The impact of supply chain integration on brand equity

Abstract

Purpose -As measuring returns on intangible assets has become more and more crucial in the contemporary business environment, this study seeks to explore the impact of a firm's supply-chain specific intangible assets on firm performance, drawing on the dynamic capabilities view of the firm. Design/methodology/approach -As an exploratory study that links supply chain activities with firm brand, the study investigates how a firm's supply chain characteristics, such as interfirm activity integration, interfirm system integration, and supply chain responsiveness, affect brand equity and ultimately firm performance, based on responses from 184 US supply chain managers. Findings -The results of the study indicate that both interfirm system integration and supply chain responsiveness have a direct positive effect on brand equity. However, the effect of interfirm activity integration on brand equity is totally mediated by supply chain responsiveness. Research limitations/implications -The study relied on a single informant from each business unit in testing the study framework, investigating a selected few supply chain specific antecedents of brand equity only. The supply chain specific characteristics of the firm the study explored deserve more research attention in the literature as they directly or indirectly help enhance brand equity. Supply chain integration is multidimensional: interfirm activity integration and interfirm system integration. The effect of interfirm activity integration on brand equity is totally mediated by supply chain responsiveness. Practical implications -Managers should understand the importance of their supply chain activities in improving and managing brand equity. Originality/value -The study explores supply chain specific antecedents of a firm's brand equity for the first time.

Frontline employees’ collaboration in industrial service innovation: routes of co-creation’s effects on new service performance

“…However, using multiple informants might reduce response rates (Kim and Cavusgil 2009), and prior research confirms a strong correlation between the data provided by different informants in the same organization (Homburg et al 2002). The good results from the Harman's single-factor test and the marker variable technique, as well as the adequate fit of the model analyzed (Joshi 2010), also support that common method bias has not a significant role in this study.…”

New product adoption and sales performance from the importer perspective

“…Regardless of other market advantages such as low price, high quality, or wide distribution channels, a company's market reputation is one of the most critical elements affecting customer preferences to accept certain products (Kim & Cavusgil, 2009;Purohit & Srivastave, 2001), which directly influences customer willingness to select a novel product among the plentiful, newly-introduced similar products (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). However, the inner process of customer evaluation easily internalizes firm market reputation as a unique value of an existing product.…”

The role of quality in supply chain management in development of brand equity

“…Moreover, corporate reputation and industrial brand equity could partially mediate the relationship between CSR and brand performance. Kim and Cavusgil (2009) investigated the effect of supply chain integration on brand equity. They reported that both interfirm system integration and SC responsiveness had a direct positive impact on brand equity.…”