Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of logistics service quality (LSQ) on consumer satisfaction and loyalty in an omni-channel retail environment. Design/methodology/approach An empirical, survey-based approach is used to collect data from consumers about experiences with two different omni-channel retail scenarios: buy-online-pickup-in-store (BOPS), and buy-in-store-ship-direct (BSSD). Participants responded to questions regarding the LSQ, consumer satisfaction, and consumer loyalty relative to their actual experience in one of these situations. Findings Results suggest that omni-channel consumers are truly unique, and all three dimensions of LSQ (condition, availability, and timeliness) are distinct in their impact on satisfaction and loyalty. Results suggest that in the BOPS sample, consumer satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between condition and loyalty and fully mediates the relationship between timeliness and loyalty. In the BSSD model, consumer satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between timeliness and consumer loyalty. Research limitations/implications This research studies LSQ in two different omni-channel scenarios; additional research is needed to explore other omni-channel scenarios and extend the findings to be more generalizable. Practical implications Managers should recognize that for omni-channel consumers, timeliness is the essential driver of satisfaction and loyalty. Retailers need to account for this reality and dedicate substantial resources to meet delivery requirements in a timely manner. Logistics service providers need to emphasize speed and reliability of their delivery processes for omni-channel consumers. Originality/value This research is the first attempt at conceptualizing LSQ in an omni-channel supply chain, and testing the impact of LSQ on consumer satisfaction and loyalty.

Negotiations are an essential element of buyer-supplier relationships that form the foundation of modern supply chains. Research has identified two common types of negotiation strategies that are used in buyersupplier negotiations. A win-win negotiation strategy attempts to maximize mutual gain while a win-lose strategy focuses on obtaining a disproportionate share of benefits. This study investigates the relational costs of adopting a negotiation strategy in terms of adverse effects on knowledge sharing intentions in interdependent buyer-supplier relationships. A between-subjects scenario-based experiment is used to test hypotheses developed from applicable literature and social exchange theory. Results of the experiment indicate that employing a win-lose negotiation strategy may decrease future intentions toward information exchange, communication quality and operational knowledge transfer between buyers and suppliers. The findings inform managerial aspects of supply chain relationship management, extend the negotiation literature to consider longer-term effects of common negotiation strategies and provide insights into social exchange theory.

No abstract

Carrier selection is a specialized sourcing decision with sustainability impacts in every supply chain. This research tests the effects of a transportation carrier's economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance on a shipper's carrier selection decision. Underrepresented experimental methods are used to test an a priori hypothesis derived from behavioral decision theory logic. Results contradict commonly held win–win, trade‐off, and ecological perspectives of sustainable supply chain management by finding that the economic dimension of sustainability has the greatest effect on carrier selection. Our research highlights this managerial preference and offers a theoretically grounded explanation for selection behaviors. This is one of the first empirical studies to simultaneously consider all three dimensions of sustainability. It also moves beyond an internal focal firm focus to evaluate sustainability effects through the eyes of external supply chain members. Our unique approach and findings offer managerial opportunities for differentiation and resource allocation as well as policy implications for the broader transportation system.

The use of student samples in logistics research is a controversial issue that often invokes vigorous debate among scholars. Critics of the practice claim that students are not able to realistically describe logistics phenomena and do not represent a generalizable cross‐section of practicing managers. These claims are valid for survey studies or qualitative methods that have traditionally dominated logistics research. However, in behavioral experiments that are focused on maximizing precision and control, student samples are often justified because of homogeneous sampling requirements and boundary conditions that include students within a theoretical framework. The objectives of this forward looking article are to explain when and why student samples are often appropriate in logistics research, generate additional discussion about the topic, and ultimately facilitate the growth of behavioral experimentation in logistics research.