (H



akansson, 1982;Ruekert and

Walker, 1987). In particular, Rogers et al. (1999) contend a firm’s structures and strategies

should match with the competitive environment. Thus, the effects of buyer–supplier

IJLM

32,2

674