Category management has been promoted as a mechanism to achieve closer working relations between suppliers and retailers. The premise has been that category management should result in a reduced reliance on the use of power as an element of the relationship and increased levels of cooperation. However, power is an element of any relationship and exists even when not activated. Further, the premise rests on the notion that cooperation is a polar opposite of power. This research confirms that food industry managers perceive the use of power in solely negative terms. Power can be defined operationally as the ability of one channel member to influence the marketing decisions of another channel member and hence must be related to cooperation. This paper reviews the nature of dependence, power and cooperation and explores the role of these constructs in the practice of category management. The results of continuing research in the area of category management relationships are reported.

PurposeDespite the necessity of close integration between marketing and sales, managers report less than satisfactory results in this area. This paper aims to examine what keeps the two functions apart. It proposes going beyond surface level behavior to examine the different sub‐cultural mental frames that characterize the two functions.Design/methodology/approachA total of 44 salespeople and marketers across four different organizations in different industries were interviewed.FindingsThe research finds that conflicts between marketing and sales are driven by differences in beliefs about the valid scope and focus of activity, time focus, valid sources of knowledge, differences in perceived status, and the relationship to the business environment.Practical implicationsManagers need to focus on removing implied status barriers between sales and marketing, provide sales with a strategic voice, and attend to structural issues that drive the two functions apart.Originality/valueResearch on the sales‐marketing interface remains scarce. The paper examines this from a cultural point of view and identifies a number of basic cultural frames that explain behavioral differences between the two functions. Critically, it also identifies significant points of difference on which to build greater understanding between the two functions.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This paper reports on a study of the logistics and supply chain practices of Australian and New Zealand firms. Design/methodology/approach -The research uses the Supply Chain 2000 Framework developed at Michigan State University as a basis for analyzing logistics/supply chain capabilities and competencies of Australian and New Zealand firms. A mail survey instrument was used in both countries.Findings -There are indeed Australian and New Zealand firms who are operating at world-class levels with respect to logistics/supply chain capabilities. The majority of firms, however, still focus their efforts on internal logistics integration issues, compared with external integration issues. A comparison of industry groups shows that the motor/transport and the chemicals/petroleum sectors perform the best, while there is much room for improvement in the food, clothing/textile and primary industry sectors. Research limitations/implications -This research takes a snapshot of Australian and NewZealand businesses at a point in time, and uses a framework developed in North America to assess the logistics competencies of the ANZ firms. These two issues can be considered research limitations, in that businesses are constantly evolving, and thus future research should be conducted to evaluate the evolution of ANZ firms as they continue to develop their logistics capabilities. Additionally, the business environment of North America is considerably different from the environment found in Australia and New Zealand. Thus, future research should also consider the logistics competencies within the specific context of the ANZ environment. Practical implications -This research provides a baseline for ANZ managers to assess their logistics competencies and capabilities, and provides a framework for developing further logistics capabilities. Originality/value -From a practical perspective the research enriches understanding of the state and practice of logistics in Australia and New Zealand, about which very little has been previously published. Theoretically, the study extends a conceptual framework in an international setting.

No abstract

Purpose Product returns management (PRM) is a core supply chain management process. Though the importance of value creation and appropriation is acknowledged, extant studies on value in product returns tend to be limited to the residual asset value (cost recovery) of the returned products. Further, value discussion in PRM is limited to the value implications for a single party in the returns transaction rather than all the product returns chain entities. The purpose of this paper is to explore value creation and appropriation in a triad of supplier-retailer-3PL in the product returns chain. Design/methodology/approach The study uses an inductive qualitative approach. Semi-structured interviews with executives in a triad of organisations formed the primary data source for the study. Findings The paper identifies six value drivers and develops a value creation and appropriation framework. It shows that facilitation, value orientation, process alignment and relational factors are key drivers of value creation and appropriation in PRM. Research limitations/implications The findings reinforce the view that value creation and appropriation are the outcomes of multi-party interactions in a product return chain. The framework presented contributes to the literature by showing the linkages amongst key drivers. Practical implications The findings show the important role of external process facilitation and how a 3PL contributes to value creation in a triadic relationship. Originality/value Research based on a triadic product returns chain is a unique dimension of this study.