Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Upstream supply chain visibility and complexity effect on focal company’s sustainable performance: Indian manufacturers’ perspective

  • SOME
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding supply chain sustainability performance is increasingly important for supply chain researchers and managers. Literature has considered supply chain sustainability and the antecedents of performance from a triple bottom line (economic, social, and environmental) perspective. However, the role of supply chain visibility and product complexity contingency in achieving sustainable supply chain performance has not been explored in depth. To address this gap, this study utilizes a contingent resource-based view theory perspective to understand the role of product complexity in shaping the relationship between upstream supply chain visibility (resources and capabilities) and the social, environmental, and economic performance dimensions. We develop and test a theoretical model using survey data gathered from 312 Indian manufacturing organizations. Our findings indicate that supply chain visibility has significant influence on social and environmental performance under the moderation effect of product complexity. Finally, we have outlined our research limitations and further research opportunities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aitken, J., Bozarth, C., & Garn, W. (2016). To eliminate or absorb supply chain complexity: A conceptual model and case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 21(6), 759–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akhavan, R. M., & Beckmann, M. (2017). A configuration of sustainable sourcing and supply management strategies. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 23(2), 137–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arshinder, K., Kanda, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2008). Supply chain coordination: Perspectives, empirical studies and research directions. International Journal of Production Economics, 115(2), 316–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barratt, M., & Oke, A. (2007). Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply chains: A resource-based theory perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1217–1233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 329–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, R., Muhlemann, A. P., Price, D. H. R., Paterson, A., & Sharp, J. A. (2001). The role of qualitative methods in production management research. International Journal of Production Economics, 74(1), 201–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blome, C., Schoenherr, T., & Rexhausen, D. (2013). Antecedents and enablers of supply chain agility and its effect on performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 51(4), 1295–1318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bode, C., Wagner, S. M., Petersen, K. J., & Ellram, L. M. (2011). Understanding responses to supply chain disruptions: Insights from information processing and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 833–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B. K., Haynes, K. T., Hitt, M. A., Bergh, D. D., & Ketchen, D. J. (2012). Contingency hypotheses in strategic management research use, disuse, or misuse? Journal of Management, 38(1), 278–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, K. K., & Swink, M. L. (2008). Empirical elephants–why multiple methods are essential to quality research in operations and supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 26(3), 338–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozarth, C. C., Warsing, D. P., Flynn, B. B., & Flynn, E. J. (2009). The impact of supply chain complexity on manufacturing plant performance. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1), 78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburg, M., & Rebs, T. (2015). Sustainable supply chain management: A modeling perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 229(1), 213–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon-Jones, E., Squire, B., Autry, C. W., & Petersen, K. J. (2014). A contingent resource-based perspective of supply chain resilience and robustness. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(3), 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braunscheidel, M. J., & Suresh, N. C. (2009). The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), 119–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T. H., & Artz, K. W. (1999). Toward a contingent resource-based theory: The impact of information asymmetry on the value of capabilities in veterinary medicine. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 223–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3), 163–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caniato, F., & Größler, A. (2015). The moderating effect of product complexity on new product development and supply chain management integration. Production Planning and Control, 26(16), 1306–1317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 38(5), 360–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caridi, M., Crippa, L., Perego, A., Sianesi, A., & Tumino, A. (2010a). Measuring visibility to improve supply chain performance: A quantitative approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(4), 593–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caridi, M., Crippa, L., Perego, A., Sianesi, A., & Tumino, A. (2010b). Do virtuality and complexity affect supply chain visibility? International Journal of Production Economics, 127(2), 372–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: The constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management, 22(2), 119–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childe, S. J. (2011). Case studies in operations management. Production Planning and Control, 22(2), 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, T. Y., & Krause, D. R. (2006). The supply base and its complexity: Implications for transaction costs, risks, responsiveness, and innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 24(5), 637–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M. (2000). The agile supply chain: Competing in volatile markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M., & Lee, H. (2004). Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 34(5), 388–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Closs, D. J., Nyaga, G. N., & Voss, M. D. (2010). The differential impact of product complexity, inventory level, and configuration capacity on unit and order fill rate performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28(1), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to non normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological methods, 1(1), 16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debo, L. G., Toktay, L. B., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Market segmentation and product technology selection for remanufacturable products. Management Science, 51(8), 1193–1205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debo, L. G., Toktay, L. B., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006). Joint life-cycle dynamics of new and remanufactured products. Production and Operations Management, 15(4), 498–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2011). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method–2007 update with new internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey, R., & Gunasekaran, A. (2015). Exploring soft TQM dimensions and their impact on firm performance: Some exploratory empirical results. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 371–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., & Ali, S. (2015). Exploring the relationship between leadership, operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance: A framework for green supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 160, 120–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C., & Henke, M. (2015). The performance impact of supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: The moderating effect of product complexity. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3028–3046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1999). Triple bottom-line reporting. Looking for balance. Australian CPA, 69, 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., Gunasekaran, A., & Farahani, R. (2017). Decision models for sustainable supply chain design and management. Annals of Operations Research, 250(2), 277–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, S. E., Waller, M. A., Miller, J. W., Schwieterman, M. A., Hazen, B. T., & Overstreet, R. E. (2014). A trail guide to publishing success: Tips on writing influential conceptual, qualitative, and survey research. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, S. E., Osterhaus, P., Magnan, G. M., Brau, J. C., & McCarter, M. W. (2007). Information sharing and supply chain performance: The role of connectivity and willingness. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(5), 358–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, S. E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A. M., & Magnan, G. M. (2011). Information technology as an enabler of supply chain collaboration: A dynamic-capabilities perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(1), 38–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, M., Ramdas, K., & Ulrich, K. (1999). Component sharing in the management of product variety: A study of automotive braking systems. Management Science, 45(3), 297–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, V. (2008). Supply chain visibility: Lost in translation? Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(3), 180–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, R., Van Wassenhove, L. N., & Atasu, A. (2007). The economics of remanufacturing under limited component durability and finite product life cycles. Management Science, 53(1), 88–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golini, R., Longoni, A., & Cagliano, R. (2014). Developing sustainability in global manufacturing networks: The role of site competence on sustainability performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 448–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Größler, A., & Grübner, A. (2006). An empirical model of the relationships between manufacturing capabilities. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 26(5), 458–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grötsch, V. M., Blome, C., & Schleper, M. C. (2013). Antecedents of proactive supply chain risk management–a contingency theory perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 51(10), 2842–2867.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guide, V. D. R., & Ketokivi, M. (2015). Notes from the editors: Redefining some methodological criteria for the journal. Journal of Operations Management, 37, v–viii.

  • Gunasekaran, A., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Jabbour, A. B. L. S. (2014). Managing organizations for sustainable development in emerging countries: An introduction. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Economy, 21(3), 195–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., & Palsule-Desai, O. D. (2011). Sustainable supply chain management: Review and research opportunities. IIMB Management Review, 23(4), 234–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., & Matos, S. (2010). Incorporating impoverished communities in sustainable supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 40(1/2), 124–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (1983). High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 687–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Xu, K., & Carnes, C. M. (2016). Resource based theory in operations management research. Journal of Operations Management, 41, 77–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcomb, M. C., Ponomarov, S. Y., & Manrodt, K. B. (2011). The relationship of supply chain visibility to firm performance. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 12(2), 32–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2008). An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1688–1698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabbour, C. J. C., Neto, A. S., Gobbo, J. A, Jr., Ribeiro, M. D. S., & De Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. (2015). Eco-innovations in more sustainable supply chains for a low-carbon economy: A multiple case study of human critical success factors in Brazilian leading companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 164, 245–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabbour, C. J. C., Da Silva, E. M., Paiva, E. L., & Santos, F. C. A. (2012). Environmental management in Brazil: Is it a completely competitive priority? Journal of Cleaner Production, 21(1), 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M. A. (2013). Complexity: Toward an empirical measure. Technovation, 33(4), 111–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juttner, U., & Maklan, S. (2011). Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: An empirical study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(4), 246–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kannan, D., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2014). Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 432–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauppi, K. (2013). Extending the use of institutional theory in operations and supply chain management research: Review and research suggestions. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 33(10), 1318–1345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, H., & Singh, S. P. (2016). Sustainable procurement and logistics for disaster resilient supply chain. Annals of Operations Research, 1–46. doi:10.1007/s10479-016-2374-2.

  • Kekre, S., & Srinivasan, K. (1990). Broader product line: A necessity to achieve success? Management Science, 36(10), 1216–1232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D., Rahman, Z., & Chan, F. T. (2016). A fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming model for order allocation in a sustainable supply chain: A case study. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 30(6), 535–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, I. W. G., & Suh, T. (2004). Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in supply chain relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40(1), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, K. H., Wong, C. W., & Lam, J. S. L. (2015). Sharing environmental management information with supply chain partners and the performance contingencies on environmental munificence. International Journal of Production Economics, 164, 445–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. M., & Harrington, T. C. (1990). Measuring nonresponse bias in customer service mail surveys. Journal of Business Logistics, 11(2), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. L., & Whang, S. (2000). Information sharing in a supply chain. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 1(1), 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. L., So, K. C., & Tang, C. S. (2000). The value of information sharing in a two-level supply chain. Management Science, 46(5), 626–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehoux, N., D’Amours, S., & Langevin, A. (2014). Inter-firm collaborations and supply chain coordination: Review of key elements and case study. Production Planning and Control, 25(10), 858–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, G., Liu, W., Wang, Z., & Liu, M. (2016). An empirical examination of energy consumption, behavioral intention, and situational factors: evidence from Beijing. Annals of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10479-016-2202-8.

  • Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling-Yee, L. (2007). Marketing resources and performance of exhibitor firms in trade shows: A contingent resource perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(3), 360–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabert, V. A., & Venkataramanan, M. A. (1998). Special research focus on supply chain linkages: Challenges for design and management in the 21st century. Decision Sciences, 29(3), 537–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maghsoudi, A., & Pazirandeh, A. (2016). Visibility, resource sharing and performance in supply chain relationships: Insights from humanitarian practitioners. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 21(1), 125–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B., & Dubey, R. (2016). Supply chain social sustainability for developing nations: Evidence from India. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 111, 42–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G., & Krause, D. (2014). Special topic forum on theory building surrounding sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(2), i–ii.

  • Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., Heavey, C., & McGrath, P. (2015). Environmental and social supply chain management sustainability practices: Construct development and measurement. Production Planning and Control, 26(8), 673–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2009). Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Mesa, J. C., & Gómez, E. G. (2015). Collaborative firms managing perishable products in a complex supply network: An empirical analysis of performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(2), 128–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Premkumar, G., & King, W. R. (1994). Organizational characteristics and information systems planning: An empirical study. Information Systems Research, 5(2), 75–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quelch, J. A., & Kenny, D. (1994). Extend profits, not product lines. Make Sure All Your Products Are Profitable, Harvard Business Review, 72(5), 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravichandran, T., & Lertwongsatien, C. (2005). Effect of information systems resources and capabilities on firm performance: A resource-based perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(4), 237–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In R. Lamb (Ed.), Competitive strategic management (pp. 556–570). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sezen, B. (2008). Relative effects of design, integration and information sharing on supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(3), 233–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(13), 1375–1394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, M. L., Fisher, R., Wang, J. L., & Cui, L. B. (2016). Environmental performance evaluation with big data: Theories and methods. Annals of Operations Research. doi:10.1007/s10479-016-2158-8.

  • Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2008). Contingency research in operations management practices. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), 697–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, A. K., Lai, K. H., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2016). A multi-research-method approach to studying environmental sustainability in retail operations. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 394–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Guardian (2013). https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/18/walmart-bangladesh-factories-fail-safety-review. Accessed 30 June 2015.

  • Trotta, M. G. (2010). Product lifecycle management: Sustainability and knowledge management as keys in a complex system of product development. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 3(2), 309–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, H. L., & Wang, E. T. (2010). The strategic value of supply chain visibility: Increasing the ability to reconfigure. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 238–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, F., Yeniyurt, S., Kim, D., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). The impact of information technology on supply chain capabilities and firm performance: A resource-based view. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(4), 493–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. (2011). Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 577–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G., & Premkumar, R. (2012). Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in Malaysia: A survey. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 330–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, H., & Benton, W. C. (2007). Supply chain practice and information sharing. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1348–1365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, K., & Kraemer, K. L. (2002). E-commerce metrics for net-enhanced organizations: Assessing the value of e-commerce to firm performance in the manufacturing sector. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 275–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2004). Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 265–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2008). Green supply chain management implications for closing the loop. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are extremely thankful to Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Guest Editor and two reviewers for their input. However, it would be injustice on our part if we do not convey our sincere thanks to Professor Nachiappan Subramanian for his detailed inputs on our paper which has helped us to improve the presentation and quality of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Montpellier Business School, Montpellier Research in Management, 2300 Avenue des Moulins, 34000, Montpellier, France

    Rameshwar Dubey & David Roubaud

  2. Charlton College of Business, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, 02747-2300, USA

    Angappa Gunasekaran

  3. Plymouth Business School, Plymouth University, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK

    Stephen J. Childe

  4. Kent Business School, University of Kent, Sail and Colour Loft, The Historic Dockyard, Chatham, ME4 4TE, Kent, UK

    Thanos Papadopoulos

  5. Computer Science and Engineering, South University of Science and Technology of China, 1088 Xueyuan Blvd., Shenzen, 518055, Guangdong, China

    Zongwei Luo

Authors
  1. Rameshwar Dubey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angappa Gunasekaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen J. Childe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thanos Papadopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zongwei Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Roubaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Angappa Gunasekaran or Zongwei Luo.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Construct

Indicator

Item

Supply chain connectivity (SCC)

SC1

Current information systems satisfy supply chain communication requirements

SC2

Information applications are highly integrated within the firm and supply chain

SC3

Adequate information systems linkages exist with supply chain partners

Information sharing (IS)

IS1

Our organization exchanges relevant information with the partners

IS2

Our organization exchanges timely information with the partners

IS3

Our organization exchanges accurate information with partners

IS4

Our organization exchanges confidential information with partners

IS5

Our organization exchanges confidential information with partners

Supply chain visibility (SCV)

SCV1

Inventory levels are visible throughout the supply chain

SCV2

Demand levels are visible throughout the supply chain

Product complexity (PC)

PC1

We offer our customers diverse add-ons and the option of production individualization

PC2

Our product consists of a high number of components

PC3

We frequently offer new product variants

Social performance (SP)

SP1

Our organization believes in gender equality

SP2

Our organization pays significant attention to the mortality rate of the daily wage workers children

SP3

Our organization believes in poverty reduction

SP4

Our organization pays significant attention to the nutritional status of the meal served in the canteen

SP5

Our organization pays significant attention to the sanitation at work place, offices and lavatories

SP6

Our organization ensures adequate safe drinking water facility

SP7

Our organization pays significant attention to effective health care delivery

SP9

Our organization helps to find proper residence for employees

SP10

Our organization provides adequate transport facility from residence to the work-place

SP11

Our organization pays significant attention to the living conditions of the employees

Environmental performance (EP)

EP1

Our organization has adopted adequate measures for reduction of air emissions

EP2

Our organization has adopted adequate measures for re-cycling waste water

EP3

Our organization has adopted adequate measures to prevent discharge of solid waste

EP4

Our organization has adopted adequate measures to prevent consumption of hazardous harmful toxic materials

EP5

Our organization has adopted adequate measures to reduce the frequency of environmental accidents

EP6

Our organization has made a significant effort to improve an enterprise’s environmental situation

Economic performance (ECOP)

ECOP1

Decrease of cost for materials purchasing

ECOP2

Decrease of cost for energy consumption

ECOP3

Decrease of fee for waste treatment

ECOP4

Decrease of fee for waste discharge

ECOP5

Decrease of fine for environmental accidents

Appendix 2: Exploratory factor analysis

 

ECOP

PC

SCV

IS

SP

SC

EP

 

SC1

     

0.74

  

SC2

     

0.80

  

SC3

     

0.78

  

IS1

   

0.59

    

IS2

   

0.88

    

IS3

   

0.88

    

IS4

   

0.97

    

IS5

        

SCV1

  

0.90

     

SCV2

  

0.90

     

PC1

 

0.91

      

PC2

 

0.90

      

PC3

 

0.98

      

SP1

    

0.69

   

SP3

    

0.80

   

SP4

    

0.85

   

SP5

    

0.81

   

SP6

    

0.87

   

SP7

    

0.95

   

SP9

    

0.56

   

SP10

    

0.61

   

SP11

    

0.69

   

SP12

        

EP1

      

0.87

 

EP2

      

0.68

 

EP3

      

0.89

 

EP4

      

0.85

 

EP5

      

0.81

 

EP6

      

0.79

 

ECOP1

0.94

       

ECOP2

0.95

       

ECOP3

0.94

       

ECOP4

0.93

       

ECOP5

0.94

       
 

4.42

2.60

1.63

2.84

5.33

1.79

4.02

22.64

 

12.29

7.23

4.54

7.90

14.81

4.96

11.18

 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J. et al. Upstream supply chain visibility and complexity effect on focal company’s sustainable performance: Indian manufacturers’ perspective. Ann Oper Res 290, 343–367 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2544-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2544-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation