Operational Governance in Horizontal Cooperations of Logistics Service Providers: Performance Effects and the Moderating Role of Cooperation Complexity

Abstract

Various market challenges have led logistics service providers (LSPs) to engage in horizontal cooperations with each other, while maintaining their general legal independence. As an idiosyncrasy, horizontal cooperations entail the opposing forces of competition and cooperation, also referred to as “co‐opetition” (Bengtsson and Kock 2000; Tsai 2002). This constellation facilitates the development of opportunism and conflicts, which raise the risk of relationship failure. Adequate governance mechanisms provide a basis to avoid failure and drive cooperation success. This paper focuses on the postformation cooperation management phase and identifies the specific effects that operational governance has on cooperation commitment and cooperation effectiveness. Based on survey data from 226 LSP cooperations, we show that both formal and social governance mechanisms have a substantial performance effect. In this regard, the results differ fundamentally from studies on vertical buyer‐supplier relationships. With respect to the specific setup of the cooperation, a differentiated view is provided. Results indicate that two types of cooperation complexity are of relevance: organizational complexity and strategic complexity. The former drives the relevance of formal control; the latter increases the relevance of both formal and social control for cooperation success.

Effective logistics alliance design and management

“…Despite the lack of a common definition of logistics alliances, there is consensus in terms of describing logistics alliances as long-term (Bagchi and Virum, 1998;Cruijssen et al, 2007b;Gentry, 1996b;Nyaga and Whipple, 2011;Nyaga et al, 2010;Park, 2003;Wallenburg, 2011, 2012) and voluntary (Park, 2003;Schmoltzi and Wallenburg, 2012) relationships between two or more independent actors of a supply chain. We understand logistics alliances as formalized long-term, cooperative relationships between at least one logistics service provider (LSP) and other legally independent actors in a supply chain striving for mutual competitive advantage.…”

“…2 In any case, horizontal LSP alliances are highly fragile as the independence of, and rivalry among, partnering LSPs increases the threat of opportunistic behavior as well as the alliance management complexity (Cruijssen et al, 2007b;Schmoltzi and Wallenburg, 2012).…”

Performance measurement in horizontal LSP cooperation as a field of conflict: the preventive role of collaborative processes

“…It aims at involving all alliance members in the PM and for them to share their needs, concerns, and expectations [66] so that they effectively become ''business partners'' [51,67]. The approach promotes an atmosphere of forbearance, mutual respect, and balanced reciprocity, and reduces ex-post transaction costs [5]. Joint action in PM reflects the argument of [22] that elements which ''increase the strength of the ties between groups'' (p. 522) help to prevent conflicts.…”

“…Horizontal LSP alliances are complex in nature [5] and entail various strategically relevant decisions on which opinions will widely differ. Examples include the question how to develop the scope of activities or in which way to support common activities with IT systems (e.g., whether to offer joint mobile apps at the customer interfaces).…”

Is transport subcontracting a barrier to modal shift? Empirical evidence from Germany in the context of horizontal transshipment technologies

“…In addition to traditional factors, such as transport cost, transport time and transport reliability, which according to Cullinane and Toy (2000) are the most frequently studied parameters in the transportation literature, a large number of additional factors (e.g., flexibility and infrastructure availability) affect the transport mode choice (Cullinane and Toy 2000). Subsequently, a pre-test was administered to forwarders and road haulers to ensure the face validity of both questionnaires (Schmoltzi and Wallenburg 2012). Then, two web-based surveys were conducted.…”