Anda di halaman 1dari 17

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri-food industry
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou, B. Manos,
Article information:
To cite this document:
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou, B. Manos, (2007) "A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration:
empirical evidence from the agrifood industry", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 Issue: 3,
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded on: 12 September 2017, At: 02:02 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

To copy this document:

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 14792 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1997),"Supply Chain Management: More Than a New Name for Logistics", The International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 1-14 <a href=""></a>
(2000),"Closer vertical co-ordination in agri-food supply chains: a conceptual framework and some preliminary
evidence", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 131-143 <a href="https://"></a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:505799 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit for more information.
About Emerald
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

A conceptual framework for supply chain
collaboration: empirical evidence from the
agri-food industry
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou and V. Manthou
University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, and
B. Manos
Aristotle University of Thessalonki, Thessalonki, Greece

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the concept of supply chain collaboration and to provide an overall framework that can be used as a
conceptual landmark for further empirical research. In addition, the concept is explored in the context of agri-food industry and particularities are
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

identified. Finally, the paper submits empirical evidence from an exploratory case study in the agri-food industry, at the grower-processor interface, and
information regarding the way the concept is actually applied in small medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is presented.
Design/methodology/approach The paper employed case study research by conducting in-depth interviews in the two companies.
Findings Supply chain collaboration concept is of significant importance for the agri-food industry however, some constraints arise due to the nature
of industrys products, and the specific structure of the sector. Subsequently, collaboration in the supply chain is often limited to operational issues and
to logistics-related activities.
Research limitations/implications Research is limited to a single case study and further qualitative testing of the conceptual model is needed in
order to adjust the model before large scale testing.
Practical implications Case study findings may be transferable to other similar dual relationships at the grower-processor interface. Weaker parts in
asymmetric relationships have opportunities to improve their position, altering the dependence balance, by achieving product/process excellence.
Originality/value The paper provides evidence regarding the applicability of the supply chain collaboration concept in the agri-food industry. It takes
into consideration not relationships between big multinational companies, but SMEs.

Keywords Supply chain management, Channel relationships, Food industry

Paper type Research paper

Introduction efficient data and information exchanges between supply

chain members, have been more or less surpassed by the
The recognition, the last decades, of the supply chain as a key information and communication technology revolution and
and vital field for enterprises success, in contrast to the the development of e-business applications. A number of
traditional intra-enterprise focus on internal processes, has factors related to the business environment, the specific
been a major change and challenge, in the modus operandi of industry features, and endogenous firm characteristics, may
enterprises. In many cases, their ability to compete has been still influence the series of dyadic business relationships,
directly linked with their ability to collaborate with other which constitute the supply chain, enabling or deteriorating
enterprises. Many writers, (Lewis, 1990; Lamming, 1993; this way collaboration opportunities.
Hines, 1994; Gattorna and Walters, 1996; Christopher, 1998; Despite the barriers that potentially deteriorate
Gunasekaran et al., 2001), have recognised this increased collaboration among companies for many industries all over
need for collaboration, stressing out the establishment of the world, collaboration is becoming more of a necessity than
closer and long-term working relationships even partnerships an option. Based on existing research on supply chain
with suppliers at various levels in the chain, as a way to collaboration, this paper attempts to understand the concept
construct ever more efficient and responsive supply chains, in of collaboration and to provide a theoretical landmark to be
order to deliver exceptional value to customers. However, used by more empirically oriented research. Emphasis is given
collaboration in the supply chain is not always easy to achieve, in the agri-food industry, which is characterized by a number
even when past communication restrictions, regarding of key and unique characteristics, mainly related to: product
features, and the sectors structure, where collaborative
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at practises developed in response to the economic pressures are driving the evolution of the chain and encourage greater

The authors would like to thank G. Michalitsos and K. Balatsos,

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
12/3 (2007) 177 186 purchasing manager of HC and managing director of BC respectively, for
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546] the provision of all the relevant information and data in order to complete
[DOI 10.1108/13598540710742491] the research.

A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou and B. Manos Volume 12 Number 3 2007 177 186

vertical and horizontal co-ordination. As Cadilhon and Figure 1 An overall framework of supply chain collaboration
Fearne (2005) argue, most of the articles on supply chain
collaboration typically focus on large multinational
companies, while the agri-food industry, particularly in
Europe, is to a great extent an industry dominated by small-
medium sized enterprises (SMEs) (European Commission,
2002). Drawing on this aspect, the paper provides empirical
evidence based on a case study conducted at the grower-
processor interface. The companies of the case study are not
large multinationals but SMEs, operating in the Greek
market. This will offer valuable insights regarding
collaboration issues and whether the supply chain
collaboration really applies or not in the sector, as well as,
the intrinsic difficulties and risks associated to collaboration.

Supply chain collaboration: analysing the concept

Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

Collaboration is about organisations and enterprises working

together and can be viewed as a concept going beyond normal
commercial relationships. It is a departure from the anchor
point of discreteness which underlies spot market transactions
to a relational exchange, as the roles of supplier and buyer are
no longer narrowly defined in terms of the simple transfer of
ownership of products (Macneil, 1981). Collaboration
The second element involves selecting the activities on which
appears as enterprises recognise cases where working and
operating alone is not sufficient to resolve common problems collaboration will be established. The plethora of the activities
and to achieve the desired goals (Huxham, 1996; Corbett constitutes the width of collaboration. Companies need to
et al., 1999; Barratt and Oliveira, 2001; Wagner et al., 2002). determine the specific activities upon which they will
Collaboration between supply chain partners is one of the collaborate, since not all the activities require the same
issues which lately have received increased attention in the amount of involvement and close relationship (Sahay, 2003).
supply chain literature (Andraski, 1999; Anderson and Lee, After selecting the activities the third element is to identify in
1999, 2001; McCarthy and Golicic, 2002), in addition to what level companies will collaborate. A three level approach
attention received in the past in the strategic management namely strategic, tactical, operational, is rather essential, since
literature (Spekman and Sawhney, 1995; Brandenburger and companies seldom choose or decide to collaborate across all
Nalebuff, 1996; Kumar, 1996). decision taking levels. This distinction on strategic, tactical
In fact, some authors (McLaren et al., 2002; Becker et al., and operational, which has been very common in the supply
2004) argue that there is a new school of thought in the chain literature, constitutes the depth of collaboration
supply chain literature regarding the notion of supply chain (Stevens, 1989; Chopra and Meindl, 2001; Fawcett and
collaboration. Essentially, a prerequisite for the existence of Magnan, 2002).
supply chain collaboration is the existence of supply chains in The combination of those three elements comprises the
addition to collaboration. The notion implies that the chain intensity of collaboration. The more the depth (from
members, two or more, become involved and actively work operational to tactical and strategic), the width (from simple
together in coordinating activities which span the boundaries supply chain activities to more complex such as new product
of their organizations in order to fulfil and satisfy customers development) and the number of entities (two or more
needs (Bowersox, 1990; Mentzer et al., 2000; Muchstadt et al., entities, upstream-downstream) the more intense the
2001). Based on existing relevant literature, a general research collaboration is.
framework for supply chain collaboration is suggested Finally, another important element for the design and
(Figure 1). Two pillars are distinguished in the framework governing of supply chain activities includes the decision of
for supply chain collaboration, which are dealing with the selecting the appropriate technique and technology to
design and the government of supply chain activities, and the facilitate information sharing. It is a very complicated
establishment and the maintenance of supply chain decision, since not all potential collaborators are able to
relationships, respectively. meet the requirements of collaboration in terms of technology
and techniques.
Design and government of supply chain activities
The first pillar in the framework is related to the design and Establishing and maintaining supply chain
government of supply chain activities consisting of three relationships
elements. The first element is about taking the decision of The second pillar concerns the establishment and
selecting the appropriate partner. Companies in the real maintenance of supply chain relationships. It includes the
business world are interacting with a number of suppliers and less tangible, but equally important, elements of
customers. Obviously, not all of them can become close relationships. The critical elements that have been also
collaborators and under this prism a selection is needed, cited in the literature include mutuality of benefits, risk, and
based on the expectations, perceived benefits and drawbacks, rewards sharing (Stank et al., 1999; Barratt and Oliveira,
and the business fit of companies. 2001). The risk and reward sharing balance will be probably

A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou and B. Manos Volume 12 Number 3 2007 177 186

one of the crucial factors which will guide companies Figure 2 Linking supply chain activities to specific collaboration
towards close collaboration. An interaction of other benefits
elements, such as trust, power and dependence, has been
also identified in the literature to play an influential role in
companies decision to collaborate. La Londe (2002), for
example argues that trust and risk issues are very important
in supply chain relationships because of the interdependency
between companies. Dependence of one company on
another means that the company will have power over the
other. Power as a concept in supply chain relationships has
not been discussed extensively (Cox et al., 2003) and when
discussed it has received irregular and contrasting treatment
from analysts (Hingley, 2005). For some authors, power is
one of the greatest deterrents to trust, which is the single
more discussed element in making supply chains function
effective and efficient (Kumar, 1996; Dapiran and Hogarth-
Scott, 2003; Handfield and Bechtel, 2004). The interesting
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

issue is to identify how these elements interact with each

other and how they affect and determine the intensity of
collaboration, as well as, the selection of the appropriate
information-data sharing technologies and techniques.

Benefits and risks of collaboration: approaches

and critical aspects
Undoubtedly, a plethora of benefits associated with inter- collaborations is the risk of failure (Dwyer et al., 1987). The
enterprise collaboration exists. The way these benefits can be risk of failure includes the loss of significant investments in
regarded depends on the way supply chain collaboration is money, time and delay or abandonment of business plans, in
viewed. One way to view them is by approaching supply chain cases where collaboration is unsuccessful. In addition, an
collaboration, and its respective benefits, at a macro level inherent risk to the risk of failure is the exposure to
(Sahay, 2003), which means general cost reductions, as well competition. Indeed, companies should bear in mind that the
as, general revenue growth. In this case, a company takes potential collaborator may become at some point in time the
decisions regarding the other collaborator on the basis of how partner of another competitor. Another important risk is
good is performing with collaborator A, in comparison to the related to potential increased dependence of one company on
collaborator B. A different way to approach supply chain another. The issue of dependence is one of the more complex
collaboration benefits is by taking a more activity-based issues in business relationships. It arises in cases where a
approach. By relating the benefits of collaboration to the company is to a greater or lesser extent relied on another
specific activities, it is more likely to better identify the real company across a number of processes. In fact, many authors
benefits of supply chain collaboration, since not all activities (Spekman and Salmond, 1992; Adams and Goldsmith, 1999)
require the same amount of companies involvement. Some of have argued that in the process of procurement for example,
the most commonly cited, in the literature, supply chain the more a buyer buys from a supplier, the more likely the
activities include: buyer will be able to influence the supplier. In most of the
. procurement; cases in the literature, dependence has been viewed as a risk,
inventory management; which is particularly high for small companies collaborating
product design and new product development; with big ones, especially when combined with the element of
manufacturing (planning); power. Furthermore, an inherent risk associated to
order processing; collaboration is the risk of increasing operational complexity.
transportation/distribution; For example, a company-supplier of two other companies,
sales; one a collaborator and one not, may end up running two
demand management; and separate supply chains, which means duplication of effort in
customer service. many cases. In particular at the front of technology
In Figure 2, some of the benefits arising from collaboration, as integration many future collaborators are facing difficulties
those identified in the literature, are linked to the in integrating their systems. This increased complexity in
aforementioned supply chain activities (Lewis, 1990; Ellram, technology integration can sometimes cause even the
1995; Walker, 1994; Parker, 2000; Horvath, 2001; Mentzer termination of the collaboration.
et al., 2000; McLaren et al., 2002; Simatupang and Sridharan,
2004). Driving forces and barriers of supply chain
Despite the benefits that have been identified in collaboration: implications for the agri-food
collaboration among companies, collaborative practises may
not be appropriate for every business relationship (Krause,
1999). In fact, apart from the benefits, risks are also involved In order to understand the concept of collaboration in the
in collaborations. One of the most obvious risks in context of the agri-food industry there is a need to better

A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou and B. Manos Volume 12 Number 3 2007 177 186

analyse the sector by identifying its particularities, as well as, industry and how a range of factors impact on the intensity of
the changes that have occurred lately. Which are the supply collaboration.
chain activities where collaboration is possible and what are
the particular elements, benefits, and risks of collaboration The conceptual framework and its propositions
that need to be considered by companies operating in the A conceptual framework is developed based on the overall
sector? framework suggested earlier in paper. All the issues
A number of changes have occurred the last decade in the encapsulated in the overall framework are examined apart
agri-food sector. The entrance of global retailers, industrys from the issue of selecting the appropriate data and
consolidation in most of the sub-sectors, the changing information techniques and technologies, since no valuable
consumer consumption attitudes, as well as the existence of findings were expected to arise. This is due to the level of use of
more strict regulations and laws regarding food production, information and communication technologies in Greek agri-
have altered the business environment for most of the food SMEs, which is rather low (Manthou et al., 2005). On
companies operating in the sector, encouraging collaboration the contrary, the role of industrys macro factors, as well as,
attitudes among companies at all levels. In particular, global micro-factors is included in the framework and explored.
retailers are building partnerships and support close Macro factors are related to the external environment of the
collaboration practises with many of their suppliers in an sector and include general trends and changes that have taken
effort to achieve performance improvements across many place. Micro factors, on the other hand, include the specific
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

internal characteristics of the sector related to its products,

business levels (Kaufman, 1999). The undisputed competitive
processes and structure. In this particular research, the macro-
pressures in the sector also fostered consolidation in most of
factors further considered are; the globalization and
the sub-sectors of the agri-food industry and thus, have
consolidation of the industry, changing consumer
increased the need for collaboration. Consumers nowadays,
consumption attitudes, stricter regulations and laws regarding
are more than ever interested in having healthy food and are
food production and food safety issues. All these have been
characterized by higher levels of food safety concerns
shown in the literature to interact in the development of
(Hughes, 1994). This reality, in combination with the
collaboration in the agri-food supply chain (Hughes, 1994;
recent food crises has increased public pressure for Shaw and Gibbs, 1995; Fearne et al., 2004). Regarding the
transparency, traceability and due diligence throughout micro factors emphasis is given on the particular structure of
the agri-food supply chain (Fearne et al., 2004), and has the industry, as well as, specific product features. The
increased essentially the need for collaboration among entities framework and propositions for subsequent testing are
in the agri-food supply chain. described below (Figure 4) and are generated based on a
Despite the increased importance for collaboration across literature survey. Bacharachs (1989), guidelines on theory
the entire agri-food supply chain, important barriers also exist development have been used, particularly in developing
which may limit collaboration intensity. Most of the barriers relationships between constructs in terms of propositions.
to supply chain collaboration are related to industrys complex The first two propositions link the first pillar of supply chain
and heterogeneous structure. A typical agri-food supply chain collaboration (design and government of supply chain
may consist of a number of entities linked from farm to activities) with macro and micro factors, while the third links
fork, such as farmers, input suppliers, co-operatives, pack- micro factors with the second pillar of supply chain
houses, transporters, exporters, importers, wholesalers, collaboration (establishing and maintaining supply chain
retailers, and finally consumers. The structure of the agri- relationships). Finally, the fourth proposition focuses on the
food industry may be really complex, and for some products it less tangible elements of relationships, emphasizing the way
is quite extended including many entities and resulting in they interact and their role in the intensity of collaboration.
numerous interactions (Matopoulos et al., 2004). The more Concerning industrys macro-factors, globalization extends
the number of the companies, participating in the supply the business scope and activities of a company, to other
chain increases, the more the information exchanges become regions. At the same time, the government of activities that
problematic, hindering supply chain collaboration, as are now dispersed in a greater geographical range becomes
companies often do not have compatible systems for more difficult, increasing the need for collaboration
information exchanges. (Kaufman, 1999). Consolidation of the industry, in
Another important barrier for collaboration arises from the response to the increased competition, encourages
increased diversity of the entities constituting the supply companies to collaborate to a range of supply chain
chain. Companies differences in terms of economic size, activities in order to become competition resistant.
structure, and access on ICT applications, may deteriorate Changing consumer attitudes and stricter food laws and
collaboration intensity due to power-trust reasons, operational regulations, are the drivers that have forced companies of the
complexity or technical reasons, respectively. In Figure 3, a sector to pay attention in securing product quality.
schematic representation of the entities which potentially Collaboration in the form of increased information
participate in the agri-food industry is presented. Different exchanges is needed in order to achieve transparency across
line patterns indicate potential interaction channels. the supply chain (Trienekens and Beulens, 2001). As a result,
the following proposition is proposed:
P1. Industrys macro-factors enhance the design and
Empirical case study government of supply chain relationships by
In this section, empirical insights from the agri-food industry enhancing the intensity of supply chain collaboration.
are provided. In particular, a case study at the grower- Industrys micro-factors affect both the width and the depth
processor interface was conducted in order to investigate and of collaboration. Hypothetically, an intense collaborative
understand collaboration in the context of the agri-food relationship among members in the fresh produce supply

A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou and B. Manos Volume 12 Number 3 2007 177 186

Figure 3 A schematic representation of the agri-food supply chain

Figure 4 A conceptual framework of collaboration development in the

Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

There is a relationship between products specific

agri-food supply chain characteristics of price and supply volatility to the trust-
building process and the intensity of collaboration (OKeeffe,
1998). When the supply of a product is decreased (due to
weather conditions, farmers competence) the farmer may
demand higher prices and better payment terms. Analogously,
the processor when the supply of the product is increased may
demand lower prices, longer payment periods, as well as,
impose stricter product controls. In both cases, the trust
building process is impinged as companies try to realize short-
term benefits. This puts pressure on the collaboration-
building process, deteriorating the intensity of collaboration
and specifically the depth of collaboration from strategic to
operational and tactical. As a result, the third proposition
relates industry micro factors to the establishment and
maintenance of supply chain relationships.
P3. Industrys micro-factors hinder the establishment and
maintenance of supply chain relationships, by
impinging the trust-building process, and deteriorate
the intensity of collaboration.
The balance of power and dependency and its role in the way
relationships evolve has been identified in the literature.
Asymmetrical relationships generate disadvantage for the
weaker party (Johnsen and Ford, 2002) and are less stable
chain would include the identification of the consumption
than symmetrical relationships (Bretherton and Carswell,
trends at the consumer level, the transfer of this information 2002). In the context of the agri-food industry, power
upstream in the chain, the development of the new product imbalance issues are extremely relevant and have been clearly
varieties from the research centre, and finally movement of recognised (OKeefe and Fearne, 2002; Hingley, 2005).
the product downstream in the chain. However, due to time- OKeeffe (1998), agues that it is difficult to achieve
constraints this is unfeasible, since the research for new interdependence in the agri-food industry due to size
varieties and the biological growth cycle of a product may imbalance and as a result, small and less powerful
reach a decade, limiting the width of supply chain activities to companies will be more dependent from large powerful
the more logistics oriented ones in order to meet the increased companies than the opposite. This power asymmetry will
requirements arising by the perishability of agricultural enable large companies to exercise their power, by imposing
products (Schotzko and Hinson, 2000). In addition, the their rules to collaboration, continuously increasing
constraints of the product, related to the uncertain production requirements and risk-reward sharing imbalance. This
imbalance reduces the collaboration attitude, impinges trust
(due to weather conditions or/and farmers competence), limit
and deters collaboration intensity. Therefore, the last
the depth of collaboration from the strategic level to tactical
proposition relates power asymmetry to dependence and
and operational, in order to avoid risky long-term decisions. risk-reward sharing.
This leads to the second proposition: P4. Power asymmetry a) increases the dependence of a
P2. Industrys micro-factors hinder the design and company from another, in favour of the more powerful,
government of supply chain relationships by and b) amplifies the imbalance of risk-reward sharing
deteriorating the intensity of supply chain among companies hindering trust development and as
collaboration. a result collaboration intensity.

A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou and B. Manos Volume 12 Number 3 2007 177 186

Case study design .

What were the main problems encountered in
The method chosen for this study was research by case study. In managing this relationship?
particular, the case study method used was the single-case .
What kind of strategies, if any, were adopted in order
design as called by Yin (1994), with single unit of analysis and to overcome problems?
single number of cases. Research by case study was preferred, .
How successfully did you confront these problems?
since it enables a more descriptive and exploratory approach .
Did differences in the size of companies cause any
allowing for more rich insights into the research object (Yin, difficulties? In which cases did you exercise your
1994; Miles and Huberman, 1994). Case study research has power (or experience it)?
been lately recognised as an increasingly important type of .
How dependent do you consider your company is
research in the context of agri-business sector, since traditional from the other company? What will happen if
research strategies have been often proved to be limited in their tomorrow the collaboration you have ends? What
applicability and scope (Sterns et al., 1998). The case study will be the consequences, if any, for your company
presented in this research is about Hellenic Catering (HC), one and how quickly you will overcome this situation?
of the biggest food processors in Greece, and the collaboration Compare the current situation with the past (the
with Balatsos Company (BC), a family-based company, which beginning of the relationship). Has it changed? In
became HCs biggest supplier of fresh vegetables. HC is the what way?
major supplier in fresh produce and has also established an
How risk and reward sharing has been evolved during
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

alliance with Goodys, which is the biggest fast-food restaurant your relationship? What were the main drivers for this
chain in Greece. HC currently operates in two facilities in situation?
Thessaloniki and Athens, employing nearly three hundred and
How much do you trust the other company? Has the
eighty people. Its main business activity includes the production level of trust altered during the collaboration? What
of meat-products, ready to eat meals, sauces and fresh were the main reasons for this situation?
vegetables. Nearly 80 per cent of the production goes to
Goodys, while the remaining 20 per cent goes to hotels and The protocol aimed at encapsulating the constructs of the
supermarkets. conceptual framework. In particular, the first part of the
In order to collect data an interview protocol has been questionnaire contained questions regarding the business
developed, as follows. activities, the size of the companies and general discussion
related to the particularities of the sector, as well as, the
Interview protocol changes that had occurred lately. The second part dealt with
Overview the relationship between the two companies. In this particular
1 General company information: part, a number of issues regarding the type of relationship, its
Size of the company (number of employees, annual evolution over time, the nature of dependence and the role of
turnover). other critical elements, such as power and trust to the
Business structure and business units of the company. intensity of collaboration were explored. Semi-structured in
Describe the business activities undertaken by the depth interviews were conducted with the purchasing
company. manager and the managing director of the two companies
2 Sector characteristics: respectively. In fact, the first interview was conducted with the
Describe the competition in the sector in comparison purchasing manager of the first company, where he also
to the past. What drives competition nowadays? introduced to us the contact of the other company. The
Has the strategy towards competition evolved over duration of the interviews was more than an hour each. A
years? How? follow up was done by telephone, in order to clarify some of
What are the requirements in market today and have the responses given. To ensure the internal consistency of the
they changed the last years? If yes why? data, responses of each participant were further explored and
3 Changes and developments in your supply chain: cross checked by asking the other participant, avoiding in any
What is currently the structure of your supply chain case to provoke debate between participants.
(number of suppliers/customers, areas of
collaboration, requirements? Has it changed the last Findings-discussion of results
years? In what way? The propositions formulated in the conceptual framework can
What were the drivers for the above changes, if any? now be supported or not, based on the empirical results of the
What were the benefits and the constraints of such an case study.
evolution? P1. Industrys macro-factors enhance the design and
government of supply chain relationships by
Relationship between companies enhancing the intensity of supply chain collaboration.
1 General characteristics: The case study revealed that some industry macro- factors
Describe your relationship with the specific partner enhance the intensity of collaboration in the agri-food supply
(history of the relationship, areas of collaboration, chain. For example, the case study supports the fact that
percentage of products supplied). changing consumer attitudes enhanced the intensity of
What were the reasons for starting up the specific collaboration. Indeed, in the late 1990s there was an
collaboration? increased need in the market (originated by Goodys) for
2 Analysing the relationship: greater quantities of vegetables in response to changing
Describe your relationship with the other company consumer attitudes and preferences (more people eating out
(advantages/disadvantages). in fast-food restaurants, preferring more healthy-like food).

A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou and B. Manos Volume 12 Number 3 2007 177 186

This resulted in a strategic-level decision from HC and Analogously, reduced demand for lettuce from HC, in
Goodys to start up collaboration. Thus, HC became Goodys relation to overproduction or stable production of lettuce
exclusive supplier of fresh vegetables. In addition, industrys from BC resulted in similar practises from HC, which posed
consolidation enhances the intensity of supply chain issues for quality standards resulting in downward price
collaboration. The appearance of new companies operating pressures. Even if this situation was not occurring at a regular
in HCs sector resulted in increased competition pressuring basis, it created conflicts and lack of trust in the business
HC to become more efficient in its activities. As a result, the relationship. The data support this proposition, corroborating
company decided to change its supply policy, towards an also the suggestions of OKeeffe (1998), regarding the trust-
effort to rationalise its supply base, ensuring product building process.
excellence (in terms of quantity- quality) and process P4. Power asymmetry a) increases the dependence of a
excellence (in terms of cost and time reductions). The company from another, in favour of the more powerful,
company up to the late 1990s had a really big supplier base for and b) amplifies the imbalance of risk-reward sharing
fresh vegetables (tomatoes, cucumber, lettuce, carrots etc.), among companies hindering trust development and as
constituting of nearly forty suppliers. In fact, the company a result collaboration intensity.
was buying fresh vegetables from the local central fruit and One of the most interesting aspects of this collaboration is
vegetable market, negotiating prices and quantities on a related to the way power asymmetry has been evolved over
regular basis. This situation quite often resulted in losses of time and the way it has affected the interdependence of the
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

product quality and at the same time significant excess of two companies as well as, the risk-reward sharing. At the
costs. Costs included not only the actual price-driven costs, beginning of the collaboration the size imbalance between HC
but also indirect costs of finding, negotiating and monitoring and BC was in favour of HC, making BC completely
the appropriate supplier. The exploratory evidence also shows dependent on HCs decisions. Despite this extremely power
that macro factors such as, globalization, stricter food laws unbalanced relationship, BC did enter the relationship and
and regulations, do not play an important role in enhancing tolerated power imbalance supporting also the suggestions of
the intensity of supply chain collaboration. Blundel and Hingley (2001), regarding the initial decision of
P2. Industrys micro-factors hinder the design and an SME to start a collaboration. However, this situation has
government of supply chain relationships by been reversed. Bretherton and Carswell (2002) suggest, the
deteriorating the intensity of supply chain imbalance of power drives the weaker party to seek alternative
collaboration. alliances. In the case study this is almost the case, since BC
The case study demonstrates deterioration on the intensity of did not seek for alternative alliances, but instead it entered
supply chain collaboration due to product features and the very successfully to new business activities in addition to
structure of the industry. Indeed, due to product features the lettuce production. This resulted in a shift of dependence,
main area for collaboration between HC and BC concerns with HC becoming to a great extent more dependent than
predominantly logistics-related activities, such as BC, despite the power imbalance which was still in favour of
transportation, ordering, procurement, rather than activities HC.
related to joint development of new products, or joint demand Risk-reward sharing, also, evolved over time following to a
management. This occurs not only as a result of the specific great extent the power-dependence balance. Initially, when
characteristics of the product, but also the structure of the BC was dependent from HC, no mutuality in risk sharing
sector. For example, in order to achieve joint development of existed. Indeed, the risk for BC was quite significant. Huge
new products, or joint demand management, further investments in production facilities (greenhouse operations)
integration upstream and downstream in the chain is were needed and on the contrary no commitment, in terms of
required. The case study shows that both upstream and contract, was given from the part of HC. The result was a
downstream integration is difficult to achieve, particularly continuous pressure from the BC to HC, which created trust
upstream integration with the entities responsible for problems and collaboration inefficiencies (increased control
developing new varieties; no such links exist. Finally, the and production monitoring etc.). However, as the
volatile nature of price and supply, deters the depth of dependence of BC from HC reduced over time, even if
collaboration to operational and tactical level, rather than power asymmetry still existed, risk-reward sharing imbalance,
strategic, despite the fact BC, put pressure on HC to also, reduced and resulted in better collaboration attitude,
collaborate on a strategic level by conducting joint and more intense collaboration particularly at the operational
investments in the field of greenhouse vegetable production. and tactical level. The exploratory evidence, in contrast to
P3. Industrys micro-factors hinder the establishment and Handfield and Bechtel (2004), show that it is the element of
maintenance of supply chain relationships, by dependence affecting the trust-building process and thus
impinging the trust-building process, and deteriorate collaboration intensity, rather than the element of power. As a
the intensity of collaboration. result, neither the proposition of power asymmetry increasing
the dependence of a company from another, in favour of the
The case study identified that products features impinge the more powerful, nor the proposition of power asymmetry
trust-building process and hinder the establishment of supply amplifing the imbalance of risk-benefit sharing among
chain relationships. In particular, the volatile nature of the companies is supported.
product, in terms of quantity and quality, impinged trust
building between companies. Indeed, there were cases where
increased demand from HC followed by low production
volumes (due to weather conditions, or farmers Collaboration is a very broad and encompassing term and
incompetence) resulted in increased requirements in terms when it is put in the context of the supply chain it needs yet
of prices and better payment terms, from BC for all levels. further clarification (Barratt, 2004). The complex nature of

A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou and B. Manos Volume 12 Number 3 2007 177 186

supply chains adds difficulties in the elements involved in the second limitation is the focus on dyadic relationships;
concept of supply chain collaboration. The literature review extending the research focus to more complex supply chain
undertaken, although not exhaustive, served as a relationships across the entire chain would be also useful.
comprehensive base for understanding and developing a While none of the factors identified in the research are truly
framework for supply chain collaboration. Two major pillars new or novel, they have never been studied in the agri-food
were identified: the design and government of supply chain context before, and this is the key contribution of this study.
activities, and the establishment and maintenance of supply Future research on supply chain collaboration is required in
chain relationships. order to develop a more clear understanding of the benefits,
Part of this overall framework was further explored in the as well as, the risks of supply chain collaboration and the way
context of the agri-food industry in an effort to understand the aforementioned elements of trust, power and dependence
the concept of supply chain collaboration in a specific context. interact in the collaboration building process.
The case study conducted revealed that while there is a true
need for supply chain collaboration, the structure of the agri-
food sector along with the nature of products impinges the References
intensity of collaboration, to more operational and tactical
level, as well as, to logistics-related activities. For example, the Adams, C.L. and Goldsmith, P.D. (1999), Conditions for
companies coordinate on the procurement/supply and successful strategic alliances in the food industry,
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

distribution process mainly at the tactical level (e.g. arrange

Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 221-48.
procurement details and terms, delivery times), however when
Anderson, D.L. and Lee, H. (1999), Synchronized supply
it comes to more complicated supply chain activities, such as
chains: the new frontier, Achieving Supply Chain Excellence
product design/new product development and demand
Through Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 12-21.
management or even when they have to plan at the Anderson, D.L. and Lee, H. (2001), New supply chains
operational level, they are unable to collaborate. business models the opportunities and the challenges,
Regarding the critical elements affecting the establishment Achieving Supply Chain Excellence Through Technology, Vol. 3,
and maintenance of supply chain relationships, trust seems to pp. 12-18.
seriously affect the intensity of collaboration limiting the Andraski, J.C. (1999), Supply chain collaboration,
depth and the width of collaboration. In addition, the available:
exploratory evidence, in contrast to Handfield and Bechtel (accessed 01/09/2000).
(2004), show that it is the element of dependence affecting Bacharach, B.S. (1989), Organizational theories: some
risk and reward sharing and thus, the trust-building process criteria for evaluation, Academy of Management Review,
and subsequently collaboration intensity, rather than the Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 496-515.
element of power. Regarding the risk of dependence of small Barratt, M. (2004), Understanding the meaning of
companies by large ones, the case study shows in the long- collaboration, Supply Chain Management: An International
term the dependence imbalance and the power imbalance can Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
be altered in favour of small companies. In the case study, the Barratt, M. and Oliveira, A. (2001), Exploring the
weaker part of the relationship sought to enter to new experiences of collaborative planning initiatives,
business activities, in order to alter the dependence imbalance International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
and this also concurs with Hingleys (2005) view about Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 266-89.
weaker organisations having a certain degree of tolerance in Becker, J.F.F., Verduijn, T.M. and Kumar, K. (2004),
asymmetric relationships. The result was that the more Supply chain collaboration across strategic, tactical and
powerful company, became more dependent from the weaker operational planning, available at:
part, than the opposite, presenting the so called Paradox of PPhr175.pdf (accessed 10/09/2004).
power. This was achieved as the weaker company, in its Blundel, R.K. and Hingley, M.K. (2001), Exploring growth
effort to meet large companys requirements, accomplished in vertical inter-firm relationships: small-medium firms
unique product or/and process excellence, making difficult for supplying multiple food retailers, Journal of Small Business
other competitors to follow. and Enterprise Development, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 245-65.
Brandenburger, A.M. and Nalebuff, B.J. (1996), Co-opetiton,
Regarding the overall proposed research framework, the
Doubleday, New York, NY.
case study identified the importance of the elements of trust,
Bretherton, P. and Carswell, P. (2002), Trust me Im a
power, dependence, and risk/reward sharing in establishing
marketing academic! A cross-disciplinary look at trust,
and maintaining supply chain relationships, as well as, the role
Proceedings of Academy of Marketing Annual Conference,
of the above elements in selecting partner, deciding on Nottingham University Business School 2-5 July.
collaboration width and depth. However, the issue of selecting Bowersox, D.J. (1990), The strategic benefits of logistics
information and data sharing techniques and technologies alliances, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 4,
needs also to be tackled, in particular its interrelation with the pp. 36-43.
elements of the second pillar. The propositions developed in Cadilhon, J.J. and Fearne, A.P. (2005), Lessons in
this paper, as well as the overall framework for supply chain collaboration: a case study from Vietnam, Supply Chain
collaboration offer scope for further testing and development. Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 11-12.
They should be seen as an effort to an improved Chopra, S. and Meindl, P. (2001), Supply Chain Management:
understanding of collaboration. Strategy, Planning and Operation, Prentice Hall Editions,
The study has two main limitations. The first limitation is Upper Saddle River, NJ.
that the research draws from one relationship only. Further Christopher, M. (1998), Logistics and Supply Chain
qualitative testing of the conceptual model is needed with the Management, 2nd ed., Pearson Education Publishing,
aim of literal or theoretical replication (Yin, 2003). The Harlow.

A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou and B. Manos Volume 12 Number 3 2007 177 186

Corbett, C.J., Blackburn, J.D. and van Wassenhove, L.N. Krause, D.R. (1999), The antecedents of buying firms-
(1999), Partnerships to improve supply chains, Sloan efforts to improve suppliers, Journal of Operations
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 71-82. Management, Vol. 172, pp. 205-24.
Cox, A., Lonsdale, C. and Watson, G. (2003), The role of Kumar, N. (1996), The power of trust in manufacturer/
incentives in buyer-supplier relationships: industrial cases retailer relationships, Harvard Business Review, November-
from a UK study, Proceedings of the 19th Annual IMP December, pp. 92-106.
Conference, Lugano, 4-6 September. La Londe, B. (2002), Who can you trust these days?,
Dapiran, G.P. and Hogarth-Scott, S. (2003), Are Supply Chain Management Review, May/June, p. 11.
co-operation and trust being confused with power? An Lamming, R. (1993), Beyond Partnership, Prentice Hall,
analysis of food retailing in Australia and the UK, New York, NY.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Lewis, D.J. (1990), Partnership for Profit: Structuring and
Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 256-67. Managing Strategic Alliances, The Free Press, New York,
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), Developing NY.
buyer-seller relationship, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, McCarthy, T.M. and Golicic, S.L. (2002), Implementing
pp. 11-27. collaborative forecasting to improve supply chain
Ellram, L.M. (1995), Partnering pitfalls and success performance, International Journal of Physical Distribution
factors, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials & Logistic Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 431-54.
McLaren, T., Head, M. and Yuan, Y. (2002), Supply chain
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

Management, Spring.
European Commission (2002), ICT and E-business in the Food, collaboration alternatives: understanding the expected cost
Beverage and Tobacco Industry, European e-business Market and benefits, Internet Research: Electronic Networking
Watch, Sector report, No. 1, July. Applications and Policy, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 348-64.
Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2002), The rhetoric and Macneil, I.R. (1981), Economic Analysis of contractual
reality of supply chain integration, International Journal of relations: its shortfalls and the need for a rich classificatory
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, apparatus, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 75
pp. 339-61. No. 1, pp. 1018-63.
Fearne, A., Hughes, D. and Duffy, R. (2004), Concepts of Manthou, V., Matopoulos, A. and Vlachopoulou, M. (2005),
Internet-based applications in agri-food logistics: a survey
collaboration-supply chain management in a global food
on the Greek canning sector, Journal of Food Engineering,
industry, available at:
Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 447-54 (Special Issue on Operational
Research and Food Logistics).
(accessed 10/09/2004).
Matopoulos, A., Vlachopoulou, M., Folinas, D. and
Gattorna, J.L. and Walters, D.W. (1996), Managing the Supply
Manthou, V. (2004), Information architecture framework
Chain, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
for agri-food networks, in Bremmers, H., Omta, S.W.F.,
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglou, E. (2001),
Trienekens, J.H. and Wubben, E.F.M. (Eds), Proceedings of
Performance measure and metrics in a supply chain
the 6th International Conference on Chain and Network
environment, International Journal of Operations &
Management in Agribusiness and the Food Industry 27-28 May,
Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 71-87. Ede.
Handfield, R.B. and Bechtel, C. (2004), Trust, power, Mentzer, J.T., Fonghin, J.H. and Golicic, S.L. (2000),
dependence, and economics: can SCM research borrow Supply chain collaboration: enablers, impediments and
paradigms?, International Journal of Integrated Supply benefits, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 4,
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-32. September-October, pp. 52-80.
Hines, P. (1994), Creating World Class Suppliers, Pitman, Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data
London. Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage, London
Hingley, M.K. (2005), Power imbalanced relationships: and Thousand Oaks, CA.
cases from UK fresh food supply, International Journal of Muchstadt, J.A., Murray, D.H., Rappold, J.A. and Collins,
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, D.E. (2001), Guidelines for collaborative supply chain
pp. 551-69. system design and operation, Information System Frontiers,
Horvath, L. (2001), Collaboration: the key to value creation Vol. 3-4, pp. 427-53.
in supply chain management, Supply Chain Management: OKeeffe, M. (1998), Establishing supply chain
An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 205-7. partnerships: lessons from Australian agribusiness,
Hughes, D. (1994), Breaking with Tradition: Building Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3
Partnerships and Alliances in the European Food Industry, No. 1.
Wye College Press, Wye. OKeefe, M. and Fearne, A. (2002), From commodity
Huxham, C. (1996), Creating Collaborative Advantage, Sage marketing to category management: insights from the
Publications, London. Waitrose category leadership programme in fresh produce,
Johnsen, R.E. and Ford, D. (2002), Developing the concept Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7
of asymmetrical and symmetrical relationships: linking No. 5, pp. 296-301.
relationship characteristics and firms capabilities and Parker, H. (2000), Inter-firm collaboration and the new
strategies, in Spencer, R., Pons, J-F. and Gasiglia, H. product development process, Industrial Management and
(Eds), Proceedings of the 18th Annual IMP Conference Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 6, pp. 255-60.
Graduate School of Business and Management, Dijon, Sahay, B.S. (2003), Supply chain collaboration: the key to
5-7 September. value creation, Work Study, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 76-83.
Kaufman, P. (1999), Food retailing consolidation: Schotzko, R.T. and Hinson, R.A. (2000), Supply chain
implications for supply chain management practices, management in perishables: a produce application, Journal
Journal of Food Distribution Research, March, pp. 6-11. of Food Distribution Research, July, pp. 17-28.

A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
A. Matopoulos, M. Vlachopoulou, V. Manthou and B. Manos Volume 12 Number 3 2007 177 186

Shaw, A.S. and Gibbs, J. (1995), Retailer-supplier on supply chain operations. He has been involved as a
relationships and the evolution of marketing, researcher in the national research programme Heraklitos
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, and EQUAL, and he participated in the E-business forum
Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 7-16. (work-team Z2: Using RFID for the integration of the supply
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2004), Benchmarking chain, and work-team I2: E-business in SMEs in the food
supply chain collaboration: an empirical study, industry, under the auspices of the Greek Ministry of
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, Development). He is also a member of Hellenic and
pp. 484-503. International Associations. A. Matopoulos is the
Spekman, R. and Salmond, D. (1992), A Working Consensus to corresponding author and can be contacted at:
Collaborate: A Field Study of Manufacturer-Supplier Dyads,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. M. Vlachopoulou is an Associate Professor of e-Marketing/
Spekman, R. and Sawhney, K. (1995), Toward a conceptual Business at the University of Macedonia, Department of
understanding of the antecedents of strategic alliances, in Applied Informatics, Thessaloniki, Greece. Her professional
Wilson, D. and Mollen, C. (Eds), Business Marketing: expertise and research interests include: Marketing information
An Interaction and Network Perspective, Kent Publishing, systems, E-Business, ERP/CRM systems, Supply chain
Boston, MA, pp. 157-92. management, Knowledge management, e-supply chain
Stank, T.P., Crum, M. and Arango, M. (1999), Benefits of management, e-logistics, Virtual organization/enterprise
inter-firm co-ordination in food industry supply chains, modeling. She has participated in European Projects in the
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 21-41. above fields, and she was an expert evaluator of STAR project
Sterns, J.A., Schweikhardt, D.B. and Peterson, H.C. (1998), research. She has published papers in Greek and International
Using case studies as an approach for conducting Journals, and books. She acts as a reviewer in the International
Agribusiness Research, International Food and Agribusiness Journal of Production Economics, the International Journal of
Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 311-27. Business Information Systems, the European Journal of Operational
Stevens, G.C. (1989), Integrating the supply chain, Research, and for the Balkan Conference of Operations
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Research. She has been chairman in several scientific
Management, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 3-8. conferences, and member of organizing and scientific
Trienekens, J. and Beulens, A. (2001), The implications of committees. She is a member of Hellenic and International
EU food safety legislation and consumer demands on Associations and visiting research professor at the University of
supply chain information systems, working paper, Sunderland, UK. She has also served as a consultant to private
Department of Management Studies, Wageningen companies in Greece.
V. Manthou is an Associate Professor of Information Systems
Wagner, B.A., Macbeth, D.K. and Boddy, D. (2002),
& Logistics at the University of Macedonia, Department of
Improving supply chain relations: an empirical case
Applied Informatics, Thessaloniki, Greece. Her professional
study, Supply Chain Management: An International
expertise and research interests include: analysis and design of
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 253-64.
management information systems, Supply chain management,
Walker, M. (1994), Supplier-retailer collaboration in
European grocery distribution, Logistics Information Logistics, ERP, e-commerce, health information systems. She
Management, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 23-7. has participated and participating in European Projects in the
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, above fields (e-business forum, ISIS project) and has published
2nd ed., Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA. papers and reports in Greek and International Journals, and
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, books. She acts as a reviewer for the International Journal of
3rd ed., Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA. Production Economics, the International Journal of Logistics Systems
and Management, the TQM Magazine, the International Journal of
Enterprise Information Systems and for the Balkan Conference of
Further reading Operations Research. She has been chairman in many scientific
Ellram, L.M. (1991), A managerial guideline for the conferences, and member of organizing and scientific
development of implementation of purchasing committees. She is a member of Hellenic and International
partnerships, International Journal of Purchasing and Associations and visiting research professor at Loyola
Materials Management, pp. 2-8. University, USA. She has also served as a consultant to private
companies in Greece.
B. Manos is a Professor of Agricultural Economics at the
About the authors Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Agriculture,
A. Matopoulos is a Doctoral candidate at the University of Lab. of Agricultural Informatics, Thessaloniki, Greece. His
Macedonia, Department of Applied Informatics, professional expertise and research interests include: decision
Thessaloniki, Greece. He received his BSc in Agriculture, support systems, agricultural economics, operational research
from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, and his MSc in and computer applications in the agricultural sector. He has
Food Industry Management and Marketing, from Imperial participated and participating in a number of European
College, Wye Campus, University of London. His current projects in the above fields and has published several papers
research interests include: Logistics and supply chain and reports in Greek and International Journals, and books.
management, E-business adoption and E-Business impact He is a member of Hellenic and International Associations.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:

Or visit our web site for further details:

This article has been cited by:

1. AliMohd Helmi, Mohd Helmi Ali, ZhanYuanzhu, Yuanzhu Zhan, AlamSyed Shah, Syed Shah Alam, TseYing Kei, Ying Kei
Tse, TanKim Hua, Kim Hua Tan. 2017. Food supply chain integrity: the need to go beyond certification. Industrial Management
& Data Systems 117:8, 1589-1611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Cunha CalladoAntnio Andr, Antnio Andr Cunha Callado, JackLisa, Lisa Jack. 2017. Relations between usage patterns of
performance indicators and the role of individual firms in fresh fruit agri-food supply chains. Journal of Applied Accounting Research
18:3, 375-398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. AkhtarPervaiz, Pervaiz Akhtar, KaurSushil, Sushil Kaur, PunjaisriKhanyapuss, Khanyapuss Punjaisri. 2017. Chain coordinators
strategic leadership and coordination effectiveness. European Business Review 29:5, 515-533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Vernica Len-Bravo, Federico Caniato, Maria Caridi, Thomas Johnsen. 2017. Collaboration for Sustainability in the Food
Supply Chain: A Multi-Stage Study in Italy. Sustainability 9:7, 1253. [Crossref]
5. Fernndez-BarcalaMarta, Marta Fernndez-Barcala, Gonzlez-DazManuel, Manuel Gonzlez-Daz, RaynaudEmmanuel,
Emmanuel Raynaud. 2017. Contrasting the governance of supply chains with and without geographical indications:
complementarity between levels. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 22:4, 305-320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

6. BandaraSumangala, Sumangala Bandara, LeckieCivilai, Civilai Leckie, LoboAntonio, Antonio Lobo, HewegeChandana,
Chandana Hewege. 2017. Power and relationship quality in supply chains. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 29:3,
501-518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Zahir Irani, Muhammad Mustafa Kamal, Amir Sharif, Peter E. D. Love. 2017. Enabling sustainable energy futures: factors
influencing green supply chain collaboration. Production Planning & Control 28:6-8, 684-705. [Crossref]
8. Marianne Hubeau, Fleur Marchand, Guido Van Huylenbroeck. 2017. Sustainability Experiments in the Agri-Food System:
Uncovering the Factors of New Governance and Collaboration Success. Sustainability 9:6, 1027. [Crossref]
9. de WaalAndr, Andr de Waal, MeingastAlex, Alex Meingast. 2017. Applying the high performance organisation framework in
the horticulture and greenhouse sector. Measuring Business Excellence 21:2, 136-151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. SoniGunjan, Gunjan Soni, KodaliRambabu, Rambabu Kodali. 2017. A classification scheme for representing the variation
in business and supply chain performance in Indian manufacturing industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal 24:4,
1013-1036. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. LiljestrandKristina, Kristina Liljestrand. 2017. Logistics solutions for reducing food waste. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 47:4, 318-339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Stephanie Brooks, Adam Leaver, Michelle Spence, Christopher T Elliott, Moira Dean. 2017. Pragmatic engagement in a low
trust supply chain: Beef farmers perceptions of power, trust and agency. Competition & Change 21:2, 114-131. [Crossref]
13. Sirirat Pungchompoo, Yongyuth Dunyakul. Effects of collaborative factors on supply chain performance measurement in Thai
frozen shrimp supply chain 131-135. [Crossref]
14. StranieriStefanella, Stefanella Stranieri, OrsiLuigi, Luigi Orsi, BanterleAlessandro, Alessandro Banterle. 2017. Traceability and
risks: an extended transaction cost perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 22:2, 145-159. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
15. PradabwongJiraporn, Jiraporn Pradabwong, BraziotisChristos, Christos Braziotis, TannockJames D.T., James D.T. Tannock,
PawarKulwant S., Kulwant S. Pawar. 2017. Business process management and supply chain collaboration: effects on performance
and competitiveness. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 22:2, 107-121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Gopal Kumar, R.N. Banerjee, P.L. Meena, Kunal K. Ganguly. 2017. Joint planning and problem solving roles in supply chain
collaboration. IIMB Management Review 29:1, 45-57. [Crossref]
17. MahajanRajneesh, Rajneesh Mahajan, GargSuresh, Suresh Garg, SharmaP.B., P.B. Sharma. 2017. Processed food supply chain:
a framework for literature review. Journal of Advances in Management Research 14:1, 91-109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. NakandalaDilupa, Dilupa Nakandala, SamaranayakePremaratne, Premaratne Samaranayake, LauHenry, Henry Lau,
RamanathanKrishnamurthy, Krishnamurthy Ramanathan. 2017. Modelling information flow and sharing matrix for fresh food
supply chains. Business Process Management Journal 23:1, 108-129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Al-HakimLatif, Latif Al-Hakim, LuWu, Wu Lu. 2017. The role of collaboration and technology diffusion on business
performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 66:1, 22-50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. AliMohd Helmi, Mohd Helmi Ali, TanKim Hua, Kim Hua Tan, IsmailMd Daud, Md Daud Ismail. 2017. A supply chain
integrity framework for halal food. British Food Journal 119:1, 20-38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. O. Sivarak. Global Supply Chain in Asia 99-121. [Crossref]
22. Oliver Thomas, Novica Zarvi, Jrg Brezl, Michael Brockschmidt, Michael Fellmann. Lebensmittelindustrie 4.0 Cyber-
physische Produktionssysteme zur sicheren und unverflschbaren Datenverarbeitung 59-69. [Crossref]
23. Ana Esteso, M. M. E. Alemany, Angel Ortiz. Conceptual Framework for Managing Uncertainty in a Collaborative Agri-Food
Supply Chain Context 715-724. [Crossref]
24. Gerard Costa, Alexis Mavrommatis, Mar Vila, Susana Valdes. Collaborative Relationships Between Manufacturers and Retailers:
A Supply Chain Collaboration Framework 201-210. [Crossref]
25. Guoqing Zhao, Shaofeng Liu, Carmen Lopez. A Literature Review on Risk Sources and Resilience Factors in Agri-Food Supply
Chains 739-752. [Crossref]
26. Ilan Bijaoui. Models of SMEs Globalisation 61-104. [Crossref]
27. Dung Ho, Arun Kumar, Nirajan Shiwakoti. Maturity model for supply chain collaboration: CMMI approach 845-849. [Crossref]
28. Hee-Sung Bae. 2016. The Moderating Effect of Logistics Information Systems on Interorganizational Collaboration and
Performance of Korean Shipping and Logistics Firms. International Journal of e-Navigation and Maritime Economy 5, 85-96.
29. TimsinaKrishna P., Krishna P. Timsina, BastakotiRam C., Ram C. Bastakoti, ShivakotiGanesh P., Ganesh P. Shivakoti. 2016.
Achieving strategic fit in onion seed supply chain. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies 6:2, 127-149.
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

30. Pervaiz Akhtar, Ying Kei Tse, Zaheer Khan, Rekha Rao-Nicholson. 2016. Data-driven and adaptive leadership contributing to
sustainability: global agri-food supply chains connected with emerging markets. International Journal of Production Economics
181, 392-401. [Crossref]
31. CaiZhao, Zhao Cai, HuangQian, Qian Huang, LiuHefu, Hefu Liu, LiangLiang, Liang Liang. 2016. The moderating role of
information technology capability in the relationship between supply chain collaboration and organizational responsiveness.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 36:10, 1247-1271. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Olga M.C. van der Valk, Birgit I. De Vos. 2016. Family ties, preconceived images and trust: How local community defines market
collaboration in the Dutch fish chain. Marine Policy 71, 175-183. [Crossref]
33. Heidi C. Dreyer, Jan O. Strandhagen, Hans-Henrik Hvolby, Anita Romsdal, Erlend Alfnes. 2016. Supply chain strategies for
speciality foods: a Norwegian case study. Production Planning & Control 27:11, 878-893. [Crossref]
34. Jos Orlando Ferreira, Mrio Otvio Batalha, Jean Carlos Domingos. 2016. Integrated planning model for citrus agribusiness
system using systems dynamics. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 126, 1-11. [Crossref]
35. Sazzad Parwez. 2016. A Conceptual Model for Integration of Indian Food Supply Chains. Global Business Review 17:4, 834-850.
36. Marco Formentini, Pietro Romano. 2016. Towards supply chain collaboration in B2B pricing. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 36:7, 734-756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Chaoyu Li, Jun Ren, Jin Wang, Zaili Yang, Dan Chang. Hazard identification in chemical supply chains: The development of
a novel taxonomy 1-6. [Crossref]
38. Lars-Erik Gadde, Pegah Amani. 2016. Food supply in a network context. British Food Journal 118:6, 1407-1421. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
39. Kathleen Hastings, Janet Howieson, Meredith Lawley. 2016. Creating value chains: the role of relationship development. British
Food Journal 118:6, 1384-1406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. KumarGopal, Gopal Kumar, BanerjeeRabindra Nath, Rabindra Nath Banerjee, MeenaPurushottam Lal, Purushottam Lal Meena,
GangulyKunal, Kunal Ganguly. 2016. Collaborative culture and relationship strength roles in collaborative relationships: a supply
chain perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 31:5, 587-599. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. MirkovskiKristijan, Kristijan Mirkovski, LowryPaul Benjamin, Paul Benjamin Lowry, FengBo, Bo Feng. 2016. Factors that
influence interorganizational use of information and communications technology in relationship-based supply chains: evidence
from the Macedonian and American wine industries. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:3, 334-351.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Gunjan Soni, Rambabu Kodali. 2016. Path analysis for proposed framework of SCM excellence in Indian manufacturing industry.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 27:4, 577-611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Shikha Aggarwal, Manoj Kumar Srivastava. 2016. Towards a grounded view of collaboration in Indian agri-food supply chains.
British Food Journal 118:5, 1085-1106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Eleftherios Iakovou, Dionysis Bochtis, Dimitrios Vlachos, Dimitrios Aidonis. Sustainable Agrifood Supply Chain Management
1-39. [Crossref]
45. Klementina Kirezieva, Jos Bijman, Liesbeth Jacxsens, Pieternel A. Luning. 2016. The role of cooperatives in food safety
management of fresh produce chains: Case studies in four strawberry cooperatives. Food Control 62, 299-308. [Crossref]
46. Beatriz Andres, Raquel Sanchis, Raul Poler. 2016. A Cloud Platform to support Collaboration in Supply Networks. International
Journal of Production Management and Engineering 4:1, 5. [Crossref]
47. Jabir Ali. 2016. Adoption of Innovative Agricultural Practices Across the Vegetable Supply Chain. International Journal of Vegetable
Science 22:1, 14-23. [Crossref]
48. Wike Agustin Prima Dania, Ke Xing, Yousef Amer. 2016. Collaboration and Sustainable Agri-Food Suply Chain: A Literature
Review. MATEC Web of Conferences 58, 02004. [Crossref]
49. Huan Zhang, Jianli Jiang. 2016. Informed Principal Model and Contract in Supply Chain with Demand Disruption Asymmetric
Information. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2016, 1-12. [Crossref]
50. Jess Garca-Arca, J. Carlos Prado-Prado, A. Trinidad Gonzlez-Portela. The Supply Chain Improvement Through Primary
Collaboration. An Action Research Experience 618-625. [Crossref]
51. Carla de Oliveira Siqueira, Gilberto Miller Devs Ganga, Luis Antonio de Santa-Eulalia. 2015. A viso de um fornecedor-chave
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

sobre a colaborao com a montadora. Gesto & Produo 22:4, 902-919. [Crossref]
52. Joanne Labrecque, Bertrand Dulude, Sylvain Charlebois. 2015. Sustainability and strategic advantages using supply chain-based
determinants in pork production. British Food Journal 117:11, 2630-2648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Nicolas Danloup, Vahid Mirzabeiki, Hamid Allaoui, Gilles Goncalves, Denyse Julien, Carlos Mena. 2015. Reducing transportation
greenhouse gas emissions with collaborative distribution. Management Research Review 38:10, 1049-1067. [Abstract] [Full Text]
54. Jelena Vlajic. Vulnerability and Robustness of SME Supply Chains: An Empirical Study of Risk and Disturbance Management
of Fresh Food Processors in a Developing Market 85-102. [Crossref]
55. Sajad Fayezi, Maryam Zomorrodi. 2015. The role of relationship integration in supply chain agility and flexibility development.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 26:8, 1126-1157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. Hadiyan Wijaya Ibrahim, Suhaiza Zailani, Keah Choon Tan. 2015. A content analysis of global supply chain research.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 22:7, 1429-1462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Oliver Thomas, Novica Zarvi, Jrg Brezl, Michael Brockschmidt, Michael Fellmann. 2015. Lebensmittelindustrie 4.0 Cyber-
physische Produktionssysteme zur sicheren und unverflschbaren Datenverarbeitung. HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik 52:5,
759-768. [Crossref]
58. Yi-Hui Liang. 2015. Performance measurement of interorganizational information systems in the supply chain. International
Journal of Production Research 53:18, 5484-5499. [Crossref]
59. Claudine Antoinette Soosay, Paul Hyland. 2015. A decade of supply chain collaboration and directions for future research. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 20:6, 613-630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Anne Touboulic, Helen Walker. 2015. Love me, love me not: A nuanced view on collaboration in sustainable supply chains.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 21:3, 178-191. [Crossref]
61. Daniel Chicksand. 2015. Partnerships: The role that power plays in shaping collaborative buyersupplier exchanges. Industrial
Marketing Management 48, 121-139. [Crossref]
62. Masayasu Nagashima, Frederick T. Wehrle, Laoucine Kerbache, Marc Lassagne. 2015. Impacts of adaptive collaboration on
demand forecasting accuracy of different product categories throughout the product life cycle. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 20:4, 415-433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Foivos Anastasiadis, Nigel Poole. 2015. Emergent supply chains in the agrifood sector: insights from a whole chain approach.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:4, 353-368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Jafar Rezaei, Roland Ortt, Paul Trott. 2015. How SMEs can benefit from supply chain partnerships. International Journal of
Production Research 53:5, 1527-1543. [Crossref]
65. .N Yatsenko-Stepanova. 2015. Addition to the algal flora for Orenburg Region. Algologia 25:1, 91-99. [Crossref]
66. Gunjan Soni, Rambabu Kodali. 2015. An empirical investigation of supply chain management excellence framework in Indian
manufacturing industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 229:2,
343-364. [Crossref]
67. Francesco Pomponi, Luciano Fratocchi, Silvia Rossi Tafuri. 2015. Trust development and horizontal collaboration in logistics: a
theory based evolutionary framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:1, 83-97. [Abstract] [Full Text]
68. Anna Fredriksson, Kristina Liljestrand. 2015. Capturing food logistics: a literature review and research agenda. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 18:1, 16-34. [Crossref]
69. Joyce Slater, Fiona Yeudall. 2015. Sustainable Livelihoods for Food and Nutrition Security in Canada: A Conceptual Framework
for Public Health Research, Policy, and Practice. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 10:1, 1-21. [Crossref]
70. Zurita Mohd Saleh, Rosmimah Mohd Roslin. 2015. Supply Chain Integration Strategy: A Conceptual Model of Supply Chain
Relational Capital Enabler in the Malaysian Food Processing Industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 172, 585-590.
71. Sandra Hildbrand, Shamim Bodhanya. 2014. Application of the viable system model in a complex sugarcane supply chain. British
Food Journal 116:12, 2048-2068. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Evangelos Grigoroudis, Konstantinos Petridis, Garyfallos Arabatzis. 2014. RDEA: A recursive DEA based algorithm for the
optimal design of biomass supply chain networks. Renewable Energy 71, 113-122. [Crossref]
73. Ravi Seethamraju. 2014. Enterprise systems and demand chain management: a cross-sectional field study. Information Technology
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

and Management 15:3, 151-161. [Crossref]

74. Pongsak Holimchayachotikul, Ridha Derrouiche, David Damand, Komgrit Leksakul. 2014. Value creation through collaborative
supply chain: holistic performance enhancement road map. Production Planning & Control 25:11, 912-922. [Crossref]
75. Hee Sung Bae. 2014. The Interactive Effect of Supply Chain Integration on Performance of International Freight Forwarders.
Journal of International Logistics and Trade 12:2, 97-119. [Crossref]
76. Anne Touboulic, Daniel Chicksand, Helen Walker. 2014. Managing Imbalanced Supply Chain Relationships for Sustainability:
A Power Perspective. Decision Sciences 45:4, 577-619. [Crossref]
77. Umang Soni, Vipul Jain, Sameer Kumar. 2014. Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic modeling approach.
Computers & Industrial Engineering 74, 11-25. [Crossref]
78. Philipp Brinkmann, Andreas Hkansson, Indr Btien, Hanne Kjrsgard, Birthe Kofoed Mortensen, Janet Martens, Bitte
Mller-Hansen, Anton Petrenko. 2014. The Use of Networks as a Strategic Approach of Micro-Enterprises in the Agri-Food
Sector. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 15:3, 169-178. [Crossref]
79. Crystal Miller, Dan McCole. 2014. Understanding Collaboration Among Farmers and Farmers' Market Managers in Southeast
Michigan (USA). Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 1-18. [Crossref]
80. Llus M Pl, Daniel L Sandars, Andrew J Higgins. 2014. A perspective on operational research prospects for agriculture. Journal
of the Operational Research Society 65:7, 1078-1089. [Crossref]
81. Philip Beske, Anna Land, Stefan Seuring. 2014. Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the
food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Economics 152, 131-143. [Crossref]
82. Wenxing Wang. Collaborative information management in agricultural products supply chain in China: A case study of Wumart
3590-3595. [Crossref]
83. Naoum K. Tsolakis, Christos A. Keramydas, Agorasti K. Toka, Dimitrios A. Aidonis, Eleftherios T. Iakovou. 2014. Agrifood
supply chain management: A comprehensive hierarchical decision-making framework and a critical taxonomy. Biosystems
Engineering 120, 47-64. [Crossref]
84. Sazzad Parwez. 2014. Underdeveloped Supply Chain Dynamics of Indian Agriculture: Reference to Information Technology and
Knowledge Management. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 10:1, 57-66. [Crossref]
85. Rodolfo Vzquez-Casielles, Victor Iglesias, Concepcin Varela-Neira. 2013. Collaborative manufacturer-distributor relationships:
the role of governance, information sharing and creativity. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 28:8, 620-637. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
86. Yong Lin, Li Zhou, Ke Rong, Shihua Ma, Zhe Yin. The impact of supplier-supplier collaboration on firm performance 488-493.
87. Gary D. Holt, David J. Edwards. 2013. Inter-organizational interactions among a sample of plant-reliant construction sub-
contractors. Engineering Project Organization Journal 3:2, 100-115. [Crossref]
88. Gunjan Soni, Rambabu Kodali. 2013. A critical review of supply chain management frameworks: proposed framework.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 20:2, 263-298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
89. HwanYann Su, ShihChieh Fang, ChaurShiuh Young. 2013. Influences of relationship transparency from intellectual capital
reporting on supply chain partnerships with suppliers: a field experiment. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
18:2, 178-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. Manish Shukla, Sanjay Jharkharia. 2013. Agrifresh produce supply chain management: a stateoftheart literature review.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 33:2, 114-158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
91. Trevor Cadden, Donna Marshall, Guangming Cao. 2013. Opposites attract: organisational culture and supply chain performance.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:1, 86-103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
92. Frank Wiengarten, Paul Humphreys, Alan McKittrick, Brian Fynes. 2013. Investigating the impact of ebusiness applications
on supply chain collaboration in the German automotive industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
33:1, 25-48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Yikun Lu, Timo Kakola. An Information System Design Product Theory for Integrated Order, Transportation and Warehouse
Management Systems 3717-3726. [Crossref]
94. Hee Sung Bae. 2012. An analysis of gaps in performance among development stages of integration in SCM. Journal of International
Logistics and Trade 10:3, 85-104. [Crossref]
95. Gunjan Soni, Rambabu Kodali. 2012. Evaluating reliability and validity of lean, agile and leagile supply chain constructs in Indian
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

manufacturing industry. Production Planning & Control 23:10-11, 864-884. [Crossref]

96. Mara Angeles SanfielFumero, ngel Martn RamosDominguez, Juan Ramn OrejaRodrguez. 2012. The configuration of
power in vertical relationships in the food supply chain in the Canary Islands. British Food Journal 114:8, 1128-1156. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
97. Shu-Hao Chang, Kai-Yu Wang, Wen-Hai Chih, Wen-Hsin Tsai. 2012. Building customer commitment in business-to-business
markets. Industrial Marketing Management 41:6, 940-950. [Crossref]
98. Chul-Ho Jung. 2012. The Effects of Factors of Partnership between Suppliers and Buyers toward on Collaboration and Supply
Chain Performance. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society 13:7, 2921-2929. [Crossref]
99. Dianne J. Hall, Joseph B. Skipper, Benjamin T. Hazen, Joe B. Hanna. 2012. Interorganizational IT use, cooperative attitude,
and interorganizational collaboration as antecedents to contingency planning effectiveness. The International Journal of Logistics
Management 23:1, 50-76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
100. Hong Long Chen. 2012. Empirical behavioral analysis of project contractors' supplychain payment terms. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 17:3, 277-289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. Peter Trkman, Kevin C. Desouza. 2012. Knowledge risks in organizational networks: An exploratory framework. The Journal
of Strategic Information Systems 21:1, 1-17. [Crossref]
102. Bikram K. Bahinipati, S.G. Deshmukh. 2012. Vertical collaboration in the semiconductor industry: A decision framework for
supply chain relationships. Computers & Industrial Engineering 62:2, 504-526. [Crossref]
103. Toms F. Espino-Rodrguez, Pei Chun Lai, Tom Baum. 2012. Risks and Benefits of Outsourcing Hotel Operations: A
Comparison between Scotland and Taiwan. Tourism Economics 18:1, 95-120. [Crossref]
104. Daniel Prajogo, Jan Olhager. 2012. Supply chain integration and performance: The effects of long-term relationships, information
technology and sharing, and logistics integration. International Journal of Production Economics 135:1, 514-522. [Crossref]
105. Mara-Jos Verdecho. 2012. RETRACTED: The analytic network process for managing inter-enterprise collaboration: A case
study in a collaborative enterprise network. Expert Systems with Applications 39:1, 626-637. [Crossref]
106. Wooseung Jang, Cerry M. Klein. 2011. Supply chain models for small agricultural enterprises. Annals of Operations Research
190:1, 359-374. [Crossref]
107. Josep CapVicedo, Josefa Mula, Jordi Cap. 2011. A social networkbased organizational model for improving knowledge
management in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:5, 379-388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
108. Azucena Gracia, Tiziana de Magistris, Luis Miguel Albisu. 2011. Supply Chain Relationships and SME Firms' Competitiveness
in the Spanish Pig-to-Cured Ham Chain. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 23:3, 192-210. [Crossref]
109. Josep CapVicedo, Josefa Mula, Jordi Cap. 2011. A social networkbased organizational model for improving knowledge
management in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:4, 284-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
110. S. Naspetti, N. Lampkin, P. Nicolas, M. Stolze, R. Zanoli. 2011. Organic Supply Chain Collaboration: A Case Study in Eight
EU Countries. Journal of Food Products Marketing 17:2-3, 141-162. [Crossref]
111. ByoungChun Ha, YangKyu Park, Sungbin Cho. 2011. Suppliers' affective trust and trust in competency in buyers. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 31:1, 56-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
112. Frank Wiengarten, Paul Humphreys, Guangming Cao, Brian Fynes, Alan McKittrick. 2010. Collaborative supply chain practices
and performance: exploring the key role of information quality. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 15:6,
463-473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
113. Alistair BrandonJones, John Ramsay, Beverly Wagner. 2010. Trading interactions: supplier empathy, consensus and bias.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 30:5, 453-487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
114. HsiuChun Cheng, MuChen Chen, ChiKuo Mao. 2010. The evolutionary process and collaboration in supply chains. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 110:3, 453-474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
115. Paula M.G. van VeenDirks, Peter J.A. Verdaasdonk. 2009. The dynamic relation between management control and governance
structure in a supply chain context. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14:6, 466-478. [Abstract] [Full Text]
116. J. J. Alfaro, R. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, M. J. Verdecho, A. Ortiz. 2009. Business process interoperability and collaborative
performance measurement. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 22:9, 877-889. [Crossref]
117. David H. Taylor, Andrew Fearne. 2009. Demand management in fresh food value chains: a framework for analysis and
improvement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14:5, 379-392. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Marcus Mergenthaler, Katinka Weinberger, Matin Qaim. 2009. Quality assurance programs and access to international markets:
Downloaded by LAHORE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS At 02:02 12 September 2017 (PT)

the case of horticultural processors in Vietnam. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14:5, 359-368. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
119. Dotun Adebanjo. 2009. Understanding demand management challenges in intermediary food trading: a case study. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 14:3, 224-233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
120. Prakash J. Singh, Damien Power. 2009. The nature and effectiveness of collaboration between firms, their customers and
suppliers: a supply chain perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14:3, 189-200. [Abstract] [Full Text]
121. Maria Jose Verdecho, Juan Jose Alfaro, Raul Rodriguez-Rodriguez. 2009. Foundations for collaborative performance
measurement. Production Planning & Control 20:3, 193-205. [Crossref]
122. Kim Bryceson, Geoff Slaughter. Integrated Autonomy A Modeling-Based Investigation of Agrifood Supply Chain Performance
334-339. [Crossref]
PERSPECTIVES. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 26:3, 205-214. [Crossref]
124. Alain Yee-Loong Chong, Keng-Boon Ooi. 2008. Collaborative Commerce in Supply Chain Management: A study of Adoption
Status in Malaysian Electrical and Electronic Industry. Journal of Applied Sciences 8:21, 3836-3844. [Crossref]
125. Melanie Fritz, Gerhard Schiefer. 2008. Food chain management for sustainable food system development: a European research
agenda. Agribusiness 24:4, 440-452. [Crossref]
126. . Literature Review 76-139. [Crossref]
127. May Tajima. Small Manufacturers vs. Large Retailers on RFID Adoption in the Apparel Supply Chain 74-99. [Crossref]
128. Z.X. Guo, Jing Yang, Longchao Chen, Ruiqiang Guo. An Information System Framework and Prototype for Collaboration and
Standardization in Chinese Liquor Production 1085-1108. [Crossref]
129. Gloria Sraha. Supply Chain System and Barriers of Exporting: 312-332. [Crossref]
130. Gloria Sraha. Supply Chain System and Barriers of Exporting: 269-291. [Crossref]
131. Maria Joo Sousa Lima, Lusa Cagica Carvalho. Networks Collaboration in Wine Sector SME: 858-878. [Crossref]
132. . The Recognization of Collaboration 43-75. [Crossref]
133. May Tajima. Small Manufacturers vs. Large Retailers on RFID Adoption in the Apparel Supply Chain 196-220. [Crossref]
134. Sajad Fayezi, Maryam Zomorrodi. Supply Chain Management: 313-340. [Crossref]