As developed markets become more saturated, managers increasingly recognize the value of emerging markets as venues for growth opportunities. Yet, launching products into these markets is extremely risky due to weak institutional environments (e.g., lack of physical infrastructure), making success more uncertain. To alleviate this challenge, theory points to using emerging market footholds that yield market‐specific knowledge. However, it is unclear whether knowledge is realized and, if so, what facets of harvested knowledge are effective in driving performance. Accordingly, we used data collected from a survey of business professionals to examine emerging market footholds and market‐specific knowledge (i.e., customer, competitor, and logistics knowledge). Our results show that the extent of market presence held by an emerging market foothold is positively associated with all types of knowledge, yet only competitor and logistics knowledge—not customer knowledge—is positively associated with product launch performance. A supplemental sample of new product launches in developed markets revealed the opposite results wherein customer knowledge was the only significant predictor. Viewed collectively, the results suggest a market maturity threshold wherein logistics and competitive knowledge becomes less influential in driving performance, and customer knowledge becomes more influential.

Emerging markets present intriguing growth opportunities, but they are often extremely risky for foreign entrants. Given this riskiness, companies entering emerging markets may establish strategic footholds—small positions that they can later choose to expand (referred to as an attack) or abandon (referred to as a withdrawal)—rather than making costly large‐scale entries. While scholars have begun to examine the competitive dynamics surrounding footholds, the influence of the supply chain has not been considered. This is surprising given that supply chains are key to the daunting task of meeting emerging market demands. To build on extant research, we theorize about how environmental uncertainty (e.g., stemming from factors such as poor infrastructure and political unrest), foothold portability (i.e., how easily the foothold resources can be redeployed in the firm's supply chain), and supply chain knowledge influence (or should influence) firms’ decisions about footholds. This represents a needed step forward in understanding the central role of supply chains in foothold maneuvers in emerging markets. In taking this step, we posit that firms must consider both competitive dynamics and their supply chains or they risk over/under estimating the viability and value of their footholds.

Summary It is unclear why some firms suffer greater negative consequences than others following a product recall. To shed light on this question, we extend attribution theory to the firm level to explore how consumers engage in an attributional process following product recalls that shapes their responses to firms. Integrating attribution theory and the demand side theoretical perspective, we assert that consumer judgments of responsibility toward manufacturers are shaped by causal data regarding the locus of causality (i.e., manufacturer or supplier) and controllability (i.e., prior knowledge or awareness) of a recalled product's potential for harm. We then examine the impact of product recall characteristics on judgments of responsibility and firm‐level outcomes using an experimental test involving responses from 320 subjects. Our findings suggest that judgments of responsibility are attributed to the manufacturing firm more when consumers are given causal information indicating that the firm is the source of, or is aware of, a product's defects. The results also indicate that judgments of responsibility can have costly firm‐level consequences in the form of reputational damage, diminished consumer purchase intentions, and increased legal damage recommendations. We discuss theoretical contributions, practical implications, and opportunities for further research.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the activities that nascent firms undertake to improve customer attractiveness and gain collaborative commitment from strategic suppliers.Design/methodology/approachData from a grounded theory study consisting of 26 participants from 15 firms and a review of extant literature were used to develop a theoretical model that explains how a nascent firm increases its customer attractiveness to elicit commitment and collaboration from strategic suppliers.FindingsThe authors find that social capital, born of close social ties and social history, enhances the effectiveness of a nascent firm's relationship-building practices. This counteracts a supplier's collaborative risk and consequently increases the nascent firm's customer attractiveness, thus enabling it to obtain strategic supplier collaborative commitment.Practical implicationsThis research helps managers by providing direction on what practices nascent firms pursue to gain strategic supplier resources and collaboration. Given the reality of resource constraints in nascent firms, it is suggested that this insight is essential to obtaining crucial external resources needed to survive and grow.Originality/valueExtant research on buyer–supplier collaboration is mostly confined to the context of mature firms and does not account for the unique inter-organizational relational challenges faced by nascent firms. This research uncovers the idiosyncrasies of supplier management in nascent firms, and elucidates on the actions that nascent firm managers take to gain supplier collaborative commitment.

PurposeEndeavoring to expand their global market presence, firms often launch products into emerging markets where managers face the daunting task of deploying products by managing available, and often limited, supply chain resources. Yet, literature has not empirically examined managerial resource orchestration in this context. Accordingly, by embedding resource orchestration theory (ROT) into the emerging market context, the authors offer middle-range theorizing on supply chain resource orchestration (SCRO) and empirically test how acquiring, bundling and leveraging activities impact new product launch performance.Design/methodology/approachThe authors test the model by analyzing empirical data from 175 individual product launches into emerging markets using a survey methodology.FindingsThe authors’ results suggest that SCRO holds the promise of being a viable middle-range theory in the supply chain field, especially where managers face limited resources and must “work with what they have to do what they can.”Research limitations/implicationsThe authors’ study also has some limitations. First, because a panel data service company was used to collect the data, the authors were not provided with any information regarding the respondents' company names or other identifying data. Second, because the authors did not directly interact with the respondents nor were the authors able to contact multiple individuals from their respective organizations, the study was limited to a single-respondent design. However, to counter issues associated with single-response bias, the central constructs in the study referenced phenomena related to a specific product launch project as opposed to constructs at the firm or inter-firm relational level.Practical implicationsThe authors’ results reveal that SCRO activities can enhance the performance of new product launches, even in resource-starved emerging market contexts.Originality/valueThe results validate measures for several of the SCRO processes (i.e. supply chain resource acquisition, supply chain resource bundling and supply chain leveraging) and provide evidence that supply chain resource bundling and supply chain leveraging mediate the relationship between supply chain resource acquisition and product launch performance. Further, soft logistics infrastructure is found to be an important boundary condition for these relationships.