Benefits of internal manufacturing network integration

Abstract

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 -The purpose of this paper is to offer deeper insight into the relationship between a subsidiary's internal integration in its manufacturing network and subsidiary-level operational performance by taking into account the country context of the respective subsidiary. Design/methodology/approach -Subsidiary-level information is gathered using the sixth round of the International Manufacturing Strategy Survey, thus including 507 subsidiaries from 22 countries. Country context is operationalised using the Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum. Findings -The findings reveal that internal integration has a positive influence on operational performance improvement. Country context acts as a moderator on this relationship: subsidiaries in less developed countries are only able to improve their effectiveness (quality, flexibility, delivery), while developed country subsidiaries gain both effectiveness and efficiency (cost, time) benefits from internal integration. Research limitations/implications -The unit of analysis is the knowledge-receiving subsidiary without taking the characteristics of the sending unit or that of the whole network of subsidiaries into account. Based on the context-dependency of the integration-performance relationship found in this paper, a future research agenda is proposed including further factors (absorptive capacity, knowledge complementarity, organisational practices) that could influence this relationship. Practical implications -Subsidiary managers in less developed countries should strive to acquire intra-network knowledge related to effectiveness, while managers in developed countries can expect both efficiency and effectiveness benefits. Originality/value -A large-scale survey encompassing subsidiaries from both emerging and developed countries is used to offer deeper insight into the relationship between internal integration and performance. The paper provides a possible explanation for previous mixed findings on this relationship. The differentiation between efficiency and effectiveness performance shows that country context represents an important factor that moderates the integration-performance relationship.

An empirical examination of the relationship between globalization, integration and sustainable innovation within manufacturing networks

“…fully mediate the relationship between network globalization and a plant's sustainable development.Fourth, we analyzed whether a plant's collaborative integration with sister facilities could support the adoption of novel sustainable practices. While previous IMSS-based studies found a positive relationship between manufacturing network integration and operational performance (e.g Szász et al, 2016),. its effect over the adoption of sustainable production and sourcing is new to the Operations Strategy literature.…”

Sustainability Impact on Manufacturing Operational Performance: An Empirical Investigation

“…Country-level economic development has a direct negative effect on quality ( =−0.124; p<0.001) and delivery ( =−0.150; p<0.001), but no significant effect on flexibility and cost efficiency. These results are consistent with Schoenherr (2012) and Szasz et al (2016), among others. This might occur because developed countries attain higher levels of effectiveness and, therefore, their direct effects are less evident than in countries that have lower levels of performance (Meijboom and Vos, 1997;Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000;Ambos et al, 2006;Szasz et al, 2016 (Landsom, 2000;Da Silveira and Sousa, 2010).…”

“…Some authors use the same year to compare practices and performance (e.g. Gimenez et al, 2012;Szasz et al, 2016) but, as aforementioned, the benefits of sustainability practices might only appear years later. Second, sustainability management includes a wide range of practices.…”

“…Green et al, 2012b) or aggregated in second order constructs, such as efficiency (cost and lead time) and effectiveness (quality, flexibility and delivery) (e.g. Szasz et al, 2016). Regrouping dimensions may provide more parsimonious models, with fewer dependent variables, but may also restrict the analysis of the results.…”

“…Nonetheless, the win/win situation of a positive correlation between improved sustainability and performance met with mixed results in empirical research (Wagner et al, 2001;Zhu and Sarkis, 2004;Graham and Potter, 2015;Szasz et al, 2016;Adebanjo et al 2016). Some authors found a negative effect of sustainability practices adoption on overall firms' performance (e.g.…”