Skip to main content

Logistics integration in the supply chain: a resource dependence theory perspective

Abstract

Firms have strategically used cooperative linkages to establish competitiveness. In this study, we incorporated the resource dependency theory view to assess how trust, satisfaction, and commitment affect firms’ decisions on logistics integration. Also, we examined the link between logistics integration and supply chain performance. The study collected data from 250 South Korean manufacturers for analysis. The results revealed positive impacts of trust, satisfaction, and commitment on logistics integration between manufacturing firms and logistics service providers that enhances logistics service capabilities of the firms. Furthermore, our study showed that building a strategic relationship for logistics services helps the manufacturing firms improve their business and operations performances in their supply chain. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Introduction

Globalization has brought fundamental changes to the business environment. In response to this change, an increasing number of firms have been seeking to develop strong relationships with their business partners because it is often difficult for a single firm to obtain all the resources required to tackle rapidly changing business environments [1]. Many manufacturers have adopted strategic alliances with their supply chain members to take advantage of the economies of scale [2]. They have supply chain participants involved with sharing information, knowledge, resources, and competencies—an approach to strengthen the overall competitive position of the whole supply chain [3]. Especially, it was found that close relationships between key supply chain members and logistics service providers (LSPs) positively influence logistics and distribution performance in the downstream, which in turn lead to better supply chain performance.

Hyundai Motors, a multinational automobile company, is a good example of a firm which established a successful supply chain partnership. It has the world’s largest integrated automobile manufacturing facility in Ulsan, South Korea. This facility has an annual production capacity of 1.6 million units [4]. The company’s corporate headquarter in Seoul is responsible for managing supply chains both domestically and globally. One of the challenges of supply chain management (SCM) is to develop efficient and effective supply networks for local suppliers so that they can utilize advanced infrastructure and logistics services. Another challenge is to obtain a competitive logistics because the company needs to send a substantial amount of parts and components to global plants for reassembly in locations widely spread throughout the world such as Europe, South and North America, China, and India. To overcome these challenges, the company has made moves toward vertical integration with Glovis, one of the largest LSPs in South Korea.

Previous studies highlighted the importance of synchronized logistical activities among supply chain members. Lai et al. [5] contributed to understanding the three key factors (trust, satisfaction, and commitment) for supporting effective logistics integration. They investigated how each factor is connected to logistics integration as well as firm’s financial performance. This study attempts to extend the results of their study by investigating the impact of the three factors on logistics integration and supply chain performance in the context of logistics outsourcing.

This paper is organized as follows. The next section provides the theoretical background of the study and develops hypotheses. Then, research methods are described including data collection, followed by reporting analysis results and discussion. Lastly, we conclude the paper by discussing the implications of the study results, including limitations of the study and future research needs.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Logistics integration

In the logistics and SCM context, the term logistics integration can be defined as the degree to which a client firm strategically collaborates with its LSP to manage its intra- and inter-organization processes [6]. In a network-based business environment, firms place a great level of strategic importance on logistics integration [7]. Chang and Ku [8] pointed out that logistics integration is now an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of inter-functional activities between the logistics and marketing department, IT department, and so on. Highly integrated logistics processes involve dynamically coordinated business processes both within and outside the organizational boundaries [9].

The role of logistics functions in the enterprise has considerably changed over the years. Logistics integration used to be a vague concept. Until the 1970s, logistics operations were primarily carried out in-house and often seen as a cost center with little capacity for differentiation. This traditional perspective changed in the 1980s as firms began to outsource their logistics activities to LSPs, which support a client firm’s supply chain operations such as procurement, inventory control, warehousing, and transportation [10]. This new outsourcing practice is largely the results of treating LSPs as strategic partners in improving supply chain performance [11, 12]. Such a perspective has emphasized that logistics integration goes beyond simple information sharing between participants involved in the supply chain relationship. Logistics outsourcing has now become common as more firms become aware of the advantages that LSPs offer. Today’s LSPs can help client firms move beyond mere cost reduction to more strategic, value-creating activities along the supply chain [13].

Logistics trust

Drawing from resource dependence theory (RDT), this study identifies three antecedents of logistics integration, namely, trust, commitment, and satisfaction. RDT has been widely used to explain why more and more firms are entering into inter-organizational arrangements [14]. In contemporary business environments, it is often difficult for a single firm to possess all resources required to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage [15]. By forming alliances and joint ventures, a firm might gain effective access to the knowledge and resources of business partners [16]. In other words, firms that lack specific resources may be able to acquire these resources by establishing external relationships. RDT suggests that firms become dependent upon each other in order to create such complementary assets [17]. Researchers found that there has been a strong trend toward the development of core capabilities through knowledge exchange, investments in relation-specific assets, and complementary capabilities [18]. By recombining unique and inimitable resources, firms can improve their opportunities to successfully launch new products and services.

Following RDT, this study posits that three relationship factors, including trust, satisfaction, and commitment, are positively associated with logistics integration. First, trust generally refers to the willingness to depend on a party when one is confident in the actions of that party [19]. Trust exists when one party has confidence in the reliability and integrity of the other party [20]. Trust brings about a feeling of security, reduces uncertainty, and creates a supportive environment. Trust is the belief of a firm that its business partners will make sure that all actions will result in positive achievements for the firm [16]. Trust is one of the most commonly addressed factors of inter-organizational relationships [21]. In logistics outsourcing context, trust refers to the willingness of a client firm to depend on its LSP in whom it has confidence in creditability, competence, and benevolence [22]. This study argues that a client firm with a high level of trust in the LSP relationship is more likely to integrate the LSP’s service offerings into its logistics processes. These observations lead us to propose the following hypothesis:

H1. A client firm’s trust in its LSP is positively related to logistics integration.

Logistics satisfaction

Satisfaction is another factor extensively examined in various business contexts over the last two decades [23]. Satisfaction in an inter-organizational relationship generally refers to the buyer’s attitude formed based on the experience with the supplier [24]. Positive affective states (e.g., greater satisfaction) are likely to strengthen feelings of safety, security, comfort, and confidence [25]. In the logistics outsourcing context, satisfaction refers to the degree to which a client firm is satisfied with its LSP [22]. The more satisfied the customer firm is with the previous LSP’s service, the stronger the integration between the two companies is expected. Wilson and Jantrania [26] identified satisfaction as a key element in constructing relationships among enterprises. In addition, Storbacka et al. [27] included satisfaction and communication as factors to build a high-quality relationship. This study argues that a client firm highly satisfied with the LSP relationship is more likely to integrate the LSP’s service offerings into its logistics processes. These observations lead us to suggest the following hypothesis:

H2. A client firm’s satisfaction with its LSPs is positively related to logistics integration.

Logistics commitment

Commitment generally refers to the belief that a relationship is important that it warrants the maximum efforts to maintain it [28]. Commitment is an essential element in constructing successful long-term working relationships [29]. Commitment is significantly and positively related to business partners’ attitude toward the development of a sustainable supply chain relationship [30]. In logistics outsourcing context, commitment is an important factor in determining the effectiveness of LSP relationships [31]. When an LSP displays a higher level of commitment, its client firm is likely to have a stronger intention to continue the relationship with that LSP [32]. An LSP committed to understanding each customer’s unique needs has the ability to achieve a high-level integration across multiple supply chain partners [13]. This study argues that a client firm perceiving a strong commitment to the LSP relationship is more likely to integrate the LSP’s service offerings into its logistics processes. These observations lead us to propose the following hypothesis:

H3. A client firm’s perception on the commitment of its LSP is positively related to logistics integration.

Supply chain performance

Logistics integration provides an LSP the opportunity to serve as an integral part of the supply chain rather than a separate entity [33]. Through logistics integration, a client firm can better understand each supply chain member’s point of view, share valuable information, and achieve collective goals. A client firm can effectively address all different requirements, expectations, and preferences along all stages of the supply chain [34]. The integration of logistics activities across organizational boundaries helps a client firm reduce supply chain uncertainties caused by a lack of information and knowledge [35]. A client firm working with an LSP can improve information processing capabilities by taking advantage of a huge amount of data generated along the supply chain [36]. In other words, the integration of logistics activities across organizational boundaries helps a client firm reduce inefficiencies involved in planning, manufacturing, and distribution activities [37]. Effective logistics integration has the potential to overcome supply chain risks (e.g., excess inventories, rush deliveries, and long lead times) [38]. In this way, logistics integration leads to a well-coordinated supply chain, promoting mutual benefits (e.g., large market share, operational efficiency, effective governance, and a satisfactory amount of profit) [39]. Thus, logistics integration can be considered a key factor for enhancing supply chain performance. These observations lead us to propose the following hypothesis:

H4. Logistics integration is positively related to supply chain performance. Figure 1 shows our research model containing the four hypotheses.

Fig. 1
figure1

Research model

Research methodology

Questionnaire development

Lai et al. [5] tested the dependence in logistics outsourcing relationships. Main constructs used in the research were “trust,” “commitment,” “satisfaction,” and “logistics integration”. This paper adopted the measurement items of the first three dimensions and also added items from Chang and Ku [8] with modifications. Measurement items for “logistics integration” are adopted from Chang and Ku [8], Prajogo and Olhager [9], and Lai et al. [5]. This study utilized additional items that are found in other studies [40,41,42,43,44]. For the measurement items, a five-point Likert scale was used (1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree).

In developing the questionnaire, the double translation protocol was used. The questionnaire was developed in English first and then was translated into Korean. After the translation, the questionnaire was presented to a panel of experts from both academia and SCM practitioners to solicit their feedback regarding the survey items. To assure translation equivalence, the questionnaire translated into Korean was back-translated into English. The two English versions did not have any major difference. The scales used to measure this study’s constructs were developed based on an in-depth literature review, and existing scales were used wherever possible. Minor wording changes were made in order to adapt the scale to the specific supply chain management context. The measurement scales and their sources are shown in Table 2.

Sampling and data collection

The data for this study was collected from Korean manufacturing firms. A mailing list of logistics or SCM departments was compiled from the list of partner companies of the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA), and the survey was conducted in cooperation with a research-consulting firm. Approximately 1000 companies were randomly selected from the list. Senior or middle managers with direct responsibility for logistics or SCM were regarded as our target respondents. The survey team of the consulting firm first called the logistics or SCM department of the selected companies for their cooperation, and then, the questionnaire was sent to 350 companies that were willing to participate in the survey (See Table 1). A total of 250 responses were received. If any omitted questions were found, the survey team called the manager to complete the questionnaire.

Table 1 Characteristics of responding firms

Non-response bias analysis

A test for the non-response bias was conducted by comparing the early and late respondents. Responses received before the reminder email was regarded as early responses and those received after as late. T tests were conducted to check for differences between the two groups of respondents on important measures. There were no mean differences between the two sets on key attributes such as firm size.

Results

Respondent profile

Table 1 presents the general industry characteristics of the respondents. The responding companies represented largely 5 industries including electronics (83), plastic products (51), furniture (47), steel parts (40), and others (29). The participating firms were mostly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and the median firm size (in the number of employees) was 400. Respondents’ job titles ranged from the employee in charge of SCM to senior manager. Middle and senior managers and top executives represented more than 80% of the sample, and majority of the job titles were managers in charge of SCM. This result indicates that SCM of Korean small- and medium-sized manufacturers is under the supervision of higher-level managers with a minimum 7-year-experience in the industry.

Analysis of reliability and validity

Table 2 shows constructs and survey items adopted for this study. The acceptability of the measurement model was examined by analyzing the convergence validity, discriminant validity, and reliabilities of all constructs. Convergent validity signifies that a set of measurement items represents one and the same underlying construct [45]. It was examined in two ways. We first assessed composite reliability (CR) scores for all constructs, and then, second, calculated the average variance extracted (AVE). As shown in Table 3, all constructs exceeded 0.7, the threshold of composite reliabilities, and all AVE estimates of the five constructs were greater than the cutoff point, 0.5 [46]. In conclusion, CR and AVE values provided strong support for convergent validity.

Table 2 Constructs and survey items
Table 3 Reliability (composite reliability and AVEs) and correlations among latent variables

The squared correlation coefficients between two latent constructs to their AVE estimates were also compared [46]. According to this test, discriminant validity exists if the items share more common variance with their respective construct than any variance the construct shares with other constructs. Thus, the squared correlation coefficient between each pair of constructs should be less than the AVE estimates for each individual construct. Comparing the correlation coefficients with the AVE estimates reported in Table 3, all of the squared correlations were smaller than the AVE for each individual construct. Therefore, these results collectively provided evidence of discriminant validity among the theoretical constructs.

Reliability estimation was left for last because in the absence of a valid construct, reliability would not be meaningful [47]. Item-total correlation analysis results provided in Table 3 suggest a reasonable fit of the latent factors to the data collected. Cronbach’s α values for all factors were greater than 0.8, as shown in Table 4, which exhibit the internal consistency and validity of the constructs as they were well above the suggested lower limit of 0.7 [48]. This result provides support for high degrees of construct reliability. Table 5 shows cross-loading among the variables.

Table 4 Convergent validity (item loading)
Table 5 Cross-loading among variables

Hypotheses testing

The results of the structural model are shown in Table 6. All fit indices were indicative of a decent fitting model. Figure 2 indicates support for all three preceding constructs on logistics integration (Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3): trust (0.229; p < 0.01), satisfaction (0.281; p < 0.01), and commitment (0.163; p < 0.05). The test results further supported Hypotheses 4 and 5 with significant positive correlation coefficients: logistics integration on logistics service quality (0.612; p < 0.01) and logistics integration on supply chain performance (0.293; p < 0.01). It is also found that logistics service quality on supply chain performance has a high correlation (0.405; p < 0.01).

Table 6 Results of hypotheses tests
Fig. 2
figure2

Hypothesized research model results

Discussion

Based on resource dependence theory (RDT), we empirically examine the role of relational mechanisms in explaining the supply chain performance of firms in logistics outsourcing relationships. Congruous with our theoretical model, the results show that three relational factors, including trust, satisfaction, and commitment, are positively correlated with the logistics integration between client firms and their LSPs. Our findings also suggested that clients’ trust enhanced by the ability of logistics firms that perform and maintain expected services fosters the development of common goals and joint planning for logistics integration.

In addition, our findings showed that clients’ satisfaction positively influences logistics service performance in terms of meeting client’s expectations or performing flexible logistics operation. This result highlights that a high level of logistics service satisfaction facilitates logistics integration to maintain responsive and responsible operations to better deal with uncertainty in supply chains.

Similarly, the increasing environmental uncertainty poses significant challenges for firms that seek business partners that can help respond more effectively to rapidly changing markets. Our findings suggest that the commitment of a logistics firm to solve a company’s logistics-related issues increases the willingness of the customer to formulate a strategic integration with the logistics firm.

Lastly, our study demonstrated that supply chain performance is significantly associated with logistics integration which has emerged as a dominant competency in regard to customizing order processes, improving material flows, improving cost efficiency, and refining overall value stream. This finding is consistent with previous studies that asserted the key to constructing a highly competitive supply chain is by implementing end-to-end logistics solutions [9, 49, 50]. Such a strategic integration also helps continuously match logistics service capabilities with rising customer expectations and thus helps client firms improve product quality as well as market share.

Implications and future research

Our study contributes to the literature in several important aspects. First, although the RDT-based mechanism has been investigated in the literature, we identify inter-organizational factors including trust, satisfaction, and commitment which can foster client firms’ willingness to integrate their logistics and supply chains. This is one of a few studies that build and empirically validated an integrated theoretical framework incorporating all three factors. This examination leads us to extend the logistics integration and logistics service quality literature by providing a more comprehensive view on the value of firms’ attempts to achieve logistics integration across global supply chains.

Second, in line with RDT, partner collaboration is a key for a firm to resolve operational difficulties. It is reasonable for firms to join in partnerships when they can sense strategic symbiotic relationships with one another or they can envision the complementary role of their operations and resources. Moreover, partner collaboration mitigates the risks of unexpected supply chain disruptions as shown by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Most businesses are operating under a high level of environmental uncertainty. In such uncertain environments, firms need to eliminate unpredictable factors, which may lead to various negative consequences for them. Our results suggest that inter-organizational trust and customer’s satisfaction on logistics service are identified as the two factors relatively more critical to the successful implementation of logistics integration.

Third, our study provides important empirical support for a robust measurement model. The measures can be used to further test the relationships between logistics integration and logistics service performance. Moreover, our investigation reinforces the measurement model by considering perfect mediation effects in the model. Our statistical analyses show that none of the three factors had a direct effect on supply chain performance at the 5% significance level. In other words, trust, satisfaction, and commitment are mediated by logistics integration for the companies to obtain significant supply chain performance outcomes. This finding strengthens the importance of building high levels of trust, satisfaction, and commitment among supply chain members. Furthermore, the measurement model was originally developed and tested in China [5]. The contribution of this examination is significant in that it is one of a few empirical studies which used the measurement items and scales for estimating factors for logistics integration and supply chain performance among Korean enterprises and attempted to refine the measurement items with modification.

The study results have significant implications in the current pandemic crisis as well. Disruption has come to the global supply chain environment, and many companies have suffered from the impact of the pandemic, and some of their activities are minimized or completely stopped. Many manufacturers are seriously impacted by the interruptions of globalization occurred by the crisis [51]. Even crucial operations in businesses are experiencing major disruptions as suppliers experience difficulties with production [52]. The relationship formation between LSPs and their client firms is becoming more important in these unprecedented times. LSPs are more required to be more closely integrated with their client firms than ever before, and in order to do so, they need to constantly satisfy their client firms and build trust.

Tightly integrated LSPs with client firms might get back to normal more easily. Businesses are trying to restart their operations after the pandemic crisis in many ways. It takes a great deal of time, money, and effort to restart operations. To arrange the operations to restart, they need to (1) define capacities needed to start again, not just available ones; (2) assess the level of commitment of resources; and (3) contribute to the supply chain alignment [52]. Flexibility and ease of such tasks seem to be dependent on logistics integration. Restarting operations in the wake of the pandemic is already a big challenge even if you have good relationships with your partners without needing to suspect the motives of one another [53].

Recent years have seen a growing movement toward a view of relationship quality as a multi-faceted phenomenon [54]. This perspective is empirically supported by many literature reviews on relationship quality (e.g., Athanasopoulou [55] and Osobajo and Moore [56]). These reviews found an increasing tendency to treat relationship quality as an important strategic construct. For future research, it would be intriguing to apply the same approach employed in this study to other cultures or economies. Also, a longitudinal study will shed additional information for the long-term effects of the three key factors we examined in this study.

Availability of data and materials

The data for this study was collected from Korean manufacturing firms.

Abbreviations

SCM:

Supply chain management

LSPs:

Logistics service providers

References

  1. 1.

    Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(4):660–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Sambasivan M, Siew-Phaik L, Mohamed ZA, Leong YC (2013) Factors influencing strategic alliance outcomes in a manufacturing supply chain: role of alliance motives, interdependence, asset specificity and relational capital. Int J Prod Econ 141(1):339–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Chen PY, Chen KY, Wu LY (2017b) The impact of trust and commitment on value creation in asymmetric buyer–seller relationships: the mediation effect of specific asset investments. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 32(3):457–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Taylor A III (2010) Hyundai smokes the competition. Fortune Int 161(1):36

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lai F, Chu Z, Wang Q, Fan C (2013) Managing dependence in logistics outsourcing relationships: evidence from China. International Journal of Production Research 51(10):3037–3054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Flynn BB, Huo B, Zhao X (2010) The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management 28(1):58–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Stock GN, Greis NP, Kasarda JD (2000) Enterprise logistics and supply chain structure: the role of fit. Journal of Operations Management 18(5):531–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chang HH, Ku PW (2009) Implementation of relationship quality for CRM performance: acquisition of BPR and organisational learning. Total Quality Management 20(3):327–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Prajogo D, Olhager J (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Sinkovics Rudolf R, Anthony SR (2004) Strategic orientation, capabilities, and performance in manufacturer–3PL relationships. J Bus Logistics 25(2):43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chen IJ, Paulraj A (2004) Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management 22(2):119–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hwang T, Kim ST (2019) Balancing in-house and outsourced logistics services: effects on supply chain agility and firm performance. Service Business 13(3):531–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Zacharia ZG, Sanders NR, Nix NW (2011) The emerging role of the third-party logistics provider (3PL) as an orchestrator. Journal of Business Logistics 32(1):40–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Drees JM, Heugens PP (2013) Synthesizing and extending resource dependence theory: a meta-analysis. J Manag 39(6):1666–1698

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Handfield RB (1994) US global sourcing: patterns of development. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 14(6):40–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fynes B, de Búrca S, Mangan J (2008) The effect of relationship characteristics on relationship quality and performance. Int J Prod Econ 111(1):56-69

  17. 17.

    Lee SM, Kim ST, Choi D (2012) Green supply chain management and organizational performance. Ind Manag Data Syst 112(8):1148–1180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Shang KC (2009) Integration and organisational learning capabilities in third-party logistics providers. The Service Industries Journal 29(3):331–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kwon IWG, Suh T (2004) Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in supply chain relationships. J Supply Chain Manag 40(1):4–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Zhao X, Huo B, Flynn BB, Yeung JHY (2008) The impact of power and relationship commitment on the integration between manufacturers and customers in a supply chain. Journal of Operations Management 26(3):368–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cai S, Jun M, Yang Z (2010) Implementing supply chain information integration in China: the role of institutional forces and trust. Journal of Operations Management 28(3):257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Chu Z, Wang Q (2012) Drivers of relationship quality in logistics outsourcing in China. Journal of Supply Chain Management 48(3):78–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Ritter T, Walter A (2003) Relationship-specific antecedents of customer involvement in new product development. Int J Technol Manag 26(5-6):482–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Barry JM, Dion P, Johnson W (2008) A cross-cultural examination of relationship strength in B2B services. Journal of Services Marketing 22(2):114–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Rahimi R, Kozak M (2017) Impact of customer relationship management on customer satisfaction: the case of a budget hotel chain. J Travel Tourism Mark 34(1):40–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Wilson DT, Jantrania S (1994) Understanding the value of a relationship. Asia-Australia Marketing Journal 2(1):55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Storbacka K, Strandvik T, Grönroos C (1994) Managing customer relationships for profit: the dynamics of relationship quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management 5(5):21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sahay BS (2003) Understanding trust in supply chain relationships. Industrial Management & Data Systems 103(8):553–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Golicic SL, Mentzer JT (2006) An empirical examination of relationship magnitude. Journal of Business Logistics 27(1):81–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Chen L, Zhao X, Tang O, Price L, Zhang S, Zhu W (2017a) Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: a literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Production Economics 194:73–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Yuan Y, Feng B, Lai F, Collins BJ (2018) The role of trust, commitment, and learning orientation on logistic service effectiveness. Journal of Business Research 93:37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Grawe SJ, Daugherty PJ, Dant RP (2012) Logistics service providers and their customers: gaining commitment through organizational implants. Journal of Business Logistics 33(1):50–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Marchet G, Melacini M, Perotti S, Sassi C (2018) Types of logistics outsourcing and related impact on the 3PL buying process: empirical evidence. Int J Logistics Syst Manag 30(2):139–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Gimenez C (2006) Logistics integration processes in the food industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 36(3):231–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Wiengarten F, Humphreys P, Gimenez C, McIvor R (2016) Risk, risk management practices, and the success of supply chain integration. Int J Prod Econ 171(3):361–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Sodero A, Jin YH, Barratt M (2019) The social process of Big Data and predictive analytics use for logistics and supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 49(7):706–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Alam A, Bagchi PK, Kim B, Mitra S, Seabra F (2014) The mediating effect of logistics integration on supply chain performance. Int J Logistics Manag 25(3):553–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Danese P, Bortolotti T (2014) Supply chain integration patterns and operational performance: a plant-level survey-based analysis. International Journal of Production Research 52(23):7062–7083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ataseven C, Nair A (2017) Assessment of supply chain integration and performance relationships: a meta-analytic investigation of the literature. International Journal of Production Economics 185:252–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Gil-Saura I, Ruiz-Molina ME (2011) Logistics service quality and buyer–customer relationships: the moderating role of technology in B2B and B2C contexts. The Service Industries Journal 31(7):1109–1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Springinklee M, Wallenburg CM (2012) Improving distribution service performance through effective production and logistics integration. Journal of Business Logistics 33(4):309–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Cheng JH, Tang CH (2014) Interorganizational cooperation and supply chain performance in the context of third party logistics services. Asia Pac Manag Rev 19(4):375–390

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Yang GQ, Liu YK, Yang K (2015) Multi-objective biogeography-based optimization for supply chain network design under uncertainty. Comput Ind Eng 85(C):145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Carr A (2016) Relationships among information technology, organizational cooperation and supply chain performance. J Managerial Issues 28(3-4):171–190

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Koufteros XA (1999) Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Operations Management 17(4):467–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGrawHill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Mofokeng TM, Chinomona R (2019) Supply chain partnership, supply chain collaboration and supply chain integration as the antecedents of supply chain performance. S Afr J Bus Manag 50(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Som JO, Cobblah C, Anyigba H (2019) The effect of supply chain integration on supply chain performance. IUP J Supply Chain Manag 16(4):7–38

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Jacobides MG, Reeves M (2020) Adapt your business to the new reality: start by understanding how habits have changed. Harv Bus Rev 98(5):74–81

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    El H, Mawet P (2020) How to restart operations after coronavirus shock: a logistics perspective. Logistics Manag 59(5):10–12

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Gutman E (2020) Coming back from COVID: the definitive guide for small business owners to rapidly recover from the Coronavirus. Boxing Outside the Think

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Jiang Z, Shiu E, Henneberg S, Naude P (2016) Relationship quality in business to business relationships—reviewing the current literatures and proposing a new measurement model. Psychology & Marketing 33(4):297–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Athanasopoulou P (2009) Relationship quality: a critical literature review and research agenda. Eur J Mark 43(5-6):583–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Osobajo OA, Moore D (2017) Methodological choices in relationship quality (RQ) research 1987 to 2015: a systematic literature review. J Relationship Mark 16(1):40–81

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

There was no funding support for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the developing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hong-Hee Lee.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, S.T., Lee, H. & Hwang, T. Logistics integration in the supply chain: a resource dependence theory perspective. Int J Qual Innov 6, 5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-020-00039-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Logistics integration
  • Supply chain performance
  • Trust
  • Satisfaction
  • Commitment