PurposeIn this paper, the authors seek to contribute to the supply chain digitalisation literature by investigating a potential dark side of supply chain digitalisation from the viewpoint of the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) suppliers, namely digital capability asymmetry and the partner opportunism of more digitally capable large buyers against SME suppliers. The authors seek to contribute further to the governance literature by investigating the effectiveness of the governance mechanism (legal contracts and relational contracts) in suppressing partner opportunism of this nature.Design/methodology/approachUsing survey data collected from 125 Korean SMEs, the authors employed a hierarchical regression method to test a set of hypotheses focussing on the dark side of supply chain digitalisation and the effectiveness of the governance mechanism.FindingsThe study’s findings suggest that supplier-perceived digital capability asymmetry, wherein a buyer has a superior digital capability than its SME supplier, increases the SME supplier's dependence on the more digitally capable buyer, with the result that it is more exposed to buyer opportunism. Moreover, the results suggest that only relational governance is effective in protecting SME suppliers from buyer opportunism of this nature.Originality/valueSo far, the overwhelming majority of supply chain digitalisation research has debated its “bright side”. On the contrary, from the resource dependence theory perspective, this paper explains its dark side by providing empirical evidence on (1) the links between supplier-perceived digital capability asymmetry and a buyer's opportunism through an increased supplier's dependence and (2) the effectiveness of different types of governance in opportunism suppression.

PurposeThis study focuses on how a small and medium-sized enterprise's (SME's) main strategic orientation can affect SMEs' approach to innovation. The authors aim to answer the following simple yet important questions: how do SMEs with market orientation (MO) and those with entrepreneurial orientation (EO) differ in terms of innovation performance? Do MO and EO have conflicting effects on the process of innovation at SMEs? If so, how does this conflict affect the innovation performance of SMEs?Design/methodology/approachThis study explores the effects of MO and EO on different types of technological innovation among SMEs using data collected from 124 INNOBIZ-certified manufacturing SMEs in South Korea. Logistic regression analysis and moderated regression analysis were conducted to test the hypotheses.FindingsThe empirical results demonstrate that MO and EO engender different kinds of technological innovations. MO stimulates “new-to-the-firm” product innovation, while EO drives “new-to-the-industry” innovation in processes and products. Furthermore, SMEs' overall innovation performance will suffer from the conflicting interplay between MO and EO.Originality/valueThe findings of this study encourage SMEs to concentrate SMEs' resources and learning efforts on one specific innovation orientation and only then to develop SMEs' ambidextrous managerial capabilities. This study offers academic contributions in that the study overcomes the limitations of past studies on the strategic orientation of SMEs by empirically confirming the dilemmas faced by SMEs and expands the theoretical understanding of the relationship between MO and EO.

The person-environment fit theory posits that the term "environment" can be defined at different levels. This study delineates two environmental dimensions (strategic and organizational) and empirically examines the potential moderating effects of two strategic factors (intra-and interregional diversification) on the relationship between two organizational factors (subsidiary ownership and host-country experience) and MNE subsidiary staffing composition. The results indicate that strategic and organizational dimensions have impacts on subsidiary staffing composition. This study also finds that the interaction effects between strategic and organizational factors are significant only when there is congruence between demands from different environmental dimensions.

No abstract

non-core operations to outside suppliers, this study addressed a timely managerial issue. Second, we also confirmed the importance of non-coercive power in developing the buyer's relationship commitment and increasing cooperative integration activities with the power holder(in this case, industrial suppliers). In particular, expert and referent power turned out to be most effective in building rapport with the buyer and inducing its strategic cooperation. Consistent with prior research, this study also affirmed the negative effects of coercive power in a supplier-manufacturer relationship.