To examine the relationships between supplier development practices and supplier-buyer relationship practices from the supplier’s perspective

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships between supplier development practices (SDPs) and supplier-buyer relationship practices from the supplier’s perspective (SBRSP), and seek to understand how specific SDPs may impact a buyer’s operational performance as well as supplier-buyer relationship practices. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a survey of 512 respondents from the different manufacturing firms in India and applied structural equation modelling to test a structural model that proposes the impacts of various efforts of SDPs on a buyer’s performance as well as SBRSP. Findings The study concludes that SDPs and SBRSP together improve the relationship between a buyer and supplier, and this improved relationship leads to competitive advantages (CAs) followed by profitability. Results indicate that supplier perspective of buyer-supplier relationship can be improved under the condition of SDPs and SBRSP together. SDPs are driven by productive measure and competitive pressure, whereas customer uncertainty is found to be statistically insignificant. Research limitations/implications The study was carried out in North Maharashtra Industrial Zone of India, where the auto sector and machine/components manufacturing firms have been established for a considerable period of time. Results of the study are limited to manufacturing organizations predominantly focussing on the automobile sector and machine/components manufacturing firms. Practical implications This study provides significant insights into the specific impact of various SDPs and SBRSP for both academics and practitioners. SDPs along with SBRSP practices lead to improvement in the relationship leading to CAs. SBRSP suggests that trust, long-term commitments and the supplier’s perspective are important practices for relationship improvement. Originality/value The current study attempts to identify what are the success factors for the supplier-buyer relationship from the supplier’s perspective and SDPs and how the supplier-buyer relationship can be improved under the condition of SDPs and SBRSP. Hence, the aim is to develop a more thorough understanding of the outcomes of a supplier-buyer relationship improvement from both buyer’s and supplier’s perspective, under the conditions of supplier development to achieve CAs leading to profitability. Furthermore, the study analyses the effect of the improved supplier-buyer relationship for achieving CAs leading to profitability.

Integrating the SRM and Lean Paradigms: The Constructs and Measurements

“…Delivery, in general, is one of the most often used SF criteria to select a good supplier [15] [21]. [38] and [49] argued that selecting the suitable supplier with good SF helps in developing SP between the firm and its suppliers through evaluating suppliers' performance and their capability of providing innovations and co-designing products to meet customer needs. Suppliers having SF are considered valuable resources for manufacturers due to their large and direct ef-…”

A framework for assessing collaboration between buyers and suppliers on sustainability goals

“…Although a few studies have touched on the fact that suppliers benefit from such collaborations as they help increase the efficiency of both the buyer and the supplier (Xia & Li-Ping Tang, 2011), in-depth empirical analysis of the issue, especially in developing economies, remains lacking. From a supplier's perspective, significant performance metrics in a sustainability collaboration are cost savings, branding and positioning strategies, response to buyer demands (Murfield & Tate, 2017), buyer-supplier relationships (Ambrose et al, 2010;Joshi et al, 2017), consumer satisfaction (Saad & Patel, 2006), and supplier performance (Lee, Chan, & Pu, 2018;Maestrini et al, 2018).…”

“…Suppliers can view their relationship with a buyer as based on trust (Rosell, Lakemond, & Nazli Wasti, 2014), long-term commitment (Joshi et al, 2017;Kumar, Clemens, & Keller, 2014), or a supportive environment (Roloff, Aßländer, & Zamantili Nayir, 2015). According to the supplier's perspective, development opportunities offered by the buyer to the supplier improve the relationship between them and lead to competitive advantage and profitability for the buyer (Joshi et al, 2017). When sustainable supplier management practices facilitate information flow and enable business leaders to know more about their suppliers, they help build amicable relationships.…”

“…Although assessment is the first step in identifying a supplier's requirements, the focus here is on the crucial aspect of collaboration between the focal company (buyer) and its suppliers on various aspects of sustainability (Gimenez & Tachizawa, ; Reuter, Foerstl, Hartmann, & Blome, ). All parties in these relationships expect to benefit, but their viewpoints on the various issues may differ (Ambrose, Marshall, & Lynch, ; Joshi, Kharat, Raut, Kamble, & Kamble, ; Murfield & Tate, ). A framework for assessing sustainable buyer–supplier collaboration that incorporates the perspectives of the buyer and supplier, as well as that of the ultimate consumer of the products that have been created through their collaboration, would help guide organizational leaders in making their sustainability practices both comprehensive and robust throughout the supply chain.…”

Supplier Development for TBL Outcomes: a survey on Brazilian based organizations

“…Training suppliers (48) CHOI, 1996;KRAUSE, 1997;ELLRAM, 1997aELLRAM, , 1997bHANDFIELD;SCANNELL, 1998;RAGATZ;HUGHLEY, 1999;HANDFIELD et al, 2000;SCANNELL, 2002;BATSON, 2008;. Knowledge transfer (34) JONES, 1997;WILLIAMS, 2007;LI et al, 2007;GIANNAKIS, 2008 HAHN, 1993;KRAUSE, 1997;ELLRAM, 1997aELLRAM, , 1997bHANDFIELD;SCANNELL, 1998;RAGATZ;HUGHLEY, 1999;QUAYLE, 2000;LI;CHAN, 2004;HUMPHREYS et al, 2011;RAHMAN, 2016;JOSHI et al, 2017 CHOI, 1996;KRAUSE, 1997KRAUSE, , 1999ELLRAM, 1997a;HANDFIELD et al, 2000;SCANNELL, 2002;WAGNER, 2010WAGNER, , 2006 DALE, 1990;CHOI, 1996;JONES, 1997;KRAUSE, 1997;HANDFIELD et al, 2000;LI;CHAN, 2004;…”