Essays on supplier responsiveness and buyer firm value - Nyenrode ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

oth measures. Although Jaworski and Kohli (1993) attributed this to a lagged effect that market orientation has on performance, we took care to use objective performance, which measured the difference in corporate earnings over a three-year period. Hence, our findings suggest that it is not because of a lagged effect that subjective and objective measures do not reinforce each other. Our findings also contradict the findings of Dawes (1999), Jayachandran and Varadarajan (2006), and Naman and Slevin (1993), who found that objective and subjective measures are strongly and positively linked. Rather, our findings reinforce to some extent the findings of Harris (2001) that objective measures may work for a narrower range of items than subjective measures do. Table 4.7 Measurement Model Indices Goodness of fit index Chapter 2 Model Chapter 4 Model χ 2 /degrees of freedom 1.76 1.217 Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) 0.94 0.83 Goodness-of-Fit Index 0.95 0.93 (GFI) Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 0.96 0.93 Comparative Fit Index 0.96 0.90 (CFI) Root Mean Square Error 0.06 0.05 of Approximation (RMSEA) 4.7.2 SEM Model Hypotheses Our hypothesis 1 (b) was related to the structural model and predicted a fit between the objective data (Chapter 4) and the subjective data models (Chapter 2). For this purpose, we will discuss each of the five hypotheses of the model in Chapter 2 that we tested in the current chapter using the objective data dependent variable buyer firm value (measured by the difference in net income between the years 2009 and 2011). Supplier responsiveness to IdRR. To be marketing oriented is not to be safe because you’re running a risk. You have to invest in your ideas. To not be market oriented is to be safe. [It means doing nothing] the same old [thing]. You’re not investing in your business, not [taking] risks. —president of an industrial services company (adapted from Kohli & Jaworski, 1990) 108
Jaowrski and Kohli (1993) provided an intra-organizational perspective on supplier or seller responsiveness and managerial risk perceptions. Numerous other studies have reflected their findings. However, to our knowledge, few studies examine supplier responsiveness and inter-organizational risk (Baker, Simpson, & Siguaw, 1999). For instance, Baker et al. (1999) focused on positive relational indicators, but did not focus specifically on IdRR. To the best of our knowledge, aside from the Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 studies, only our current study solely examines the influence of supplier responsiveness on IdRR in the context of publically listed firms. The Chapter 2 sample was a mixture of publically and privately held companies. Normally, publically and privately listed firms differ on a number of issues, including corporate accountability, risk averseness, and innovativeness. Therefore, the contribution of our current study is that it provides evidence that publically listed firms have the mediator of IdRR in supplier responsiveness and performance linkage. This means that being a publically listed firm does not reduce the importance of supplier responsiveness in insulating it from IdRR. However, this effect is stronger in the model in Chapter 2. Hence, we believe that privately listed firms are more susceptible to the actions of their strategic suppliers because of their smaller size and limited resources. IdRR to supplier brand value. The hypothesis examines the influence of IdRR on supplier brand value. Prior research has indicated that B2B brands help customers evaluate whether a brand choice reduces their perceived organizational risk (Baker et al., 1999). In a way, our results are similar to Mudambi, Doyle, & Wong, (1997) contention that risk reduction leads to greater perceived value for the suppliers' brand. But our study offers an additional insight because risk reduction is an outcome of the process of market orientation rather than direct branding efforts by the firm. Furthermore, in line with Mudambi et al. (1997), we assume that this value is created because of intangible value or benefits from the relationship. This means that idiosyncratic processes that are not visible to the competitors serve as unique generators of value that would be difficult to replicate. This is important because firms that are competent at creating unique brand value have higher returns (Mudambi et al., 1997). For B2B managers, this could be a strong selling point when they are arguing for a greater emphasis on branding in front of top management. Compared to the study in Chapter 2, we find that the standardized regression weight for this hypothesis is weaker in the objective model. In line with our prior suggestion that smaller firms are more susceptible to supplier actions than larger firms are, the effects are stronger in Chapter 2, which is based on a sample of both publically and privately traded firms. Supplier responsiveness to buyer satisfaction, buyer satisfaction to buyer firm profit, supplier brand value to buyer firm profit. Our next set of hypotheses deal with the influence of supplier responsiveness on buyer satisfaction and buyer satisfactions influence on buyer firm profits. Supplier responsiveness results in buyer satisfaction. In turn, we found that satisfaction did not positively influence objective firm earning data or profits. There could be one of two explanations for these results. The first is that objective and subjective performance data are imperfect substitutes, so the results differ. However, we overrule this explanation because the subjective model also did not confirm this 109
Page 2 and 3:
ISBN 978-90-8980-055-8 © M. Abrahi
Page 4 and 5:
Examination Committee Supervisor: P
Page 6 and 7:
2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTUAL M
Page 8 and 9:
5.1 RESEARCH FINDINGS 114 5.2 OVERA
Page 10 and 11:
List of Tables Table 2.1 Representa
Page 12 and 13:
PREFACE Oscar Wilde once said, “I
Page 14 and 15:
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Thesi
Page 16 and 17:
Figure 1.1 Mckinsey Survey Results
Page 18 and 19:
1.4 Scope PhD thesis This thesis fo
Page 20 and 21:
Netherlands. We used the maximum li
Page 22 and 23:
2.1 Introduction A central tenant o
Page 24 and 25:
only provide an assessment of the s
Page 26 and 27:
Table 2.1 highlights several promin
Page 28 and 29:
other hand, they later argue that m
Page 30 and 31:
Therefore, there is a convergence i
Page 32 and 33:
usiness performance, firms need to
Page 34 and 35:
means is that the more better a str
Page 36 and 37:
Supplier responsiveness or market o
Page 38 and 39:
Naryandas, 1995). Further, idiosync
Page 40 and 41:
They might also include the ease wi
Page 42 and 43:
they ask about intimate supplier in
Page 44 and 45:
Table 2.2 Modified Items of the MAR
Page 46:
Table 2.2 Modified Items of the MAR
Page 49 and 50:
market intelligence, offering flexi
Page 51 and 52:
We considered several scales before
Page 53 and 54:
Table 2.7 Component Matrix Buyer Sa
Page 55 and 56:
een monitored to make sure they gav
Page 57 and 58: satisfaction and strategic supplier
Page 59 and 60: 2.5 Measurement Model For creating
Page 61 and 62: In the third step, we used maximum
Page 63 and 64: incremental fit index (IFI) is one
Page 65 and 66: ange of 100-150 (Hair et al., 2006,
Page 67 and 68: indicator that has a link to custom
Page 69 and 70: and strengths and their stock marke
Page 71 and 72: accompanies any innovation, accordi
Page 73 and 74: important finding because it provid
Page 75 and 76: 3.1 Introduction The Netherlands, d
Page 77 and 78: possibility that firm size may infl
Page 79 and 80: Figure 3.1 The Netherlands and Unit
Page 81 and 82: comprehensive agreement on each oth
Page 83 and 84: Why do we pay more for an orange wi
Page 85 and 86: constructs, for cross-cultural fact
Page 87 and 88: will discuss the SEM analysis of th
Page 89 and 90: BFV Hypothesis 4 IdRR->SBV Hypothes
Page 91 and 92: products. Overall, the effects of s
Page 93 and 94: more diverse comparison. China is a
Page 95 and 96: Chapter 4 The Quest for Performance
Page 97 and 98: insurance premiums. Hence, perceptu
Page 99 and 100: theoretical contribution regarding
Page 101 and 102: should reinforce objective measures
Page 103 and 104: Table 4.2 Standardized Regression W
Page 105 and 106: Table 4.5 SEM Results Construct Dir
Page 107: 4.7 Discussion We start this discus
Page 111 and 112: Using the findings of our current s
Page 113 and 114: iii) iv) Indeed, there may not be m
Page 115 and 116: uyer firm performance through a ser
Page 117 and 118: specifically highlighted the import
Page 119 and 120: 5.5 Practical Implications From a m
Page 121 and 122: Summary in English This dissertatio
Page 123 and 124: is that, when developing marketing
Page 125 and 126: isk by 0.98 standard deviations. Su
Page 127 and 128: collectivist culture and a Confucia
Page 129 and 130: Overwegende dat Verhoef en Leeflang
Page 131 and 132: van de waarde te communiceren dat d
Page 133 and 134: erkennen dat dit niet altijd een mo
Page 135 and 136: ij de vraag of cultureel risico voo
Page 137 and 138: Businessweek. (2012). S&P/BusinessW
Page 139 and 140: -industry-09012011.html Grewal, R.,
Page 141 and 142: Langerak, F. (2001). Effects of mar
Page 143 and 144: Quelch, J. (2007). How to brand an
Page 145 and 146: Verhoef, P. C., & Leeflang, P. S. H
Page 147 and 148: 1. The name of the company where yo
Page 149 and 150: 9.The supplier seems to have good i
Page 151 and 152: 17. The supplier takes a very long
Page 153 and 154: 25. If the supplier were to find ou
Page 155 and 156: 33.Does your strategic supplier als
Page 157 and 158: 41.To what degree do those specific
Page 159 and 160:
Supplier Brand Value 51.How likely
Page 161 and 162:
Appendix B Scatter Plot Diagrams fo
Page 163 and 164:
163
show all

Essays on supplier responsiveness and buyer firm value - Nyenrode ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?