Macrologistic performance and logistics commitments in sales contracts in international supply chains

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to illuminate the relationship between the logistic performance indexes (LPIs) of trade countries and sharing obligations related to logistics services in delivery among parties in international sales contracts.Design/methodology/approachA comprehensive one-year database of Serbian international trade flows is used. The LPIs of 148 countries are related to the Incoterms® rules in international sales contracts that designate the division of obligations between exporters and importers for moving goods. Empirical data were subjected to statistical analysis, where nonparametric correlation and inferential methods were applied. The differences between countries with the highest and lowest LPIs were also examined.FindingsLPIs positively correlate with logistics commitments in exports and imports. Their impact on the choice of Incoterms® rules differs among the groups of trade terms. Waterway and D-terms are the most sensitive. LPIs of trade countries clearly impact “emission” and “attraction” of the most extended sellers' delivery obligation “packages,” expressed in D rules.Research limitations/implicationsThe empirical data are limited to a single country. Further research must explore the relative impact of macrologistic factors on exporters and importers' logistics commitments for building better decision-making support tools.Practical implicationsThe results may support suppliers and buyers in sharing their experiences on Incoterms® practice and encourage more rational than intuitive decisions.Originality/valueThis is the first empirical study to quantitatively evidence the sensitivity of groups of Incoterms® rules on the macrologistic environment of trade countries.

Assessment of International Trade-Related Transport CO2 Emissions—A Logistics Responsibility Perspective

“…However, there are many limitations related to the use of the Incoterms ® clauses in different assessments, as was described in [11,50]. Among the main limitations are data sensitivity and the need for more in-depth analyses to obtain more reliable results.…”

Are supply chain partnerships developed and implemented according to their potential?

“…While a significant amount of research on the contingency perspective and strategic fit has been conducted in the strategy field (Griffith and Myers, 2005) there is still the need to examine how relationship mechanisms should be implemented in different relationship types. The supply chain literature has addressed the benefits of implementing high levels of the eight management components: joint planning (Hall et al ., 2012), relationship operating controls (Maestrini et al ., 2021), communication (Addo-Tenkorang and Helo, 2017), risk and reward sharing (Jap, 2001), trust and commitment (Fawcett et al ., 2017), contract styles (Stojanović and Ivetić, 2020), scope (Alsadi and Aloulou, 2021) and investment (Rokkan et al ., 2003). However, there is a gap in terms of how these components are implemented in different partnership types.…”

Uluslararası Ticarette Risk Yönetimi: Incoterms® 2020 Kuralları Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme

“…D grubunda yer alan terimler için teslim noktasının alıcının ülkesinde olması, satıcının teslim yükümlülüğünü gerçekleştirmek için daha çok risk alması sonucunu doğurur ve teslimatın ihracatçı açısından sorunsuz yerine getirilmesi, yetkin ve işinin ehli lojistik firmalarıyla çalışmayı gerektirir (Stojanović & Ivetić, 2020). D grubu terimleri kullanıldığında satıcı, satış sözleşmesine teslim sorumluluğunu yerine getirmesine engel olabilecek mücbir sebep koşullarını dahil ederek kendini koruma altına almalıdır.…”