Drivers for vertical integration in the rail sector – using wagons as “relationship specific assets”

Abstract

Purpose-This paper uses a combination of transaction cost economics (TCE), the resourcebased view (RBV) and the relational view to analyse vertical integration in the rail sector, through which rail wagons are viewed as "relationship specific assets". Design/methodology/approach-The empirical analysis is based on a cross-case comparison of four case studies of intermodal operators in Europe, each exhibiting different levels of collaboration and integration between terminals, operators and subcontractors. understanding of vertical integration in the rail sector than currently provided by TCE or RBV alone.

Unravelling collaboration mechanisms for green logistics: the perspectives of shippers and logistics service providers

“…Our findings do not support neither type of collaboration mechanisms, from neither actors' views, to facilitate green modal shifts. This is somewhat surprising, given the vast body of literature that attributes the success of intermodal platforms to treating them as relation-specific assets backed by integrated IT systems and extensive knowledge-sharing routines (Eng-Larsson and Norrman, 2014; Khaslavskaya and Roso, 2019; Monios and Bergvist, 2016). This is perhaps due to pre-existent expectations, by both actors, that LSPs are the ones in charge of facilitating green modal shifts, which may have resulted in less emphasis on the shippers' involvement.…”

“…Jointly treating assets related to these platforms (e.g. locomotives, terminals) as relation-specific assets (instead of mere firm-specific assets) has been proposed as a key contributor to their success (Khaslavskaya and Roso, 2019; Monios and Bergvist, 2016). The literature also seems in favour of knowledge sharing for facilitating these platforms.…”

“…The literature also seems in favour of knowledge sharing for facilitating these platforms. Monios and Bergvist (2016), for instance, contend that sea-road-rail platforms prosper in trustful and collaborative environments, ascribing the denominator of their operational success to interorganisational “learning, knowledge sharing, coordination and complementarity” (p. 548). Extensive and continuous information exchange between shippers and LSPs, backed by integrating their IT systems, may uphold the success of intermodal platforms, as these measures reduce unpredictability of arrival times and increase transport efficiency (Choy et al , 2007).…”

Measuring the gaps between shippers and logistics service providers on green logistics throughout the logistics purchasing process

“…That is, due to the increasingly high competition and low profit margins observed in the logistics industry (Colicchia et al , 2013; Piecyk and Björklund, 2015), LSPs refrain from engaging in green practices that require significant upfront investments (Nilsson et al , 2017; Oberhofer and Dieplinger, 2014) unless shippers adequately share risks/rewards on such investments (Bask et al , 2018; Jazairy, 2020; Multaharju et al , 2017). Risks/rewards sharing can be translated into, for example, establishing long-term contracts that secure the return of investment for green practices (Berling and Eng-Larsson, 2016; Eng-Larsson and Norrman, 2014; Monios and Bergqvist, 2016). Berling and Eng-Larsson (2016), for instance, discussed the risks associated with consolidating shipments, arguing that LSPs' capacity to engage in this green practice depends on shippers' heterogeneity as well as the LSPs’ ability to differentiate pricing among its shippers.…”

Identifying competitive strategies for each phase of the intermodal terminal life cycle

“…Intermodal terminals are a fairly interchangeable resource unless they can offer better service or, ideally, more innovative and unique services. Thus Monios and Bergqvist (2016b) showed how moving from the resource-based view to the relational view can produce resource heterogeneity from an inter-firm relationship, for example a terminal integrating or collaborating with a rail operator and a shipper. Ng and Gujar (2009) applied Porter's Competitive Diamond model to terminals, which is an updated version of the Five Forces.…”