Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business

intelligence perspective
Mohua Banerjee a,n, Manit Mishra b
a
International Management Institute IMI Kolkata 2/4C, Judges Court Rd, Alipore, Kolkata 700027, West Bengal, India
b
International Management Institute IMI Bhubaneswar Gothapatna, Bhubaneswar 751003, Odisha, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The study surveyed executives of a major food retailer in India and explored their perspectives on supply
Received 9 December 2014 chain management practices, competitive advantage and rm performance; to assess the importance
Received in revised form accorded to application of business intelligence (BI) in their operations. Nine dimensions for SCM
21 September 2015
practices and four dimensions for competitive advantage are identied which are found to strongly relate
Accepted 25 September 2015
to each other. The dimensions of SCM also strongly relate to rm performance. Though information
sharing with suppliers and their inclusion in strategic decision-making emerge as key dimensions of
Keywords: SCM, their impact on competitive advantage is perceived to be insignicant by retailers.
Supply chain management & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Business intelligence
Emerging market
Food retailer
Competitive advantage
Firm performance

1. Introduction One important problem of managing SCM practice is handling

The understanding and execution of supply chain management
(SCM) practices have a key role for an organization in staying
competitive and for enhancing protability in the increasingly
competitive global marketplace (Childhouse and Towill, 2003).
Existing literature consistently uses terms such as supplier in-
tegration, supply base management, synchronization, partnerships
and supply chain management to dene elements of this man-
agement viewpoint (Tan et al., 1998; La Londe and Masters, 1994).
The concept and practice of SCM has received increasing attention
amongst business managers, consultants and academicians
(Hamister, 2012). The implementation of SCM practices is not
conned to manufacturing rms only (Li et al., 2006), it has spread
its wings in the retail sector also (Randall et al., 2011). In the
modern and competitive retail environment, SCM is the key to
success and survival (Arnold, 2002; Ganesan et al., 2009). Previous
studies have identied several antecedents and consequences of
SCM practices in numerous contexts. Though the Supply-Chain
Council has developed a supply-chain operations reference model
as a cross-industry standard for supply chain management, it does
not describe specic activities and practices and its impact on rm
performance.
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.banerjee@imi-k.edu.in (M. Banerjee),
manit.mishra@imibh.edu.in (M. Mishra).
the huge amount of information regarding its members (e.g.
manufacturers, distributors, sales agents, retailers) and therefore
coordinating their current business. SCM is inuenced by the in-
formation associated with each business, where the several in-
teractions between the business processes may be coordinated
and the product ows can be continually supervised (Filos and
Banahan, 2000). Yet as organizations rely more heavily on in-
formation, its usage in an efcient and effective manner becomes
tough. Rather than assisting an organization's core objective of
taking swift and responsive decisions, more information hampers
the process. In this perspective, the business intelligence (BI)
paradigm has been introduced. BI is dened as the process of
procuring digital information regarding the entire organization
so that it may be used for providing competitive advantage
(Malhotra, 2000). BI is an important component for effective
supply chain management practice (Rabelo et al., 2002). In SCM
context, BI entails the extent and nature of information sharing.
As an emerging market India has occupied 20th position in the
Global Retail Development Index (Kearney, 2014) and remained a
high-potential market with accelerated retail growth of 14% to 15%
expected over 2015 as per the previous Global Retail Development
Index (Kearney, 2013). The Indian retail market is broadly classi-
ed as unorganized/traditional retail which is made up of open
bazaars/haats' and corner stores called kiranas', and organized/
modern retail, which resembles the modern Western-style su-
permarkets and department stores. Modern retail is limited to 8%
in 2014 (Kearney, 2014). Among other factors, expensive supply

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009
0969-6989/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
2 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()
chain has been identied as a concern for modern retailers. It is a
necessity for Indian retailers to focus on factors and strategies that
will aid them in gaining competitive advantage (Singh et al., 2010)
and they are now concentrating on improving operations and
back-end processes to increase protability (Kearney, 2014).
There has not been any signicant study on supply chain
practices in India (Austin, 1990) and till recent times supply chain
practices in India exhibit inadequate visibility (Srivastava, 2006). A
study of the forms and dynamics of the dispersion of modern food
retail in India has traced the phenomenon since the 1960s and
identied domestic capital investment, early diversication into
small formats and early penetration into tier-two, tier-three cities
and rural areas, as factors that have facilitated the growth (Rear-
don and Minten, 2011). As modern retail is an emerging phe-
nomenon in India, there has been no ofcial statistics based on
comprehensive inventory of sales of modern or traditional re-
tailers available for their study; hence the form of their data is
small samples and more on the lines of business case study re-
search to extract an overall image of the phenomenon. Researchers
have focused on demand side effectiveness and studies have
monitored the factors that affect non-vegetarian food consump-
tion behavior among consumers in the state of Odisha (India)
where organized retailing is in its early stages (Kumar and Kapoor,
2014); buying behavior of consumers with respect to food and
grocery items (Ali et al., 2010). A study of SCM practices in the
Indian industry encompassing diverse segments such as agro
products, automotive, chemicals/fertilizers, computer hardware,
etc., along with retail, has recommended aligning supply chain
strategy with business strategy, streamlining processes for supply
chain integration, forming partnerships for minimizing inventory
and focusing on infrastructure and technology deployment for
building India-specic supply chains (Sahay and Mohan, 2003).
Researchers aiming to identify structural and relational factors
that inuence the upstream channel management of organized
retailers in India have identied government regulations, in-
formational transparency, and long-term orientation fostering
trust between channel partners leading to collaborative partner-
ships as key factors (Dabas et al., 2010). However researchers have
not focused on the aspect of retailers developing their supply side
efciencies through BI implementation, though the studies sug-
gest that managers and executives should devote sufcient
thought to implementing a policy of information sharing in the
process of SCM execution and to augment the specic competitive
strengths of the organization (Pandey et al., 2010).
This research is a survey initiative to study contemporary SCM
practices in the Indian retail context and in particular, the extent
and nature of information sharing among retail channel members
for enabling BI usage. The study also relates the dimensions of SCM
practices to the retail rm's competitive advantage and rm per-
formance. The survey respondents were managers and executives
of a food chain retailer with operations mostly conned to eastern
and southern India.
The subsequent section examines existing literature in the
global as well as the Indian supply chain management context. In
the succeeding sections the research constructs are dened,
characteristics of the respondents are described and the survey
methodology is provided. It is followed by an analysis of the
results and concluded with the managerial implications of the
study.
2. Supply chain management dened
SCM is dened as identifying the strategic nature of coordina-
tion within a specic organization and across trading partners
within the supply chain for the purpose of improving an individual
Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
organization's performance and the performance of the whole
supply chain (Li et al., 2006). It encompasses all activities related
to design, developing, synthesis, establishment and control of
supply chains (Chan and Qi, 2003). Each linkage in a supply chain
signies a relationship between a specic customer and a specic
supplier; purpose of this association being to provide delivery
requirements of the immediate customer and subsequently to
replicate the practice throughout the supply chain for the benet
of the end consumer (Towers and Burnes, 2008). In the existing
research studies the concept of SCM has been studied from two
separate perspectives: purchasing and supply management, and
transportation and logistics management (Tan et al., 1998). As per
the purchasing and supply management perspective, SCM is de-
ned by the integration of supply base that developed from the
traditional procuring and materials functions (Baneld, 1999).
From the perspective of transportation and logistics management,
SCM is dened by the integrated logistics systems and thus focuses
on inventory reduction, spanning both within and across the or-
ganizations that are part of the supply chain (Rudberg and Olha-
ger, 2003). In due course the philosophy of SCM developed and
combined into a collective body of knowledge that incorporated
the entire gamut of value-adding activities of the manufacturers
and logistics providers (Tan, 2001).
It is recognized that since SCM has rm-level consequences, it
is necessary to measure the effects of SCM practices on an orga-
nization's performance measures (Green et al., 2006). The issue
pertaining to which dimensions are specically related to SCM
practice and nally to a rm's overall performance has largely
gone unnoticed (Mentzer et al., 2004). Challenges exist in terms of
identifying appropriate performance measures for the analysis of
the supply chain (Akyuz and Erkan, 2010). Past studies (Li et al.,
2006) have reported the impact of SCM practice on salient con-
structs like rm performance and competitive advantages. Their
study has identied strategic supplier partnership, customer re-
lationship, level of information sharing, quality of information
sharing and postponement to represent SCM practices. Ganesan
et al. (2009) examined how retailers are considering factors be-
yond their organizational limits to improve and leverage the
competencies of their supply chain partners to create greater value
and competitive advantages. They identied three trends that af-
fect retail supply chains: global sourcing practices, multichannel
route to market and relationship-based innovation. Moberg et al.
(2002) identied both the quality and quantity aspects of in-
formation sharing as important aspects for effective SCM practices
and have treated both constructs as independent. In their study on
relationships among supply chain practices, competitive ad-
vantage and organizational performance, Singh et al. (2010) in-
cluded in their list of SCM practices: technology use, SC speed,
customer satisfaction, supply chain integration and inventory
management.
In the developed markets, the growth of value/discount re-
tailers has led to a fundamental transition in marketplace power
from manufacturers to retailers (Arnold, 2002; Srinivasan, 2004).
With the evolution of power on the demand side, it has become
important to understand SCM from a retail perspective (Davies,
2009). Retail SCM (R-SCM) has received inadequate coverage in
retailing journals (Randall et al., 2011). The articles that are
available on retail SCM incline to be focused on particular aspects
only, e.g. dealing with traditional inter-rm relationship issues
inclusive of power (Bloom and Perry, 2001), partnering (Mentzer
et al., 2004), co-ordination (Ingene and Parry, 2000), conict
management (Bradford et al., 2004), guaranteed prot margin
programs (Lee and Rhee, 2008) and automatic replenishment
(Levy and Grewal, 2000). This single-point focus of retail research
is predictable and has its reasons. Rather than develop as a holistic
research domain, retail SCM research has been an off-shoot of
 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()
research on other critical areas like manufacturing and distribu-
tion, and consumer product marketing.
3. Business intelligence and decision making in supply chain
management
In an emerging and rapidly changing business environment,
organizations that have the competency to leverage information
about their customers, marketplace and business operations will
be able to benet from the business opportunities and achieve
sustained competitive advantage (Berson et al., 2002). Firms need
to essentially examine accurate and timely information in a sce-
nario where global markets are getting increasingly competitive,
consumers and market places are exhibiting greater volatility and
product life cycles are gradually shortening (Gangadharan and
Swamy, 2004). For monitoring activities and assessing perfor-
mance of a rm's business processes, the rm needs access to
information and also an effective data management mechanism.
The information systems collect and process enormous data in
various forms in the rms and understanding and assessing the
information about the processes of an organization becomes a
challenging proposition. BI encompasses an extensive range of
analytical software and solutions for gathering, consolidating,
analyzing and providing access to information in a manner that is
expected to facilitate an enterprise's employees make better de-
cisions (Adelman et al., 2002).
If a rm faces no problem with data and the business operates
smoothly and data is available to relevant executives as per their
need, then the rm does not need BI (Whitehorn and Whitehorn,
1999). However when an organization is growing and the number
of customers is consistently increasing, then there emerges a need
to understand the reports in order to monitor the trends, market
potentials, growth segments and customer behavior changes. For
forecasting trends and forming strategies, analysis of cross-tabu-
lated data is essential. BI decision support applications facilitate
many such multi-dimensional analysis like online analytical pro-
cessing (OLAP), click-stream analysis, balanced scorecard pre-
paration, visualization, querying, reporting and charting, data
mining for text content and voice, forecasting, geospatial analysis,
enterprise portal implementation, knowledge management, digi-
tal dashboard access and other cross-functional activities. In es-
sence, the purpose of investing in BI is to transform a rm from a
reactive-to-data environment to one that is pro-active.
However it cannot be ignored that though more retailers in
India today are focusing on major investments in their organiza-
tions, retail businesses in India are still striving to achieve com-
petitive advantage. While the aforesaid review highlights the
benets of BI applications in businesses, it also makes vitally ob-
vious that businesses must rstly have access to the right in-
formation at the right time before it can be put to effective usage
through BI. Availability of timely and accurate information is cru-
cial to a rm's ability to leverage it using BI for gaining protable
insights in business. This context provides the impetus for the
present study to examine the extent to which retail rms in India
collect and integrate relevant information, so that they can sub-
sequently leverage the information through BI implementation in
their SCM practices.
4. Supply chain management in the context of India's retail
environment
Strong microeconomic conditions including a 5% GDP growth
rate, higher disposal incomes and rapid urbanization are the
causes favoring the growth in Indian retail environment (Kearney,
Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
3
2013). India not only has the highest number of retail outlets per
person (7 per thousand), but also registers the highest density of
retail outlets in the world with more than 15 million outlets as
compared to 900,000 in America (Halepete and Iyer, 2008). Indian
retail sector contributes to 22% of India's GDP. The government of
India currently allows 51% (from 0%) and 100% (from 51%) foreign
direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand and single brand retail re-
spectively. These changes in FDI regulations are attracting foreign
retailers and accelerating the growth in the Indian retail sector. To
maintain this growth and reap the benets of the reformed FDI
policy, Government of India has taken cognizance of the role of
retail infrastructure, including supply chain. Indian supply chain
suffers from poor infrastructure and consequently the Indian
government has mandated that half of the total FDI investment in
Indian retailing must be allotted for the back-end infrastructure
that includes the supply chain.
In India, presently low protability, high overheads and in-
adequate investment in technology are the constraints of modern
retail. Modern retail sector is not optimally using information that
is being collected by prevailing information technology (IT) sys-
tems. Current strategies are based on intuitive approaches as the
data generated in the different systems within an organization
lacks integration and therefore making predictions on customers'
future behavior, demand forecast, or gaining insights on the dy-
namics of market shifts becomes challenging. Quality analytics is
possible by using effective data warehousing, data mining and
business intelligence applications, and retailers are exploring
technology-based solutions to analyze structured data from dif-
ferent applications spanning operations like strategic sourcing,
procurement, logistics and warehousing, merchandising and pro-
motion, shelf-space management, customer service, back-end
process, sales and marketing process, and nancial management.
They are also contemplating analysis of unstructured data from
social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Google, web logs, mobile
devices, etc.
Indian retail practitioners have established a retail SCM sub-
discipline with earmarked careers and annual professional con-
ferences (e.g. India Retail Forum, East India Retail Summit, India
Shopping Centre Forum) but SCM researchers have taken awhile to
address the retailer-centric business model and there is an in-
sufcient number of studies that address SCM issues, capabilities
and outcomes (Defee et al., 2009) and business intelligence in-
tegration in SCM processes. The aforesaid literature has examined
SCM practices from different perspectives and this knowledge gap
is unanticipated in the context of the critical nature of SCM to
success in the context of Indian retail (Brown et al., 2005; Ganesan
et al., 2009).This gap is the basis of the motivation to develop the
following objectives of this study: to explore retail SCM practice in
India with a special focus on the extent and nature of information
sharing that enables BI; and relate these SCM practices to the retail
rm's performance.
5. Research constructs
5.1. SCM practices
Previous research has dened SCM practice as a set of activities
undertaken in an organization for promotion of effective man-
agement of its supply chain. Existing studies conducted pre-
dominantly in the USA have indicated possible dimensions of SCM
practices. Alvarado and Kotzab (2001) in their study of SCM
practices have included concentration on core competencies, use
of inter organizational systems such as EDI, and elimination of
excess inventory levels by postponing customization towards the
end of the supply chain. Li et al. (2006) have identied strategic
4 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()
supplier partnership, customer relationship, level of information
sharing, level of information quality and postponement as factors
to measure SCM practices. Tan et al. (2002) studied the prevalent
supply chain management and supplier evaluation practices and
found supply chain integration, information sharing, supply chain
characteristics, customer service management, geographical
proximity and JIT capability as the six constructs of SCM practices.
With an underlying common goal of eventually improving a rm's
performance, existing literature describes SCM practices from a
range of different dimensions. A detailed discussion of the possible
dimensions that could emerge in this study of SCM practices in
Indian retail has been provided below.
Organizations that strategically align to each other can elim-
inate wasteful time and effort by working closely together (Bals-
meier and Voisin, 1996). When organizations enter into strategic
partnerships with suppliers, they are in a position to work more
effectively with a limited number of key suppliers who are
agreeable to share the responsibility of the product's success (Li
et al., 2006). An effective supply partnership is a critical element of
a successful supply chain (Noble, 1997). The long term relationship
that exists between an organization and its suppliers identies a
strategic supplier relationship.
Relationship management with customers is becoming funda-
mental for an organization's survival with the transition into a
period of mass customization and personalized service (Wines,
1996). An organization can differentiate its product from its
competitors' offering, maintain customer loyalty and increase the
value it provides to its customers by maintaining a good customer
relationship (Magretta, 1998). Dedicated relationships pose an
intrinsic barrier to competition and hence provide the most sus-
tainable advantage (Day, 2000). The entire gamut of practices that
an organization employs in order to improve customer satisfac-
tion, handle customer complaints and build long-term relation-
ships with customers describes its customer relationship (Clay-
comb et al., 1999).
The degree to which the success of an individual organization
in a supply chain relationship is dependent on the activities of the
other organizations indicates their interdependence (Larson,
1992). Interdependence between the organizations comprising a
supply chain facilitates cooperation. Cooperation between suppli-
ers and customers in a relationship is an important attribute
(Pilling and Zhang, 1992). An integrated suppliercustomer re-
lationship exhibits exibility between the two organizations
(Dahlstrom et al., 1996). Integration within the supply chain takes
into account the role of inter-organizational systems. Modern and
rened information systems connect separate organizations (Samli
et al., 1998). IT can be used effectively for promoting integration
between organizations such as groups of suppliers and customers
that are organized into networks. Companies that operate their
SCM processes as an integrated system rather than optimized
functional sub-systems gain cost benets (Stock et al., 2000). To
compete effectively, supply chains act as a cohesive entity and
modify from a group of unrelated units to an asset of units that act
as a productive enterprise.
Sharing a certain level of trust simplies information sharing
between involved partners and helps in maintaining long term
relationships. This results in improvement in knowledge man-
agement and overall benets to the organization (Grifth et al.,
2006). Involvement of customers during the early stages results in
an effective supply chain (Divett et al., 2003). The identication of
additional supply chain amongst the suppliers, customers and
buyers and their early involvement during the product/service
design stage (concurrent engineering) helps in reduction of lead
time (Celtek and Kaynak, 1999). Strategically selecting the sup-
pliers and aligning the purchasing function with the organization's
strategic orientation, keeping the long term issues of the
Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
organization in mind, and providing adequate knowledge of the
organization's strategic goal to the suppliers help an organization
achieve competitive advantage (Chen and Paulraj, 2004a, 2004b).
The extent to which the supply chain is either focused or dis-
tributed geographically most likely has a major effect on the de-
cision making authority and coordination within the organization
(Stock et al., 2000). Coordination of the supply chain is required in
the physical movement of products from one location to another.
Greater distances and a wider range of locations separating the
constituents of the supply chain is therefore likely to have sig-
nicant consequences for the management of the supply chain
(Stock et al., 2000). The extent to which the units in an organi-
zation's supply chain including suppliers, production facilities,
distributors and customers are located across a range of geo-
graphic regions indicate its geographical proximity. An organiza-
tion with high geographic dispersion would show a low propor-
tion of supply chain units within an individual geographic area; on
the other hand low geographic dispersion would reveal a high
proportion of supply chain units within one area and low pro-
portions in other areas.
From a supply chain perspective, inventory levels should be
optimized, because maintenance of inventory is expensive and
poses problems (Piplani and Fu, 2005). Inventory cost is measured
in terms of the cost associated with management of inventory in
stocks and loss of sales due to shortage of inventory accounting for
lost sales (Agarwal and Shanker, 2002). JIT purchasing does not
mean pushing back inventories on suppliers (Adair-Heeley, 1988);
rather it emphasizes reduction in inventory levels throughout the
supply chain. JIT is the capability of an organization to directly link
its supply strategy to the organization's overall strategy by
agreements that strengthen buyersupplier cooperation (Polakoff,
1992). For utilizing a JIT system, shorter delivery times are man-
datory and point-of-sales data are essential to know which pro-
ducts require prompt replenishment.
The level of communication of proprietary and important in-
formation to one's supply chain partners (quantity aspect) denotes
the level of information sharing (Monczka et al., 1998). It is pos-
sible for supply chain partners who on a regular basis exchange
information, to work as a single entity. Together they can com-
prehend the needs of the end customer better and this enables
them to respond to market changes quicker (Stein and Sweat,
1998). Information sharing builds trust among channel members
(Henriott, 1999). It also offsets the risks pertaining to market and
demand uncertainty and enables reduction in the bullwhip effect
(Yu et al., 2001). Functional silos that exist within a company affect
the ow of materials and information in the same manner as
multi-rms do in the supply chain (Chandra and Kumar, 2000).
Effective usage of pertinent and timely information by all the
functional elements within a supply chain can be used as a dis-
tinguishing factor to build competitive advantage (Tompkins and
Ang, 1999; Jones, 1998; Novack et al., 1995).
It has been observed that several organizations have an intrinsic
reluctance to provide information beyond the minimal requirement
since information disclosure is taken as a loss of power (Berry et al.,
1994). The impact of the quality of information sharing on SCM
depends on what type of information is shared, with whom it is
shared, and when and how it is shared (Chizzo, 1998; Holmberg,
2000). Ensuring the quality of the shared information becomes a
critical aspect of effective SCM (Feldmann and Mller, 2003). The
accuracy, timeliness, adequacy and credibility of the exchanged
information affect the quality of the information that is shared
(Moberg et al., 2002; Monczka et al., 1998).
However despite the signicance and theoretical development
of SCM, in the Indian context there is inadequate research on how
Indian retailers/SCM practitioners assess their suppliers, dene
and implement SCM practices and how these practices impact
 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()
rm performance. Also, there is insufcient mention of the im-
portance to the retailer, regarding the level and quality of in-
formation sharing among the retail channel partners that conse-
quently enables their BI systems. This research investigates these
issues to evaluate their relevance for Indian retailers based on
empirical data collected from an Indian organized food retailer. For
the purpose of this study, by discussions with Indian managers
operating in corporate ofce and in stores, and with store execu-
tives, along with reviewing and combining the existing literature,
36 SCM practices have been identied (Appendix, Section I). These
included practices related to management issues of supply and
product management, relationship with their customers, in-
formation sharing, technology sharing, geographical location and
capability issues of partners in the supply chain.
5.2. Competitive advantage
Empirical literature is replete with factors like price/cost,
quality, delivery and exibility as possible dimensions of compe-
titive competencies (Skinner, 1985; Roth and Miller, 1990). In de-
scribing a research framework for competitive competencies
Koufteros et al. (1997) have proposed competitive pricing, pre-
mium pricing, value to customer quality, dependable delivery and
production innovation. Competitive advantage refers to the level
to which an organization can create a secure position over its
competitors (McGinnis and Vallopra, 1999). It consists of compe-
tencies that allow an organization to differentiate itself from its
competitors and is an outcome of certain critical management
decisions (Tracey et al., 1999). Based on deliberations with Indian
retail practitioners and review of the existing literature, a total of
16 items for related to price/cost, quality, delivery dependability,
product innovation and time to market have been considered for
this study (Appendix, Section II).
5.3. Firm performance
While the short-term objectives of SCM are primarily to reduce
inventory and cycle time, and increase productivity, the long-term
objectives are to increase market share and prots for all units
comprising the supply chain (Tan et al., 1998). Past studies indicate
that nancial metrics have been used as tools for comparing orga-
nizations and assessing an organization's performance (Holmberg,
2000). Financial performance measures are more likely to reect a
rm's evaluation by factors external to the rm. Firm performance
denotes to what extent the organization attains its market-oriented
goals as well as its nancial goals (Yamin et al., 1999). Organiza-
tional performance is improved by any organizational initiative
undertaken on its SCM. Previous studies have proposed rm per-
formance using both nancial and market criteria, including return
on investment, market share, prot margin on sales, growth of ROI,
growth of sales, market share and competitive position (Vickery
et al., 1999; Stock et al., 2000). Based on the existing literature and
insights from senior managers a total of seven dimensions are
considered for this study (Appendix, Section III).
6. Research methodology
6.1. Objectives
The study endeavored to explore the constructs of SCM, com-
petitive advantage and rm performance in Indian conditions. The
objectives of the study are as follows:
(1) To identify the underlying dimensions of the constructs: SCM
practices and competitive advantage.
Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
5
(2) To determine importance of sharing information with suppli-
ers as an SCM practice among food retailers.
(3) To assess the relationship between the constructs of SCM
practices and competitive advantage; and, SCM practices and
rm performance.
Hypotheses 1 and Hypotheses 2 have been formulated to
attain the objective.
(4) To assess retail executives' perspective on whether BI can
enable the SCM practices of the company to contribute to-
wards competitive advantage.
Objectives (a) and (b) were achieved by using exploratory
factor analysis (EFA). Objectives (c) and (d) were attained through
determination of bivariate correlations.
6.2. Respondent's prole
Modern retail is still an emerging phenomenon in India and so
this study is an attempt to derive a general impression of the
supply chain management practices and its relevance from the BI
perspective, of a particular retailer on the lines of business case
study research. For the study a specic retailer with operations in
eastern, southern and a recent foray in northern India has been
chosen. The retail business is a part of the Business Conglomerate's
Rs.15,000 crore businesses in eastern India, and has 127 stores in
2014 out of which 33 are hypermarkets with store size in excess of
20,000 ft2 and employs more than 7,000 people. The retailer has
been operating with the supermarket format since 2001 and has
achieved several awards (Most Admired Food and Grocery Retailer
of the Year Award for Largest Expansion, Highest Trading Density,
and Same Store Sales Growth 2014; Best Visual Merchandising and
Retail Design in the category Hypermarket [ 415,000 ft2] 2014;
Most Admired Retail Company of the Year (East India) at the East
India Retail Summit 2013, etc.). The retailer has recently hired the
services of Boston Consulting Group to enhance processes and
capabilities such as space management and analytics in order to
grow the business at a faster pace and become competitive. Hence
a detailed understanding of the retailer's SCM practices including
the extent and nature of information sharing the rm undertakes
that enables BI systems, and relating these SCM practices to the
rm's performance forms the basis of this study. A survey ques-
tionnaire has been used as a primary instrument to collect in-
formation. The study proposed 500 executives as respondents
with random sampling. A snowball sampling process was used.
The randomness of the sample was protected by ensuring that the
choice of each sampling unit was not preconceived and that each
sampling unit was selected independent of the selection of any
other sampling unit. The proposed sample size is justied on the
basis of minimum requirements of statistical tools to be used in
the study. The questionnaire was sent to the Indian food chain
retail CEO operating in eastern and southern regions of India, in
convenience, supermarket and hypermarket format. He forwarded
the questionnaire to their professionals (executive directors, gen-
eral managers, deputy managers and store executives) operating
in the supply management, transportation, logistics and IT func-
tions in eastern and southern India. The reason for this approach is
that mid-level managers were hesitant to provide information for
the survey as they were indecisive in determining what informa-
tion was condential to their business and what could be shared.
The CEO was proactive in his role and as an initiator of the orga-
nization-building process, had his focus on understanding the
concerns existing within the supply chain. He was forthcoming in
using his authority to direct the appropriate personnel to make
available specic information for the survey. Respondents were
asked to indicate the activities included as part of their rm's
supply chain management efforts. 481 responses were received for
6 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

supply chain management practices, competitive advantage and 7.2. Item generation
organizational performance.
The item generation for the three constructs relied on both
popular and theoretical notions. In exploratory research, a con-
venience sample of 20 retail practitioners and academicians in the
7. Statistical analysis eld of retail SCM was asked to describe in an open-ended format
the key aspects of SCM practices, competitive advantage and rm
7.1. Hypotheses performance. Frequently mentioned descriptions were converted
into items. Another source of items was adaptation from earlier
In order to fulll the objectives of the study, following hy- studies in which these constructs have been used (see Li et al.,
potheses were formulated and put to test: 2006; Day, 2000; Yu et al., 2001; Feldmann and Mller, 2003;
Stock et al., 2000; Grifth et al., 2006; Piplani and Fu, 2005;
H1. : There is a signicant relationship between the constructs of McGinnis and Vallopra, 1999; Holmberg, 2000). The process led to
SCM practices and competitive advantage. identication of 36 items for SCM practices, 16 items for compe-
titive advantage and seven items for rm performance. A Likert
H2. : There is a signicant relationship between the constructs of scale format was used for all items with response categories ran-
SCM practices and rm performance. ging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), for SCM

Table 1
Exploratory factor analysis of supply chain management practices items.

# Factor (Variance explained)/Item Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Supply chain characteristics (42.5%)

1 We work on suppliers' on-time delivery directly to our points of use. .855
2 We communicate our future strategic needs to our suppliers. .809
3 We work on creating a greater level of trust among supply chain members. .809
4 We work on locating closer to our customers. .732
5 We work on identifying additional supply chain. .697
6 We participate in the marketing efforts of our customers. .552
Level of information sharing (8.85%)
1 Our trading partners keep us fully informed about issues that affect our business. .749
2 Our trading partners share business knowledge of core business processes with us. .731
3 Information exchange between our trading partners and us is reliable. .662
4 We inform trading partners in advance of changing needs. .637
5 We and our trading partners exchange information that helps establishment of business planning. .566
6 Information exchange between our trading partners and us is adequate. .562
7 We and our trading partners keep each other informed about events or changes that may affect the other .508
partners.
Customer relationship (7.6%)
1 We frequently measure and evaluate customer satisfaction. .873
2 We facilitate customers' ability to seek assistance from us. .856
3 We frequently interact with customers to set reliability, responsiveness and other standards for us. .855
4 We frequently determine future customer expectations. .777
5 We periodically evaluate the importance of our relationship with our customers. .497
Supply chain integration (5.3%)
1 We reduce response time across the supply chain. .811
2 We work on improving integration activities across supply chain. .791
3 We work on creating a compatible communication/information system. .715
4 We search for new ways to integrate SCM activities. .674
5 We work on establishing more frequent contact with supply chain members. .565
Quality of information sharing (5%)
1 Information exchange between our trading partners and us is accurate. .733
2 Information exchange between our trading partners and us is timely. .704
3 Information exchange between our trading partners and us is complete. .693
4 We regularly solve problems jointly with our suppliers. .565
JIT capabilities (4.1%)
1 We aid our suppliers to increase their JIT capabilities. .793
2 We require suppliers to locate closer to our rm. .679
3 We work on increasing our rm's JIT capabilities. .563
Inclusion in strategic decision making (3.8%)
1 We include our key suppliers in our planning and goal-setting activities. .771
2 We have continuous improvement programs that include our key suppliers. .763
Involvement in product quality & development (3.4%)
1 We consider quality as our number one criterion in selecting suppliers. .798
2 We have helped our suppliers to improve their product quality. .668
Mutual trustworthiness (2.9%)
1 Our trading partners share proprietary information with us. .558
2 We actively involve our key suppliers in new product development processes. .516

Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 13 iterations.

Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services () 7

practices and competitive advantage. For rm's overall perfor- Table 2

mance, the response categories ranged from signicant decrease Exploratory factor analysis of competitive advantage items.
(1) to signicant increase (7).
# Factor (Variance explained)/Item Factor

7.3. Factor analysis 1 2 3 4

Exploratory factor analysis was carried out on the data ob-
tained in order to identify the underlying dimensions. Exploratory
factor analysis is considered to be a valuable tool for carrying out
an empirical examination of constructs to support a priori models
that are based on theoretical deduction. A principle components
analysis with varimax rotation was used to obtain the factors and
enable explanation of the factor matrix. The eigenvalue criteria
was used to extract the factors and conclude the number of di-
mensions in each construct. A high value of KMO measure of
sampling adequacy and existence of substantial correlation as in-
dicated by a signicant value of Bartlett's test of sphericity allowed
factor analysis of the data.
7.3.1. SCM practices
Principal component analysis with eigenvalues greater than
one was used to extract factors. A total of nine factors have been
extracted (Table 1). The rst factor (labelled supply chain char-
acteristics) represents the various characteristics of a retail supply
chain essential to gain competitive advantage. The second factor
(labelled level of information sharing) concerns the importance
given to mutual sharing of information in terms of urgency and
adequacy. The third factor (labelled customer relationship) de-
picts the signicance being given to proactively nurture a re-
lationship with customers so as to execute a backward ow of
information essential for generating a customer-centric supply
chain. The fourth factor (labelled supply chain integration) re-
presents the cohesiveness between organizations which reects in
their coordinated endeavors. The fth factor (labelled quality of
information sharing) is concerned with the exhaustiveness and
accuracy of the information sharing between channel partners.
The sixth factor (labelled just-in-time capabilities) reects the
importance being given to inventory management through de-
veloping a zero-inventory capability. The seventh factor (labelled
inclusion in strategic decision making) is concerned with an
inclusive effort towards attainment of goals, as opposed to sepa-
rate efforts. The eighth factor (labelled involvement in product
quality and development) represents specically the joint efforts
towards selling quality products and making a sustained effort
towards developing products to keep pace with emerging custo-
mer needs. The ninth and last factor (labelled mutual trust-
worthiness) represents willingness to share critical information
with channel partner which symbolizes trust. The factors together
accounted for 83.3% of the variance in the data. The factor loadings
range from a low of 0.497 to a high of 0.873.
The nine factors extracted from the data mostly correspond to
the elements of supply chain management practices noted in
construct denition. Even as the review of literature suggested
geographical proximity to emerge as a key dimension, the tech-
nological progress and consequent attening of the world of
supply chain seems to have made geographical closeness
irrelevant.
7.3.2. Competitive advantage
The 16 items scale operationalizing competitive advantage
generated four dimensions (Table 2). The rst factor (labelled
accessibility) reects how approachable a retail outlet is due to
convenient location and competitive prices. The second factor
(labelled product) is concerned with the various functional as-
pects of the product assortment available at a retail outlet. The
third factor (labelled service) represents the timely delivery of
Accessibility (41.2%)
1 We offer competitive prices. .803
2 We are able to offer prices as low or lower than .781
our competitors.
3 We are able to compete based on locality. .737
Product (17.7%)
1 We offer products that are highly reliable. .768
2 We offer products that are very durable. .846
3 We offer high quality products to our customers. .754
4 We deliver the kind of products needed. .408
Service (8.8%)
1 We deliver customer order on time. .864
2 We provide dependable delivery. .729
Customer centricity (7.6%)
1 We provide customized products. .600
2 We alter our product offerings to meet client .728
needs.
3 We respond well to customer demand for new .706
features.
4 We deliver product to market quickly. .767
5 We are rst in the market in introducing new .844
products.
6 We have time-to-market lower than industry .877
average.
7 We have fast product development. .873
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with
Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.
products in acceptable condition. The fourth factor (labelled
customer centricity) is concerned with the proactive behavior on
the part of retailer to meet customer needs protably. The four
factors extracted collectively explain 75.2% of the variance in the
data. The factor loadings range from a low of 0.408 to a high of
0.877. The four factors extracted correspond to the elements of
competitive advantage elucidated upon in the section on construct
denition.
7.4. Reliability analysis
The reliability of the scales for SCM practices, competitive ad-
vantage and rm performance were evaluated using Cronbach's
alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Coefcient alpha was calculated separately
for the factors and for the entire scale (Table 3).
The reliability scores were found to be acceptable for all the
scales and sub-scales (Nunnally, 1988), except the mutual trust-
worthiness sub-scale of supply chain management practices scale.
However, considering the high level of reliability of the scale
measuring the constructs of SCM practices, no change was made to
the scale.
7.5. Bivariate correlation
Bivariate correlation analysis was used to study the relations
between the factors extracted from supply chain management
practices and competitive advantage; and, supply chain manage-
ment factors and rm performance parameters. A signicant and
strong relationship between the factors would indicate an asso-
ciation that deserves attention on the part of retailers.
7.5.1. SCM factors and competitive advantage factors
The SCM factors of supply chain characteristics, customer re-
lationship and inclusion in strategic decision making have an un-
equivocally signicant impact on all components of competitive

Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
8 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

Table 3 enables the retailer to benchmark with their competitors and offer
Reliability assessment. competitive prices, provide goods on time and in a timely manner
minimizing stock outs.
Supply chain management practices scale
Inclusion in strategic decision making shows an inverse re-
# Scale Reliability lationship to accessibility, product and service. However it shows a
positive correlation to customer centricity. A probable explanation
1 Supply chain characteristics 0.917
is that inclusion of key suppliers in the retailer's planning and
2 Level of information sharing 0.930
3 Customer relationship 0.891 goal-setting activities, and continuous improvement programs
4 Supply chain integration 0.874 including key suppliers currently are a strain to the retailer's re-
5 Quality of information sharing 0.866 sources and therefore are considered a deterrent to delivering
6 JIT capabilities 0.829
customer orders on time. Inclusion in strategic decision making
7 Inclusion in strategic decision making 0.753
8 Involvement in product quality & development 0.735 requires information system compatibility among supply chain
9 Mutual trustworthiness 0.495 partners and without an IT system that is user-friendly and en-
SCM practices 0.958 ables channel partners to have access to common databases that
Competitive advantage scale are updated in real-time, such inclusion is not possible. Advances
1 Accessibility 0.853 in information and communication technologies along with so-
2 Product 0.808 phisticated decision support systems will enable planning, ex-
3 Service 0.864
4 Customer centricity 0.907
ecuting and monitoring strategies that are indispensable for or-
Competitive advantage 0.901 ganizing integrated supply chain systems. The retailer has taken
cognizance of the fact that involving suppliers in strategic decision
Firm performance scale
Firm performance 0.909 making enhances their capabilities to deliver products that suit the
customer's requirements in a timely manner which contributes
signicantly towards building their competitive advantage, as in-
dicated by the correlation to customer centricity.
Level of information sharing has no signicant relationship to
Table 4 the attributes of competitive advantage other than customer
Bivariate correlations.
centricity while quality of information sharing has no signicant
Accessibility Product Service Customer relationship with accessibility and service attribute of competitive
centricity advantage. The result is not surprising since though globally these
two dimensions are considered to be important in the context of
Supply chain management
retail SCM practices, information sharing as a precursor to BI im-
factors
Supply chain characteristics .244a .460a .265a .670a plementation is still in a nascent stage in India. Collaborative
Level of information sharing .020 .060
.006 .618a business planning between the retailer and its trading partners
Customer relationship .276a .204a .376a .417a and keeping each other fully informed on issues that affect their
Supply chain integration
.067
.072 .149a .343a businesses, are still not considered crucial to the retailer being able
Quality of information
.021 .121a .098b .538a
sharing
to offer competitive prices, quality products and customer-centric
JIT capabilities
.016 .339a .102b .565a services. This is because modern trade is in an emerging phase and
Inclusion in strategic deci-
.210a
.115b
.192a .173a the retailer continues to operate in functional silos within their
sion making inter-rm departments and with their external trading partners.
Involvement in product .213a .306a
.053 .415a
quality and development
The retailer is now in the process of adopting some form of ana-
Mutual trustworthiness .046 .182a .126a .215a lytics to reduce cost and improve services. Currently while some
form of technology rudimentarily exists as facilitators of business
a
Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). processes for the retailer, in-depth integration and analysis of
b
Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
detailed business data using databases, application technologies
and analysis practices that construe BI is signicantly lacking. The
advantage viz. accessibility, product, service and customer cen- underlying reason for it is that the retailer still feels that BI sys-
tricity (Table 4). Supply chain characteristics are positively corre- tems are expensive. Calculating the return on investment (ROI) for
lated to all attributes of competitive advantage. This corroborates BI systems implementation is difcult because the output of BI is
that the retailer attributes great importance to the trust compo- business-related insights and does not provide a direct linkage to
nent prevalent with their suppliers and shares future strategic cost savings or increased sales.
needs with them, also works cohesively with their channel part- All of the SCM factors have a signicant relationship with
ners in order to ensure customization in a timely and efcient customer centricity. Overall, the bivariate correlations (Table 4)
manner. It also indicates that to build competitive advantage by reveal that 75% of the correlations are signicant, suggesting a
responding early to customer's need for new product features and strong relationship between the constructs of SCM and competi-
being rst in the market to introduce new products; doing so ef- tive advantage, as perceived by retail executives. Hence, Hypoth-
ciently with a faster time-to-market, the retailer focuses on esis 1 stands not-rejected.
seamless operations by identifying additional supply chain and Even as BI (level and quality of information sharing) emerged
ensuring suppliers deliver on-time directly to the retailer's points as an important dimension of SCM (Table 1) and a strong re-
of use. lationship exists between dimensions of SCM and competitive
Customer relationship has the highest positive correlation advantage (Table 4), conspicuous in its absence is the signicant
coefcient to accessibility and service. This is not surprising since relationship between the BI aspects of SCM and dimensions of
regular and frequent evaluation of customer satisfaction, inter- competitive advantage. Out of a possible 18 relationships, 4 are
acting frequently with customers to set retailer's reliability, re- insignicant. The nding is critical as it suggests indifference of
sponsiveness and other standards, providing an environment retail executives towards the ability of BI to contribute to the
conducive for customers to seek assistance from the retailer competitive advantage of the retailer.

Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services () 9

Table 5
Bivariate correlations.

Market Return on The growth of The growth of Growth in return on Prot margin Overall competitive
share investment market share sales investment on sales position

Supply chain management

factors
Supply chain characteristics .140a .170a .287a .347a .291a .240a .256a
Level of information sharing .460a .472a .557a .383a .322a .237a .050
Customer relationship .351a .274a .378a .182a .120a .065
.008
Supply chain integration .379a .387a .380a .185a .234a .009 .028
Quality of information sharing .406a .399a .423a .362a .378a .283a .137a
JIT capabilities .170a .286a .436a .392a .386a .360a .299a
Inclusion in strategic decision .218a .265a .277a .279a .254a .185a .162a
making
Involvement in product quality .494a .527a .453a .463a .462a .557a .337a
and development
Mutual trustworthiness .278a .406a .541a .362a .482a .398a .213a

a
Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

7.5.2. SCM factors and rm performance
The bivariate correlation outputs suggest that the supply chain
management factors have a tremendous amount of inuence on
rm performance (Table 5).
The supply chain factors are positively correlated to all attributes
of rm performance though with varying levels of signicance.
Supply chain characteristics, quality of information sharing
with the channel partners, just-in-time inventory management
capabilities, inclusion of channel members in strategic decision
making by the rm, involvement of all channel members in pro-
duct quality and product development, and, level of mutual trust
between the channel members inuence the different parameters
of the retail rm's performance. Interestingly, the ndings suggest
that customer relationship and integration of supply chain do not
have a signicant relationship with prot margin on sales of the
rm. A plausible explanation is that both these activities entail an
investment into the future of the rm which may or may not yield
any immediate monetary benets. Similarly, level of information
sharing, customer relationship and supply chain integration do not
exhibit a signicant relationship with overall competitive position
of the rm. This nding can be explained with the fact that the
lead time for the retailer, towards installation of IT to bring about
greater degree of information sharing with channel partners, im-
plementation of customer relationship management systems and
integration of supply chain constituents, is reducing. Therefore, the
capability of these SCM factors to provide an overall competitive
position to the retailer against its rival rms is also diminishing. In
fact, these factors are no longer points-of-differentiation and are
rather points-of-parity. Most of the SCM factors that have a sig-
nicant impact on competitive advantage are factors that are also
contributing towards rm performance outcomes. Hence Hy-
pothesis 2 stands not-rejected.
8. Research ndings and implications to managers
8.1. Summary of ndings
This paper studies the implementation of SCM practices of the
Indian food retailers and in particular, the extent and nature of
information sharing among retail channel members for enabling BI
usage. The study also relates these SCM practices to the retail
rm's competitive advantage and rm performance. The research
identies that SCM practices comprise of nine dimensions: supply
chain characteristics, level of information sharing, quality of in-
formation sharing, customer relationship, supply chain
integration, just-in-time capabilities, inclusion in strategic decision
making, involvement in product quality and development, and
mutual trustworthiness. The competitive advantage of the retailer
is characterized by four dimensions: accessibility, product, service,
and customer centricity.
This research reveals that presently retailers are limited in
collaborative business planning with their trading partners. Prac-
tices like inclusion in strategic decision making, keeping each
other fully informed on issues that affect their businesses and
having access to each channel partner's data, do not seem to
substantially inuence their current operations. Rather than fa-
cilitation, the above parameters are considered as restraints to
timely delivery of customer orders and hindrances in work
processes.
Information sharing with channel members is presently not an
important characteristic with Indian retailers. Timely, accurate and
complete information sharing for joint problem solving is still not
central to the retailer's operations. Joint business planning, sharing
core business processes and informing partners in advance of
changing needs are considered insignicant factors in their busi-
ness processes. This prevalent situation is indicative of the fact
that modern retail in India is in an emerging phase and retailers
primarily focus on attracting customers to stores and investing in
new stores for their growth. Retailers also lack the necessary IT
infrastructure platform with their channel partners for seamless
information ow. Their operations in departmental silos render
the information fragmented and not conducive to the im-
plementation of BI.
In a nutshell, the key ndings from the study are as follows:
(a) The dimensions of the construct SCM are: supply chain char-
acteristics, level of information sharing, customer relationship,
supply chain integration, quality of information sharing, JIT
capabilities, inclusion in strategic decision making, involve-
ment in product quality and development, and mutual
trustworthiness.
(b) The dimensions of the construct competitive advantage are:
accessibility, product, service, customer centricity.
(c) Inclusion of suppliers in strategic decision making and in-
formation sharing with suppliers are perceived as important
dimensions of SCM by retail executives.
(d) There is a strong and signicant relationship between di-
mensions of SCM and competitive advantage.
(e) Inclusion of suppliers in strategic decision-making is largely
perceived to be a hindrance in attaining competitive ad-
vantage vis--vis rival retailers.

Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
10 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()
(f) As per the perspective of retail executives, level and quality of
information sharing does not impact the retailer's competitive
advantage vis--vis its rival retailers.
(g) There is a strong and signicant relationship between di-
mensions of SCM and rm performance.
Scope for future research exists in testing the measurement
and structural models depicting the causal relationships between
the factors by using two-step structural equation modeling. It
would explain the extent of impact exogenous constructs have on
the endogenous construct. A conrmatory factor analysis would
further validate the instrument.
8.2. Implications for retail industry
Indian organized retail is in a nascent stage with prospects of
accelerated growth that will be enabled by favorable demo-
graphics, economy and political environment. At present retailers
are facing constant pressures of margins and protability. This
study shows that to ensure competitive advantage and prot-
ability, retailers are focused on addressing the product-needs of
the customers and they have built their business processes and
SCM practices to support this focal point.
Yet, in the near future Indian retailers are contemplating scal-
ing up their operations to grow signicantly not only in the major
metropolitan cities where they are currently located, but also in
the Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities. In this scenario, current existing
practices and mind-set, as is evident from the study, will not be
sufcient to ensure sustainable growth. To scale up operations
signicantly, retailers will have to look beyond the connes of
their organizations to integrate data, capabilities and resources of
their suppliers and channel partners to create superior value and
long-term competitive advantage. For this, they will need to col-
lect, store, access, share and analyze large amount of information,
across locations and channel partners, for making better opera-
tional decisions. So businesses must rst gear up to allow access to
the right information at the right time so that it can be put to
effective usage through BI. Availability of timely and accurate in-
formation will thus be critical to a rm's ability to leverage it using
BI in extracting meaningful insights in information and data pat-
terns obtained from diverse touch points for improving operating
margins, protability, competition and growth.
While the above requires an investment in the IT infrastructure,
systems and processes, it also calls for a radical shift in the re-
tailers' outlook as reected from the study. Reliance on informa-
tion sharing is considered as impeding timely and dependable
delivery of products to market. On the contrary, retailers have to
appreciate that effective sharing of information among channel
partners will provide retailers the ability to respond promptly to
changes in consumer demand and reduce response time to market
needs. Rather than impede operations, information sharing will
enable narrower segmentation of customers leading to more
precisely tailored products/services and also improvement in de-
velopment of new products/services. Furthermore, information
sharing among channel partners will contribute to generation of
relevant data which will be available for BI. Once retailers nd
cost/benet calculations pertaining to information sharing among
channel partners satisfactory, opportunity will exist for enhanced
application of BI in SCM practices.
However at this juncture, it is prudent to take a realistic ap-
proach to the future road ahead in BI implementation in Indian
retail and keep in mind several exogenous constraints that may
impact BI implementation, which are beyond the control of the
retailer. First, India is currently marked by poor IT infrastructure
facilities in suburban and rural areas and such condition cannot be
improved by any individual retailer. Secondly, India has an
Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
abundance of cheap labor that makes current SCM practices labor-
intensive rather than technology-driven. To implement BI in their
business processes, Indian retailers will face a shortage of skilled
man-power who have the technical knowledge to decide what
action to take based on the outcomes of BI analysis. It is imperative
to know that BI system will present retailers with structured and
analyzed data but without proper skill sets they may not be able to
make informed decisions on the basis of that analysis. Thirdly,
apart from the right talent and technology, it will be fundamental
for retail rms to re-design their business processes, structure
workows and put proper incentives in place so that analytics
become a vital part of enabling managers to accomplish their
goals. Ideally the CEO should be at the helm of the process in-
itiation and gradually all levels of the management should have a
thorough understanding of its business processes and the objec-
tives that are to be achieved. Also the functional units impacted by
the BI initiative must be closely involved with the BI im-
plementation processes to iron out dissidence and seamlessly
merge analytics with a rm's ongoing management tasks.
8.3. Limitations
This study is conducted on an Indian food retailer operating in
specic zones of the country. Research needs to be conducted to
study whether the SCM practices and the outlook to information
sharing among channel partners are unvaryingly applicable to
retailers operating in non-food categories as well as to retailers
with operations across other geographical locations. Extending
this study to retailers operating in other categories would enhance
the external validity of the study and improve the accuracy of
parameter estimates. This research has a relatively small sample
size which is a usual phenomenon amongst initial-stage research
studies. Yet such studies pose certain limitations to its
generalization.
Future study can increase the comprehension of a retail rm's
effectiveness by gathering objective performance data. But since
most of the organized Indian retailers are usually not publicly
listed, published nancial reports are unavailable. Obtaining such
information may require support from Indian retail trade groups
like Retailers Association of India (RAI) for cases where the re-
tailers may not be forthcoming to participate without such ofcial
support.
Further research is necessary to extend the ndings of this
study. Specically more study is needed to validate the scales in
Indian conditions. Post-validation, research needs to be carried out
to determine the possible existence of a second order SCM prac-
tices construct and whether such a higher order factor model is
appropriate for SCM practice. The model, as a whole, needs to be
tested through path analysis to ascertain its veracity.
Note: Early version of this paper was presented at the Oxford
Retail Futures Conference 2014, organised by the Oxford Institute of
Retail Management, University of Oxford.
Appendix
I. Supply chain management practices:
With regard to SCM practice, please circle the number that
accurately reects your rm's present conditions: (1strongly
disagree; 7strongly agree)
1. We consider quality as our number one criterion in selecting
suppliers.
2. We regularly solve problems jointly with our suppliers.
3. We have helped our suppliers to improve their product quality.
4. We have continuous improvement programs that include our
 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()
key suppliers.
5. We include our key suppliers in our planning and goal-setting
activities.
6. We actively involve our key suppliers in new product devel-
opment processes.
7. We frequently interact with customers to set reliability, re-
sponsiveness and other standards for us.
8. We frequently measure and evaluate customer satisfaction.
9. We frequently determine future customer expectations.
10. We facilitate customers' ability to seek assistance from us.
11. We periodically evaluate the importance of our relationship
with our customers.
12. We inform trading partners in advance of changing needs.
13. Our trading partners share proprietary information with us.
14. Our trading partners keep us fully informed about issues that
affect our business.
15. Our trading partners share business knowledge of core busi-
ness processes with us.
16. We and our trading partners exchange information that helps
establishment of business planning.
17. We and our trading partners keep each other informed about
events or changes that may affect the other partners.
18. Information exchange between our trading partners and us is
timely.
19. Information exchange between our trading partners and us is
accurate.
20. Information exchange between our trading partners and us is
complete.
21. Information exchange between our trading partners and us is
adequate.
22. Information exchange between our trading partners and us is
reliable.
23. We search for new ways to integrate SCM activities.
24. We reduce response time across the supply chain.
25. We work on improving integration activities across supply
chain.
26. We work on establishing more frequent contact with supply
chain members.
27. We work on creating a compatible communication/information
system.
28. We work on identifying additional supply chain.
29. We work on suppliers' on-time delivery directly to our points
of use.
30. We communicate our future strategic needs to our suppliers.
31. We work on creating a greater level of trust among supply
chain members.
32. We work on locating closer to our customers.
33. We require suppliers to locate closer to our rm.
34. We participate in the marketing efforts of our customers.
35. We aid our suppliers to increase their JIT capabilities.
36. We work on increasing our rm's JIT capabilities.
II. Competitive advantage:
With regard to competitive advantage of your rm, please cir-
cle the appropriate number to indicate the extent to which you
agree or disagree with each statement:
(1Strongly disagree; 7strongly agree)
1. We offer competitive prices.
2. We are able to offer prices as low or lower than our
competitors.
3. We are able to compete based on locality.
4. We offer products that are highly reliable.
5. We offer products that are very durable.
6. We offer high quality products to our customers.
7. We deliver the kind of products needed.
Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
11
8. We deliver customer order on time.
9. We provide dependable delivery.
10. We provide customized products.
11. We alter our product offerings to meet client needs.
12. We respond well to customer demand for new features.
13. We deliver product to market quickly.
14. We are rst in the market in introducing new products.
15. We have time-to-market lower than industry average.
16. We have fast product development.
III. Firm's Performance:
Please circle the appropriate number which best indicates your
rm's overall performance:
(1 Signicant decrease, 7 signicant increase)
1. Market share.
2. Return on investment.
3. The growth of market share.
4. The growth of sales.
5. Growth in return on investment.
6. Prot margin on sales.
7. Overall competitive position.
References
A.T. Kearney, Global Retail Development Index, 2014. http://www.atkearney.in/
documents/10192/4600212/Full SteamAhead for Global Retailers-
2014 Global Retail Development In.pdf/6f55a59b-e855-4236-96cb-
464c2ca01e91 (accessed 26.03.15).
A.T. Kearney, Global Retail Development Index, 2013. http://www.atkearney.
com/documents/10192/1315829/Global Retailers-
Cautiously Aggressive or Aggressively Cautious.pdf/b8f528f4-cb6f-
411d-8ae6-7afb7fbc7b7e (accessed 17.04.14).
Adelman, S., Moss, L., Barbusinski, L., 2002. I Found Several Denitions of BI, DM
Review.
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., 2002. Analyzing alternatives for improvement in supply
chain performance. Work Study 51 (1), 3237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
00438020210415497.
Akyuz, A.G., Erkan, E.T., 2010. Supply chain performance measurement: a literature
review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48 (17), 51375155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00207540903089536.
Ali, J., Kapoor, S., Moorthy, J., 2010. Buying behaviour of consumers for food pro-
ducts in an emerging economy. Br. Food J. 112 (2), 109124.
Alvarado, U.Y., Kotzab, H., 2001. Supplychain management: the integration of lo-
gistics in marketing. Ind. Mark. Manag. 30 (2), 183198.
Arnold, S.J., 2002. Lessons learned from the world's best retailers. Int. J. Retail.
Distrib. Manag. 30 (11/12), 562570.
Austin, J.E., 1990. Managing in Developing Countries. Free Press, New York, NY.
Balsmeier, P.W., Voisin, W., 1996. Supplychain management: a timebased strategy.
Ind. Manag. 38 (5), 2427.
Baneld, E., 1999. Harnessing value in the supply chain. Wiley, New York, NY.
Berry, D., Towill, D.R., Wadsley, N., 1994. Supplychain management in the electro-
nics products industry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 24 (10), 2032.
Berson, A., Smith, S., Thearling, K., 2002. Building Data Mining Applications for
CRM. Tata McGraw-Hill, Delhi.
Bloom, P.N., Perry, V.G., 2001. Retailer power and supplier welfare: the case of Wal-
Mart. J. Retail. 77 (3), 379, retail supply chain management 399.
Bradford, K.D., Stringfellow, A., Weitz, B.A., 2004. Managing conict to improve the
effectiveness of retail networks. J. Retail. 80 (3), 181195.
Brown, J.R., Dant, R.P., Ingene, C.A., Kaufmann, P.J., 2005. Supply chain management
and the evolution of the Big Middle. J. Retail. 81 (2), 97105.
Adair-Heeley, C.B., 1988. JIT purchasing: seven steps for successful implementation.
Prod. Invent. Manag. Rev. APICS News 8 (12), 2223.
Celtek, S., Kaynak, H., 1999. Characteristics of supply chain management: towards
the development of a measurement instrument. In: Paper Presented at the
Second Annual North American Research Symposium on Purchasing and Sup-
ply Management.
Chan, F.T.S., Qi, H.J., 2003. Feasibility of performance measurement system for
supply chain: a process-based approach and measures. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 14
(3), 179190.
Chandra, C., Kumar, S., 2000. Supply chain management in theory and practice: a
passing fad or a fundamental change? Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 100 (3), 100113.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004b. Understanding supply chain management: critical re-
search and a theoretical framework. Int. J. Prod. Res. 42 (1), 131163.
Chen, I., Paulraj, A., 2004a. Towards a theory of supply chain management: the
constructs and measurements. J. Oper. Manag. 22 (2), 119150. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jom.2003.12.007.
12 M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()
Childhouse, P., Towill, D.R., 2003. Simplied material ow holds the key to supply
chain integration. OMEGA 31 (1), 1727.
Chizzo, S.A., 1998. Supplychain strategies: solutions for the customer-driven en-
terprise. Software Magazine. Supplychain Management Directions Supplement,
49 January 1998.
Claycomb, C., Droge, C., Germain, R., 1999. The effect of justin- time with customers
on organizational design and performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 10 (1), 3758.
Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psycho-
metrica 16, 297334.
Dabas, C.S., Sternquist, B., Mahi, H., 2010. Organized retailing in India: upstream
channel structure and management. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 27/3 (2012), 176195.
Dahlstrom, R., McNeilly, K.M., Speh, T.W., 1996. Buyerseller relationships in the
procurement of logistical services. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 24 (2), 110124.
Davies, M., 2009. Identifying the real challenges. Logist. Manag. 48 (2), 5.
Day, G.S., 2000. Managing market relationships. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28 (1), 2430.
Defee, C.C., Randall, W.S., Gibson, B.J., 2009. Roles and capabilities of the retail
supply chain organization. J. Transp. Manag. 21 (2), 3148.
Divett, M., Crittenden, N., Henderson, R., 2003. Actively inuencing consumer
loyalty. J. Consum. Mark. 20 (2), 109126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
07363760310464587.
Feldmann, M., Mller, S., 2003. An incentive scheme for true information providing
in supplychains. OMEGA 31 (2), 6373.
Filos, E., Banahan, E., 2000. Will the organization disappear? The challenges of the
new economy and future perspectives. In: Proceedings of the PRO-VE'2000 2nd
IFIP Working Conference on Infrastructures for Virtual Enterprises. Flor-
ianpolis, Brazil, pp. 320.
Ganesan, S., George, M., Jap, S., Palmatier, R.W., Weitz, B., 2009. Supply chain
management and retailer performance: emerging trends, issues, and implica-
tions for research and practice. J. Retail. 85 (1), 8494.
Gangadharan, G.R., Swamy, N.S., 2004. Business intelligence systems: design and
implementation strategies. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Con-
ference on Information Technology Interfaces. Cavtat, Croatia.
Green, K.W., McGaughey, R., Casey, M., 2006. Does supply chain management
strategy mediate the association between market orientation and organiza-
tional performance? Supply Chain Manag. J. 11 (5), 407414. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/13598540610682426.
Grifth, D.A., Harvey, M.G., Lusch, R.F., 2006. Social exchange in supply chain re-
lationships: The resulting benets of procedural and distributive justice. J. Oper.
Manag. 24 (2), 8598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.03.003.
Halepete, J., Seshadri Iyer, K.V., 2008. Multidimensional investigation of apparel
retailing in India. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 36 (9), 676688.
Hamister, J.W., 2012. Supply chain management practices in small retailers. Int. J.
Retail. Distribution Manag. 40 (6), 427450.
Henriott, L., 1999. Transforming supply chains into e-chains. Supply Chain Man-
agement Review. Vol. Global Supplement, Spring, pp. 1518.
Holmberg, S., 2000. A systems perspective on supply chain measurements. Int. J.
Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 30 (10), 847868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00207540310001602865.
Ingene, C.A., Parry, M.E., 2000. Is channel coordination all it is cracked up to be? J.
Retail. 76 (4), 511.
Jones, C., 1998. Moving beyond ERP: making the missing link. Logist. Focus 6 (7),
27.
Koufteros, X.A., Vonderembse, M.A., Doll, W.J., 1997. Competitive capabilities:
measurement and relationships. In: Proceedings Decision Science Institute, pp.
10671068.
Kumar, N., Kapoor, S., 2014. Study of consumers' behaviour for non-vegetarian
products in emerging market of India. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 4 (1), 5977.
La Londe, B.J., Masters, J.M., 1994. Emerging logistics strategies: blueprint for the
next century. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 24 (7), 3547.
Larson, A., 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a study of the gov-
ernance of exchange. Adm. Sci. Q. 37 (1), 76104.
Lee, C.H., Rhee, B.-D., 2008. Optimal guaranteed prot margins for both vendors
and retailers in the fashion apparel industry. J. Retail. 84 (3), 325333.
Levy, M., Grewal, D., 2000. Supply chain management in a networked economy. J.
Retail. 76 (4), 415.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T., Subba Rao, S., 2006. The impact of supply
chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational
performance. Omega Int. J. Manag. Sci. 34, 107124.
Magretta, J., 1998. The power of virtual integration: an interview with Dell com-
puters' Michael Dell. Harv. Bus. Rev. 76 (2), 7284.
Malhotra, Y., 2000. Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations. Idea Group
Publishing, USA.
McGinnis, M.A., Vallopra, R.M., 1999. Purchasing and supplier involvement in
process improvement: a source of competitive advantage. J. SupplyChain
Manag. 35 (4), 4250.
Mentzer, J.T., Min, S., Zacharia, Z.G., 2004. The nature of inter-rm partnering in
supply chain management. J. Retail. 76 (4), 549568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0022-4359(00)00040-3.
Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
Moberg, C.R., Cutler, B.D., Gross, A., Speh, T.W., 2002. Identifying antecedents of
information exchange within supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.
32 (9), 755770.
Monczka, R.M., Petersen, K.J., Handeld, R.B., Ragatz, G.L., 1998. Success factors in
strategic supplier alliances: the buying company perspective. Decis. Sci. 29 (3),
55535577.
Noble, D., 1997. Purchasing and supplier management as a future competitive edge.
Logist. Focus 5 (5), 2327.
Novack, R.A., LangleyJr, C.J., Rinehart, L.M., 1995. Creating Logistics Value: Themes
for the Future. Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Nunnally, J.C., 1988. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Pandey, V.C., Garg, S.K., Shankar, R., 2010. Impact of information sharingon com-
petitive strength of Indianmanufacturing enterprises-An empirical study. Bus.
Process. Manag. 16 (2), 226243.
Pilling, B.K., Zhang, L., 1992. Cooperative exchange: rewards and risks. Int. J. Purch.
Mater. Manag. 28 (2), 29.
Piplani, R., Fu, Y.F., 2005. A coordination framework for supply chain inventory
alignment. J. Manuf. Technol. 16 (6), 598614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
174103805106ndings09465.
Polakoff, J.C., 1992. Of kites, cranks, and switches and JIT purchasing. Corp.
Controll. 4 (5), 3032.
Rabelo, R.J., Pereira-Klen, Alexandra A., 2002. Business intelligence support for
supply chain management. In: Proceedings of the BASYS'2002 IEEE/ IFIP
Working Conference on Balanced Automation Systems. CancunMexico.
Randall, W.S., Gibson, B.J., Defee, C.C., Williams, B.D., 2011. Retail supply chain
management: key priorities and practices. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 22 (3), 390402.
Reardon, T., Minten, B., 2011. Surprised by supermarkets: diffusion of modern food
retail in India. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 1 (2), 134161.
Roth, A., Miller, J., 1990. Manufacturing strategy, manufacturing strength, man-
agerial success, and economic outcomes. In: Ettlie, J., Burstein, M., Fiegehaum,
A. (Eds.), Manufacturing Strategy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA,
pp. 97108.
Rudberg, M., Olhager, J., 2003. Manufacturing networks and supplychains: an op-
erations strategy perspective. OMEGA 31 (1), 2939.
Sahay, B.S., Mohan, R., 2003. Supply chain management practices in Indian in-
dustry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 33 (7), 582606.
Samli, A.C., Browning, J.M., Busbia, C., 1998. The status of global sourcing as a cri-
tical tool of strategic planning: opportunistic versus strategic dichotomy. J. Bus.
Res. 43 (3), 177187.
Singh, R., Sandhu, H., Metri, B., Kaur, R., 2010. Relating organised retail supply chain
management practices, competitive advantage and organisational perfor-
mance. VISION J. Bus. Perspect. 14 (3), 173190.
Skinner, W., 1985. The taming of the lions: how manufacturing leadership involved,
17801984. In: Clark, K.B., Hayes, R., Lorenz, C. (Eds.), The Uneasy Alliance:
Managing the ProductivityTechnology Dilemma. The Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA, pp. 63110.
Srinivasan, M.M., 2004. Streamlined: 14 Principles for Building and Managing the
Lean Supply Chain. Thomson Business and Professional Publishing, Mason, OH.
Srivastava, S.K., 2006. Logistics and supply chain practices in India. VISION J. Bus.
Perspect. 10 (3), 6979.
Stein, T., Sweat, J., 1998. Killer supplychains. Informationweek 708 (9), 3646.
Stock, G.N., Greis, N.P., Kasarda, J.D., 2000. Enterprise logistics and supplychain
structure: the role of t. J. Oper. Manag. 18 (5), 531547.
Tan, K.C., Kannan, V.R., Handeld, R.B., 1998. Supplychain management: supplier
performance and rm performance. Int. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 34 (3), 29.
Tan, K.C., Lyman, S.B., Wisner, J.D., 2002. Supply chain management: a strategic
perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22 (6), 614631.
Tan, K.C., 2001. A framework of supply chain management literature. Eur. J. Purch.
Supply Manag. 7 (1), 3948.
Tompkins, J., Ang, D., 1999. What are your greatest challenges related to supply-
chain performance measurement? IIE Solution 31 (6), p. 66.
Towers, N., Burnes, B., 2008. A composite framework of supply chain management
and enterprise planning for small and medium-sized manufacturing en-
terprises. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 13 (5), 349355.
Tracey, M., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 1999. Manufacturing technology and
strategy formulation: keys to enhancing competitiveness and improving per-
formance. J. Oper. Manag. 17 (4), 411428.
Vickery, S., Calantone, R., Droge, C., 1999. Supplychain exibility: an empirical
study. J. Supply Chain Manag. 35 (3), 1624.
Whitehorn, M., Whitehorn, M., 1999. Business Intelligence: The IBM Solution: Data
Warehousing and OLAP. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 910, Springer Series.
Wines, L., 1996. High order strategy for manufacturing. The J. Bus. Strateg. 17 (4),
3233.
Yamin, S., Gunasekruan, A., Mavondo, F.T., 1999. Relationship between generic
strategy, competitive advantage and rm performance: an empirical analysis.
Technovation 19 (8), 507518.
Yu, Z., Yan, H., Cheng, T.C.E., 2001. Benets of information sharing with supply chain
partnerships. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 101 (3), 114121.