a b s t r a c tIncreasingly manufacturers implement lean practices to improve operational performance. In addition, manufacturers operate in ever more complex and volatile environments. This research investigates the effects of environmental complexity and dynamism on lean operations and lean purchasing practices. It empirically examines these relationships using archival and survey data from 126 manufacturers. The results show that environmental complexity positively moderates the effects of lean operations and lean purchasing on performance. However, environmental dynamism reduces the benefits of lean operations on performance, but enhances the benefits of lean purchasing on performance. Robustness tests further confirm the contingent effects of complexity and dynamism on lean operations and lean purchasing. This research offers a more nuanced understanding of the effect of external environmental context on lean practices, and suggests that practitioners should carefully consider the external environment when implementing different types of lean practices. (A. Azadegan). systems, integrated inventory management, stable procurement and other supplier related practices (Gunasekaran, 1999). The environmental context may have different effects on lean operations and lean purchasing practices since they have different orientations.Scholars argue that the performance benefits of operations management practices depend on the environmental context (Sousa and Voss, 2008;Jayaram et al., 2010). Anecdotal evidence suggests that lean has a weaker effect on performance in environments with high demand variability (Bruce et al., 2004;Oliver et al., 2007). However, research has not considered how environmental uncertainty affects lean operations and lean purchasing practices. Scholars should study the effects of environmental uncertainty on lean since environmental uncertainty alters the level of information and predictability of external events, which in turn, affects operational activities (Dirsmith and Covaleski, 1983;Cannella et al., 2008). This research investigates the following question: What is the effect of environmental uncertainty on the relationships of lean operations and lean purchasing with performance?This research investigates the effect of environmental complexity and dynamism on lean operations and lean purchasing using survey and archival data from 126 publicly-traded manufacturers in the US. It contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence that environmental complexity and dynamism affect the performance benefits of lean operations and lean purchasing. Understanding the effects of complexity and dynamism becomes 0272-6963/$ -see front matter

a b s t r a c tSuppliers have become an increasingly important source of product and process innovation. While case studies have documented how supplier innovation can benefit a manufacturer, this relationship has not been empirically validated, nor have contingencies been explored. Using organizational learning theory we posit that the link between supplier innovativeness and manufacturer performance is moderated by the "fit" between the learning styles of the manufacturer and supplier. We empirically test our hypotheses using hierarchical linear modeling of survey responses from 148 manufacturers concerning 592 suppliers. Results indicate that supplier innovativeness has positive impacts on multiple dimensions of manufacturer performance. Results show that when the outsourced activity involves low levels of design responsibility by the supplier, it is more beneficial for the two partners to have contrasting learning styles. However, when the outsourced activity is design-intensive, it is more beneficial to have a supplier with an explorative learning style.

Mounting pressure for sustainable business practices has led to a greatly increased focus on highlighting sustainability drivers throughout the supply chain. While the literature has concentrated on why downstream original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and retailers become “sustainable,” much less is known regarding why and how upstream suppliers implement sustainability practices. Based on findings from a cross‐case analysis of eight first‐tier (FT) suppliers and an integration of resource dependency theory (RDT), this study explores the drivers and mechanisms of FT supplier engagement in sustainable supply chain management. Suppliers need to understand the sustainability priorities of customers and stakeholders to derive the effective focus and depth of further upstream integration with subsuppliers. Therefore, the integration between the two functions that manage the relevant external interfaces, namely marketing (downstream and stakeholder communication) and procurement (upstream), appears to be the essential cornerstone to move beyond FT supplier compliance to actual commitment to sustainability practices. We present findings on how (1) stakeholder‐related, (2) process‐related, and (3) product‐related drivers influence the choice and effectiveness of the procurement–marketing integration (PM integration) mechanisms. Stakeholder pressures are considered to be the principal drivers of sustainability efforts. However, on their own, they rarely provide sufficient grounds for permanent and embedded PM integration initiatives at FT suppliers. Evidence suggests that suppliers' commitment to PM integration is motivated by the opportunity to leverage sustainability initiatives in their product offerings and sustainability certificates recognizable by customers and secondary stakeholders.

As suppliers take on more important roles in manufacturing and designing products, their operational innovativeness becomes an important source of value. We use the relational view theory to hypothesize for a positive association between operational innovativeness of established suppliers and manufacturer performance. Furthermore, we posit that the manufacturer can enhance this value by ensuring that the supplier is performing as expected (i.e., through supplier evaluation programs), and by focusing on learning from the supplier (i.e., through absorptive capacity). We then develop hypotheses as to how the influence of these two approaches differs when working with suppliers assigned to different types of tasks. We test the hypotheses using survey responses from 136 manufacturers evaluating 272 of their suppliers. Results show that supplier evaluation programs and absorptive capacity are both effective means of augmenting the benefits of supplier operational innovativeness. Contrary to theoretical predictions, benefits of operational innovativeness of suppliers with knowledge‐intensive tasks are enhanced through increased absorptive capacity and through increased supplier evaluation programs.

Manufacturers increasingly rely on innovation from their suppliers to improve the cost, quality, and timeliness of their products. Manufacturing capabilities are enhanced by supplier innovativeness directly, because of the embedded nature of the supplied component, and indirectly, as the manufacturer learns from its suppliers. We use organizational learning theory to develop a conceptual model of learning factors that act as contingencies and magnify the effect of supplier innovativeness. First, we argue that a manufacturer's absorptive capacity, its ability to learn and use external knowledge, positively moderates the impact of supplier innovativeness on the manufacturer's performance. Second, we examine how different combinations of manufacturer–supplier learning styles lead to relatively more or less interorganizational learning, contingent upon whether the outsourcing is design versus manufacturing oriented. Our model can help managers consider knowledge transfer as part of their supplier selection criteria.