The relationship between logistics and marketing performance in the supply chain. Different paths for manufacturers and distributors

90 UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 90 The relationship between logistics and marketing performance in the supply chain. Different paths for manufacturers and distributors1 Relación entre resultados logísticos y de marketing en la cadena de suministro. Diferentes caminos para fabricantes y distribuidores 1. INTRODUCTION Supply chain integration with suppliers and customer has been the core of logistics and supply chain research since the 80s, because it is considered a source of competitive advantage. The integration of a company into the supply chain (Supply Chain Integration – SCI, from here on) consists in intraand inter-organisational collaboration and the coordination of information, processes and behaviours with its key members, that is, suppliers and customers (Chang et al., 2016). In the last 20 years, much research has been conducted to examine the benefits of SCI-related performance. This relationship is grounded on several organisational theories, including the Resource-based View, Competitive Advantage Theory, the Relational Perspective, the Knowledge-based Perspective and the Received: 29 May 2018 . Accepted: 22 October 2018 DOI: 10.3232/UBR.2018.V15.N4.03 JEL CODE: M1; M31; C3; L6; L61 Pilar Rivera-Torres Universidad de Zaragoza  [email protected] Teresa Vallet-Bellmunt2 Universitat Jaume I de Castelló  [email protected] Business and Society Review UCJC (Formerly known as Universia Business Review) UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 9191 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aim of this paper is to study the relationships between Marketing and Logistics Performance in a context of inter-organisational integration to search for differences between Manufacturers and Distributors. The information has been provided by 450 companies in the Spanish construction materials sector. The results obtained show the importance of the Logistics Service as an instrument to improve the Relational Performance of the integrated company and the different paths that Manufacturers and Distributors take to increase shortand long-term Marketing Performance. RESUMEN DEL ARTÍCULO El objetivo de este artículo es estudiar las relaciones entre los Resultados de Marketing y los Logísticos en un contexto de integración inter-organizacional, buscando diferencias entre fabricantes y distribuidores. La información ha sido proporcionada por 450 empresas del sector de materiales de construcción español. Los resultados obtenidos muestran la importancia del Servicio Logístico como instrumento para mejorar los Resultados Relacionales de la empresa integrada y los diferentes caminos que toman los Fabricantes y los Distribuidores para aumentar los Resultados de Marketing a corto y largo plazo. 91 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOGISTICS AND MARKETING PERFORMANCE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN. DIFFERENT PATHS FOR MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 92 Theory of Transactional Costs3. From the theoretical point of view, meta-analyses, bibliometric analyses and content analyses have been carried out in order to synthesise all the results obtained in the literature regarding the SCI-Performance relationship and to propose lines of research on aspects that have not been resolved to date. Some authors have analysed the direct effect of SCI on the firm’s financial performance (A in Figure 1) but reached different conclusions. For example, Leuschner et al. (2013) and FabbeCostes and Jahre (2007) did not find a direct relationship, whereas Ataseven and Nair (2017), Tarifa-Fernandez and de Burgos-Jiménez (2017) and Chang et al. (2016) identified a significant positive relationship between SCI and financial performance. To explain these differences, researchers propose different research opportunities in the SCI-Performance relationship (see Figure 1). The first option is to analyse the indirect effects (B in Figure 1) through mediating variables (see Chang et al., 2016). The second option is to identify the moderating variables (C in Figure 1), following Tarifa-Fernandez and de Burgos-Jiménez (2017), who detected and classified 27 different moderators. Third, SCI and Performance are complex concepts with numerous facets and dimensions. Thus, Ataseven and Nair (2017), Chang et al. (2016) and Leuschner et al. (2013) argued that to fully understand this relationship it would be necessary to examine (D in Figure 1) how the different dimensions of SCI relate individually to the different dimensions of performance. Fabbe-Costes and Jahre (2007) and Van der Vaart and Van Donk (2008) were among the first to detect certain gaps in the research related to the delimitation of the concepts of performance and integration and the way the two concepts are measured (indicators). In addition, Van der Vaart and Van Donk (2008, p.51) proposed the study of the relationships between the different dimensions of SCI (E in Figure 1) and TarifaFernandez and de Burgos-Jiménez (2017, p.1263) suggested analysing the exchanges between the different types of performance (F in Figure 1). Finally, nearly all the above-mentioned researchers propose to extend the scope of the study (H in Figure 1) from a single firm to the dyad or to the entire supply chain, because competition today is no longer among firms but among supply chains (Chang et al., 2016). They also recommended examining The aim of this article is therefore to examine the relationships between Marketing and Logistics Performance in a context of interorganisational integration... TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT & PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 93 the evolution of SCI-Performance relationships over time through longitudinal studies (G in Figure 1). In this paper we will focus on the relationship between Operational, Commercial and Relational Performance (F in Figure 1), or Logistics and Marketing Performance according to Schramm-Klein and Morschett (2006), following the recommendations of TarifaFernandez and de Burgos-Jiménez (2017, p.1263) and SchrammKlein and Morschett (2006, p.289). The relationship between the Logistics and Marketing Performance of integrated firms has been addressed in several studies that focus on manufacturing firms (Leuschner et al., 2012; Daugherty et al., 1998), logistics operators (Stank et al., 2003) or distribution firms (Schramm-Klein and Morschett, 2006; Innis and La Londe, 1994). It has not been studied, however, in two types of supply chain agents at the same time, for example, manufacturers and distributors. Neither has much attention been given to how the different dimensions of performance are linked to each other and which dimensions are most important (Schramm-Klein and Morschett, 2006). In view of the consequences that these different types of performance have throughout the supply KEY WORDS Supply chain integration; logistics performance, marketing performance, Manufacturer, Distributor. PALABRAS CLAVE Integración cadena suministro, Resultados Logísticos, Resultados de Marketing, Fabricantes y Distribuidores. Figure 1. Research opportunities in the SCI-Performance relationship Source: Compiled by the authors THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOGISTICS AND MARKETING PERFORMANCE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN. DIFFERENT PATHS FOR MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 94 chain for manufacturers and distributors, this paper will attempt to fill this gap in the research. The aim of this article is therefore to examine the relationships between Marketing and Logistics Performance in a context of interorganisational integration, in an attempt to find differences between the stakeholders involved in the supply chain, i.e. manufacturers and distributors. Accordingly, the paper is structured as follows: 1) The concept of performance, the relationships between the different types of performance (Logistics and Marketing) and the relationships between manufacturers and distributors in the supply chain are reviewed in order to propose a model of relationships to be contrasted; 2) The empirical analysis is based on 450 firms (256 manufacturers and 194 distributors) in the Spanish construction materials sector; 3) Data analysis is performed with Latent-Variable Structural Equation Models (SEM) with a multi-sample perspective; 4) Finally, conclusions, implications for managers of firms at different levels of the supply chain and future lines of research are all discussed. 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Based on strategic management and marketing literature, Chang et al. (2016) classify performance into four types: operational, relational, strategic and financial. Relational Performance is associated with improving consumer-oriented measures, such as customer satisfaction, loyalty or retention. Strategic (or Commercial) Performance is based on improving market objectives related to income, such as sales, sales growth or market share. Hence, some authors group Relational and Strategic (Commercial) Performance within Marketing Performance (Schramm-Klein and Morschett, 2006). In this work, we will use the following nomenclature: Logistics Performance, which refers to the operational type, and Marketing Performance, which includes the Commercial and Relational types. 2.1. Logistics, or Operational, Performance The connection between SCI and Logistics Performance is well documented and results from the reduction of non-value-added activities, better access to information, higher levels of coordination, and better matching of supply to demand (Germain and Iyer, 2006). Following Schramm-Klein and Morschett (2006), Logistics TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT & PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 95 Performance is characterised by two dimensions: Logistics Quality and Logistics Costs. Logistics Quality is related to the satisfaction of demand and indicates the extent to which the right products are delivered to the right place, at the scheduled time and in the correct amounts, that is, reliable and flexible deliveries. Reliability is understood as the capacity an organisation has to punctually supply the kind and number of products required by customers at any given time. Flexibility, on the other hand, is the capacity of the logistics system to adjust production and distribution schedules to fit customers’ particular needs. The improvements that SCI brings about in reliability were proved by Germain and Iyer (2006), and Frohlich and Westbrook (2001) provided evidence in the same line for flexibility. Secondly, SCI with suppliers and customers helps to carry out activities at a lower cost than competitors by minimising the inefficient use of resources through the elimination of activities with no value-added. The members of the supply chain should not carry out the same tasks, but instead each of them should do what they are best at. SCI allows the firm to save on costs by reducing its inventory, since the relationship with suppliers makes it possible to reach agreements on the delivery of raw materials that favour the reduction of stock, transaction costs and also the uncertainties resulting from lack of trust in suppliers (Shin et al., 2000). The greater external integration is, the lower the costs deriving from service, transport, order processing, elimination of stock-outs and procurement lead time will be (Gimenez and Ventura, 2003). It should be borne in mind, however, that to achieve the lowest overall cost, spending in one or more areas may rise dramatically. For example, transport and storage costs are inversely related. Accordingly, higher transport costs deriving from moving finished products towards the final customer can lower both storage costs and product obsolescence (Stank et al., 2001-2002). Lastly, other authors (Gimenez and Ventura, 2003; Stank et al., 2003; Stank et al., 2001; Daugherty et al., 1998; Innis and La Londe, 1994) include Logistics Service as one of the objectives of logistics. This refers to the ability of a supplier to consistently deliver the products required by the customer, at the agreed delivery time and at an acceptable cost, or the process of providing value-added benefits to the supply chain in an efficient manner (Innis and La Londe, 1994). Logistics Service is a global multi-variable indicator THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOGISTICS AND MARKETING PERFORMANCE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN. DIFFERENT PATHS FOR MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 96 that embraces both Logistics Quality and Logistics Costs indicators and an improvement in costs that will lower the final selling price. Ideally, a firm would wish to offer the best customer service possible, which would involve fulfilling customers’ orders, delivering 100% of the products and the amounts requested within the agreed time, free of damage and without any mistakes. Although perfection is an admirable aim, it is not always possible to accomplish it at an acceptable cost (Stank et al., 2001). The firm will therefore seek a balance between satisfying customers’ needs and the cost of satisfying them. 2.2. Marketing (Commercial and Relational) Performance Schramm-Klein and Morschett (2006) provided evidence of the relationship between SCI and Marketing Performance. Sharing information, communication and cooperation among firms makes it possible to understand and address customers’ needs in dynamic markets both better and faster, while also allowing them to set themselves apart by offering a segmented service to meet specific needs. Consequently, SCI captures the advantage of granting higher value to the customer (Chang et al., 2016) by improving satisfaction and loyalty (Relational Performance) and increasing sales and market share (Commercial Performance). According to Schramm-Klein and Morschett (2006), short-term and long-term Marketing Performance is described by two dimensions. In the short term, there is the stimulation of demand, which would have a direct effect on income and sales potential, that is, Commercial Performance, while, in the long term, there are the relationships with customers, which would have a direct effect on satisfaction and loyalty, that is, Relational Performance. Relational Performance includes marketing objectives such as satisfaction or loyalty. Customer satisfaction is defined as an accumulated evaluation that is carried out by customers based on their purchases and consumption experience with a good over time. It is performed after the purchase and confirms, or not, the customer’s expectations about a particular good or service (Stank et al., 2003). Morgan and Hunt (1994) define loyalty as a long-term commitment to repurchase that includes a favourable attitude towards the seller, as well as repeated patronage. Commercial Performance includes the indicators related to the outcomes of the commercial activity, such as sales, market share, growth of market share or sales growth. TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT & PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 97 2.3. Relationship between Logistics and Marketing Performance According to Schramm-Klein and Morschett (2006) the history of the logistics and marketing departments in the firm would account for the difference between the two functional areas. With the definition of the 4Ps of marketing (McCarthy, 1960), the marketing department was assigned the task of physical distribution, which until then had been allocated to logistics. In the 50s and 60s, the tendency towards specialisation led to the separation of logistics and marketing. Thus, marketing focused on the creation of demand while logistics limited itself to lending physical support for the sales produced by marketing. This separation was implemented in most firms by setting up two different departments. Yet, the activities and Logistics and Marketing Performance are interrelated. To satisfy customers’ wishes, logistics has to be an efficient and flexible system and, hence, marketing and logistics cannot be seen as separate functions. Schramm-Klein and Morschett (2006) showed that the correlation between Logistics Quality and Cost Performance, on the one hand, and Relational Performance (consumer satisfaction and loyalty), on the other, was particularly strong for retailers. Furthermore, the correlation between the short-term results of Commercial Performance (sales, market share) and Logistics Performance (Costs and Quality), although existent, was less relevant. Hence, these authors highlight the strategic importance of logistics in the long term and its influence on long-term Marketing Performance. If a firm is more reliable, it will make fewer mistakes and lower costs will be produced as a result of refunds on returned goods, which will enhance its reputation, the trust that other partners in the supply chain have in it and, as a result, long-term relationships. Stank et al. (2003) and Daugherty et al. (1998) provided evidence of the existence of the relationship between Logistics Service and consumer satisfaction and loyalty, that is, Relational Performance. Firms that decide to use Logistics Service as a differentiating instrument in markets where the product is homogeneous achieve greater customer satisfaction, which translates into a commitment to repurchase and, in the long term, loyalty. Innis and La Londe (1994) showed that satisfaction with the Logistics Service had a significant positive effect on repurchase intentions. Moreover, Stank et al. (2003), Daugherty et al. (1998) and Innis and La Londe THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOGISTICS AND MARKETING PERFORMANCE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN. DIFFERENT PATHS FOR MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 98 (1994) showed that Logistics Service was an antecedent of market share (Commercial Performance) through the mediating relations of satisfaction and loyalty. In B2B contexts, creating customers that are willing to repurchase from a seller for a long period of time offers far more potential to increase market share than attracting new customers (Daugherty et al., 1998). 2.4 Relationships between manufacturers and distributors in the supply chain The theory on relations among organisations (Theory of Social Exchange, Theory of Transaction Costs and the Relational Perspective) has envisaged the distribution channel as a social system, in which manufacturers, distributors and the final customer all participate. The social component is fundamental in the interaction among the organisations that make up the channel (Labajo, 2007), since they cannot really be considered as discrete or isolated exchanges, but rather a relational exchange resulting from the exchange of resources (which generates interdependence and, therefore, relations of power and conflict) and the establishment of a negotiated environment (characterised by coordination and cooperation). In this relationship the parties involved obtain their utilities with the conviction that any imbalances that may arise in the short term will be offset in the long term. Cooperation among manufacturers and distributors covers two main areas (Labajo, 2007): coordination in aspects that are intrinsic to exchange (logistics and information flows) and aspects that have to do with marketing strategy (actions that affect the manufacturer’s and the distributor’s sales, market share, image and positioning). Bagchi and Skjoett-Larsen (2005) identified differences in the levels of collaboration between suppliers and customers. The areas with the highest level of integration with the supplier were the procurement process, materials and R&D, while collaboration with customers was characterised by greater R&D, distribution and customer relationship management. Leuschner et al. (2012) showed that integration with different members of the supply chain produced asymmetrical outcomes among them, that is to say, different upstream or downstream results. In conclusion, if SCI varies depending on the link the firm represents in the supply chain, the outcome of the integration will also vary. Empirical research shows that customer integration increases Relational, Commercial and Logistics Quality Performance TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT & PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 105 Efficiencies, while Relational Performance is obtained through the Logistics Service. In Distributors, Logistics Quality does not affect Marketing Performance (Commercial or Relational). 4. CONCLUSIONS The aim of this work is to identify the relationships between the different types of Logistics and Marketing Performance of an integrated company and, if they exist, the differences that appear according to the link that the company represents in the supply chain. 4.1. Theoretical implications Considering the total sample, it can be said that the Quality and Cost Logistics Performance contributes to the Commercial Performance and that Logistics Service, with the support of Logistics Quality, improves Relational Performance. It can also be seen that Logistics Service is the variable with the most weight in Relational Performance and Logistics Costs has the greatest weight in Commercial Performance. The result obtained shows the importance of Logistics Service (as a whole) to improve longterm Relational or Marketing Performance, in line with Innis and La Londe (1994). Logistics Service improves customers’ satisfaction and their loyalty both for Manufacturers and for Distributors. Any improvement in the Logistics Service will enhance long-term relationships between Manufacturers and Distributors. Costs are not used in either case to build long-term relationships, but instead to increase short-term performance (sales and market share). However, the paths chosen by channel members to improve Commercial and Relational Performance are different. Manufacturers enhance the two service elements: Logistics Quality and Cost reduction in order to obtain better Commercial Performance through the elements of Logistics Performance, that is, both the reliability and flexibility of delivery and cost reduction. Furthermore, Manufacturers use Logistics Quality to improve customers’ satisfaction and loyalty, i.e. long-term relationships. Manufacturers use integration as a differentiating element, creating greater value for the customer via Logistics Service and Quality. These results coincide with those obtained by Chang et al. (2016). Conversely, Distributors obtain better Commercial Performance by THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOGISTICS AND MARKETING PERFORMANCE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN. DIFFERENT PATHS FOR MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 106 using Cost as the only Service element. Reliability and flexibility are not used to improve Commercial or Relational Performance. This suggests the importance of the Logistics Cost as a service element and, therefore, distributors use integration as an element of advantage in costs, along the same lines as the proposal by Leuschner et al. (2013) and in contrast to the results obtained by Mackelprang et al. (2014), for whom cost reductions were not significant in obtaining improvements in Relational and Commercial Performance. With respect to the impact on performance, Manufacturers achieve a greater effect on Commercial and Relational Performance than Distributors and the difference lies in Logistics Quality, which influences both types of performance. If Manufacturers and Distributors are aligned in service and its parts, they will achieve improvements from different sources: Logistics Quality and Logistics Costs. Any improvement in Logistics Quality will lead to improvements in Marketing Performance in the short and the long term. For Distributors, cost efficiency is highly desirable, but costs are usually oriented towards the short term and the tools and activities used to achieve lower costs are easy to imitate, which means that improvements in performance due to such programmes are difficult to sustain over time (Stank et al., 2001). A firm will only do better than its competitors if it is able to establish a difference. Differentiating Logistics Service is the opportunity distributors have to become an integral part of their customers’ businesses, to know their long-term needs and to be able to satisfy them (Stank et al., 2001). 4.2. Implications for managers This research is useful for managers as it shows the strategic importance of Logistics Service in customer satisfaction and loyalty (Relational Performance). If changes are designed in a company’s marketing and logistics strategy, it is necessary to see how they will affect Logistics Service (Innis and La Londe, 1994). Thus, our proposal for managers (for both Manufacturers and Distributors) would be to: 1) Understand the attributes that make up the Logistics Service, find out what customers expect of the service and maintain acceptable levels of it at the lowest possible cost (Innis and La Londe, 1994). To do so, managers must ask themselves the TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT & PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 107 following questions: How does the Logistics Service enhance my customer’s satisfaction? What level of service would be the minimum my customers would accept? What level of service can I offer without escalating costs? 2) Understand the importance of retaining customers via service versus attracting new customers (Rust and Zahorik, 1993). Managers must ask themselves: What are the costs involved in enhancing service for new customers? What are the costs involved in enhancing service for current customers? The customer retention ratio is one of the most important elements of market share, and is motivated by customer service. To improve Commercial Performance, it is important to design the Logistics Service well in accordance with the firm’s target segment (new or current customers). 3) Recognise the importance of Logistics in the shortand longterm marketing goals. Invest the most adequate resources in the short and long term in order to secure these relationships (Innis and La Londe, 1994). 4) Use the Logistics Service as a competitive advantage. To this end it is necessary to integrate the marketing and logistics areas with suppliers and customers. Some authors propose that first these two functions have to be integrated internally and then, together, with both sides of the supply chain (Ataseven and Nair, 2017; Chang et al., 2016). 5) Have it clear in their mind that service cannot be enhanced infinitely. A time comes when any improvement in the service entails higher costs that do not translate into profits (Rust and Zahorik, 1993). Thus, companies with a low customer service orientation (e.g. Distributors) still have room to manoeuvre, as a simple change will improve the customer’s experience with the service at a small or no cost to the company. According to our study, improvements in reliability and in flexibility would improve service at a reasonable cost. In non-service-oriented companies, changes will require a cultural revolution in the organisation. 4.3. Implications for researchers Lastly, the outcomes of SCI are a complex concept. Taking into account the area of research in which this study is situated – the relationship between Logistics and Marketing Performance in THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOGISTICS AND MARKETING PERFORMANCE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN. DIFFERENT PATHS FOR MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 108 integrated companies – the limitations of this study can serve as a source for future research. First, we have assumed that these companies are integrated by asking them about the results of their upstream and downstream integration in the supply chain. To improve the quality of the study, integration indicators could be included in order to identify configurations of SCI-Performance, as proposed by Ataseven and Nair (2017) and as was carried out by Frohlich and Westbrook (2001). Studies of these taxonomies, observing differences in the different links in the supply chain, have not been conducted to date and would improve our understanding of this relationship in the supply chain. Second, we have only looked at the relationships between two kinds of performance, namely logistics and marketing, and therefore including financial performance indicators (both from respondents’ perceptions and those obtained from secondary sources) would complement the study of the relationships among the different types of performance. Chang et al. (2016) observed that the weight of the different kinds of performance on financial performance is not the same. Such studies could be further complemented by analysing the relationships between the elements of Logistics Performance itself, namely quality, costs and service (along with others that could be added), or among the elements of Marketing Performance, that is, satisfaction, loyalty, sales and market share. The relationship between Commercial Performance and Relational Performance has not always been very clear. Satisfaction is a necessary mechanism, but it is not enough to increase sales, as it does not prevent purchases from competitors when there are stock-outs or when they run promotions on sales. Third, improving the indicators to measure different types of performance (Logistics, Marketing and Financial). How to measure performance is a controversial issue in the SCI literature. For this reason, there is a need to conduct studies that include validated scales to measure the types of performance and to identify dimensions. Better measurement of the concepts would be an opportunity to explore the causes of their effects and to obtain more consistent results (Tarifa-Fernandez and de Burgos-Jiménez, 2017). Fourth, this study has focused on the Spanish construction materials manufacturing and distribution sector. The characteristics of the sector are very specific, as are the relationships among TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT & PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 109 manufacturers and distributors, which means that the conclusions cannot easily be generalised to other contexts. It would be advisable to conduct studies in other sectors, where the relationships among their members or the type of product to be commercialised are different. Our proposal is to study sectors where the customer is the final user. Fifth, the way the scope of the performance is measured can also be improved. In our study performance has been measured as the mean of the results of SCI with suppliers and customers. There are studies that relate SCI with all the customers or all the suppliers to the performance of the focus company (an average of all the relationships), while other papers relate SCI to a specific customer and to the outcome of that relationship. Another issue is whether it makes sense to relate integration to only one customer/supplier or to the most important one and measure performance at the corporate level, where many other unmeasured relationships can exert an influence (Van der Vaart and Van Donk, 2007). Moreover, measurement will depend on whether we take into account shortor long-term relationships. Much work remains to be done in this field. Lastly, relationships between the types of performance could be explored by adding more stakeholders in the supply chain (retailers, logistics operators or suppliers or final customers), thereby broadening the scope of the research through dyads, triads or performance with suppliers and with customers separately. The study of supply chain performance for its different members is still an immense uncharted ocean. We encourage supply chain scholars to strive to make breakthroughs that enable us to better understand this field and help companies improve their performance. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOGISTICS AND MARKETING PERFORMANCE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN. DIFFERENT PATHS FOR MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 110 REFERENCES Alimarket (2009a). Informe anual Alimarket de fabricantes de materiales. Madrid: Publicaciones Alimarket. Alimarket (2009b). Informe anual Alimarket de distribución de materiales. Madrid: Publicaciones Alimarket. Ataseven, C., and 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.01.007 Bagchi, P., and Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2005). “Supply Chain Integration: a European Survey”. The International Journal of Logistic Management, 16(2), 275-294. http://dx.doi. org/10.1108/09574090510634557 Chang, W., Ellinger, A.E., Kim, K., and Franke, G.R. (2016). “Supply chain integration and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis of positional advantage mediation and moderating factors”. European Management Journal, 34 (3), 282-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. emj.2015.11.008 Daugherty, P., Stank, T., and Ellinger, A. (1998). “Leveraging Logistics/Distribution Capabilities: The Impact of Logistics Service on Market Share”. Journal of Business Logistics, 19 (2), 35-51. https://search.proquest.com/docview/212595606?accountid=15297 Fabbe-Costes, N., and Jahre, M. (2007). “Supply Chain Integration Improves Performance: The Emperor´s New Suit?” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 37 (10), 835-855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030710848941 Frolich, M., and Westbrook, R. (2001). “Arcs of Integration: An International Study of Supply Chain Strategies”. Journal of Operations Management, 19 (2), 185-200. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0272-6963(00)00055-3 Germain, R., and Iyer, K. (2006). “The Interaction of Internal and Downstream Integration and Its Association with Performance”. Journal of Business Logistics, 27 (2), 29-52. https:// doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2006.tb00216.x Gimenez, C., and Ventura, E. (2003). “Supply Chain Management as a Competitive Advantage in the Spanish Grocery Sector”. International Journal of Logistics Management, 14 (1), 77-88. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ba81/907d1a674235035439622f24f46315132f10.pdf Innis, D.E and La Londe, B.J. (1994). “Customer Service: The Key to Customer satisfacction, customer loyalty and market share”. Journal of Business Logistics, 15 (1), 1-27. Labajo González, V. (2007): Trade marketing: la gestión eficiente de las relaciones entre fabricante y distribuidor. Madrid: Ed. Pirámide. Leuschner, R.; Lambert, D.M., and Knemeyer, A.M. (2012). “Logistics Performance, Customer Satisfaction, and Share of Business: A Comparison of Primary and Secondary Suppliers”. Journal of Business Logistics, 33 (3): 210-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.21581592.2012.01053.x Leuschner,R., Rogers, D. S., and Charvet, F. F. (2013). “A Meta-Analysis of Supply Chain Integration and Firm Performance”. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49 (2), 34-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12013 Mackelprang, A.W., Robinson, J.L., Bernardes, E., and Webb, G.S. (2014). “The relationship between strategic supply chain integration and performance: a metaanalytic evaluation and implications for supply chain management research”. Journal of Business Logistics, 35 (1), 71-96. McCarthy, E,J. (1960). Basic Marketing: a Managerial Approach, Homewood, IL: Richad D. Irwin. Mollá, A., Berenguer, G., Gil, I., Ruiz, M.E. and Vallet, T. (2007): “La distribución de cerámica y materiales de construcción en España”. Boletín económico de ICE, Información Comercial Española, 2927, 19-30. Morgan, R., and Hunt, S. (1994). “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship marketing”. Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20-38. DOI: 10.2307/1252308. Rust, R.T. and Zahorik, A.J. (1993). “Customer Satisfaction, Customer retention, and Market Share”. Journal of Retailing, 62 (2), 193-215. Schramm-Klein, H., and Morschett, D. (2006). “The Relationship Between Marketing Performance, Logistics Performance And Company Performance For Retail Companies”. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 16 (2), 277-296. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09593960600572399 TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT & PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | FOURTH QUARTER 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 111 Shin, H., Collier, D., and Wilson, D. (2000). “Supply Management Orientation and Supplier/ Buyer Performance”. Journal of Operations Management, 18 (3), 317-333. Stank, T., Keller, S., and Daugherty, P (2001). “Supply Chain Collaboration and Logistical Service Performance”. Journal of Business Logistics, 22 (1), 29-48. Stank, T.P., Goldsby, T., Vickery, S., and Savitskie, K. (2003). “Logistics Service Performance: Estimating Its Influence On Market Share”. Journal of Business Logistics, 24 (1), 27-55. Stank, T., Keller, S., and Closs, D. (2001-2002). “Performance Benefits of Supply Chain Logistical Integration”. Transportation Journal, Winter/Spring, 32-46. Tarifa-Fernandez, J. and de Burgos-Jiménez, J. (2017) “Supply chain integration and performance relationship: a moderating effects review”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 28 (4), 1243-1271. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2016-0043 Vallet-Bellmunt, T. (2010). “Las relaciones en la cadena de suministro no son tan peligrosas”. Universia Business Review, 26 (2), 12-33. Van der Vaart, T., and Van Donk, D. (2008). “A Critical Review of Survey-Based Research in Supply Chain Integration”. International Journal of Production Economics, 111 (1), 42-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.10.011 Wong, C.Y., Boon-Itt, S., and Wong, C.W.Y. (2011). “The contingency effects of environmental uncertainty on the relationship between supply chain integration and operational performance”. Journal of Operations Management, 29 (6), 604-615. NOTES 1. Acknowledgment: We are grateful for the suggestions and comments received from two anonymous reviewers, which have allowed us to improve this study considerably. This research has been made possible thanks to funding from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (ECO2015-67122-R), the European Regional Development Fund (ECO2017-86305-C4-3-R) and the Government of the Autonomous Community of Aragon (Reference Research Group S42_17R: CREVALOR). 2. Corresponding author: Universitat Jaume I de Castelló; Campus Riu Sec s/n; 12071 Castelló (SPAIN) 3. For further details, see the studies by Tarifa-Fernandez and de Burgos-Jiménez (2017), Chang et al. (2016) and Leuschner et al. (2013). UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 112112112 1. INTRODUCCIÓN La integración en la cadena de suministro con proveedores y compradores3 ha sido núcleo de la investigación en logística y en la cadena de suministro desde los años 80, porque es considerada una fuente de ventaja competitiva. La integración de una empresa en la cadena de suministro (SCI de ahora en adelante por sus siglas en inglés: Supply Chain Integration) consiste en la colaboración y coordinación de la información, procesos y comportamientos intra e inter-organizacionales con sus miembros clave: proveedores y compradores (Chang et al., 2016). En los últimos 20 años han proliferado las investigaciones que examinan los beneficios obtenidos en los resultados asociados a la SCI. Varias son las teorías organizacionales en las que se sustenta esta relación, entre las que destacan la Teoría de Recursos y Capacidades, La Teoría de la Ventaja Competitiva, la Perspectiva Relacional, la Perspectiva del conocimiento y la Teoría Recepción: 29 Mayo 2018. Aceptación: 22 Octubre 2018 DOI: 10.3232/UBR.2018.V15.N4.03 CÓDIGO JEL: M1; M31; C3; L6; L61 Relación entre resultados logísticos y de marketing en la cadena de suministro. Diferentes caminos para fabricantes y distribuidores1 The relationship between logistics and marketing performance in the supply chain. Different paths for manufacturers and distributors Business and Society Review UCJC (Formerly known as Universia Business Review) Pilar Rivera-Torres Universidad de Zaragoza  [email protected] Teresa Vallet-Bellmunt2 Universitat Jaume I de Castelló  [email protected] UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 113113113113 RESUMEN DEL ARTÍCULO El objetivo de este artículo es estudiar las relaciones entre los Resultados de Marketing y los Logísticos en un contexto de integración inter-organizacional, buscando diferencias entre fabricantes y distribuidores. La información ha sido proporcionada por 450 empresas del sector de materiales de construcción español. Los resultados obtenidos muestran la importancia del Servicio Logístico como instrumento para mejorar los Resultados Relacionales de la empresa integrada y los diferentes caminos que toman los Fabricantes y los Distribuidores para aumentar los Resultados de Marketing a corto y largo plazo. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aim of this paper is to study the relationships between Marketing and Logistics Performance in a context of inter-organisational integration to search for differences between Manufacturers and Distributors. The information has been provided by 450 companies in the Spanish construction materials sector. The results obtained show the importance of the Logistics Service as an instrument to improve the Relational Performance of the integrated company and the different paths that Manufacturers and Distributors take to increase shortand long-term Marketing Performance. RELACIÓN ENTRE RESULTADOS LOGÍSTICOS Y DE MARKETING EN LA CADENA DE SUMINISTRO. DIFERENTES CAMINOS PARA FABRICANTES Y DISTRIBUIDORES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 114 de los costes transaccionales4. Desde el punto de vista teórico se han llevado a cabo meta-análisis, análisis bibliométricos y análisis de contenido que buscan sintetizar todos los resultados obtenidos en la literatura respecto a la relación SCI-Resultados y proponer líneas de investigación sobre aspectos que no han sido resueltos. Algunos autores analizaron el efecto directo de la SCI sobre los resultados financieros de la empresa (A en la Figura 1) llegando a conclusiones distintas. Así Leuschner et al., (2013) y Fabbe-Costes and Jahre (2007) no encontraron una relación directa, mientras que Ataseven y Nair (2017), Tarifa-Fernandez y de Burgos-Jimenez (2017) y Chang et al. (2016) identificaron una relación significativa y positiva entre SCI y Resultados financieros. Para explicar estas diferencias, los investigadores proponen diferentes oportunidades de investigación en la relación SCIresultados (véase Figura 1). La primera opción es analizar efectos indirectos (B en la Figura 1) a través de variables mediadoras (véase Chang et al., 2016). La segunda opción es identificar variables moderadoras (C en la Figura 1), como Tarifa-Fernandez y de Burgos-Jimenez (2017) que detectan y clasifican hasta 27 moderadores distintos. En tercer lugar, la SCI y los resultados son conceptos complejos y con múltiples caras y dimensiones. Así Ataseven y Nair (2017), Chang et al., (2016) y Leuschner et al., (2013) argumentan que para comprender en su totalidad esta relación sería necesario examinar (D en la Figura 1) cómo las diferentes dimensiones de la SCI se relacionan individualmente con las distintas dimensiones de resultados. Fabbe-Costes and Jahre (2007) y Van der Vaart and Van Donk (2008), fueron de los primeros en detectar algunas lagunas en la investigación relacionadas con la delimitación de los conceptos de resultados y de integración y la forma de medida (indicadores) de ambos conceptos. Además, Van der Vaart and Van Donk (2008, p.51), proponen el estudio de las relaciones entre las distintas dimensiones de la SCI (E en la Figura 1) y Tarifa-Fernandez y de Burgos-Jimenez (2017, p.1263) proponen el análisis de los intercambios entre los distintos tipos de resultados (F en la Figura 1). Por último, casi todos los investigadores nombrados anteriormente proponen ampliar el alcance del estudio (H en la Figura 1) de una única empresa a la diada o toda la cadena de suministro, porque la competencia actual ...el objetivo de este artículo es estudiar las relaciones entre los Resultados de Marketing y los Logísticos en un contexto de integración interorganizacional... TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT Y PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 121 rencias en los niveles de colaboración entre proveedores y clientes. Las áreas con mayor nivel de integración con el proveedor eran el proceso de adquisición, materiales e I+D, mientras que la colaboración con clientes se caracterizaba por un mayor I+D, distribución y gestión de las relaciones con los clientes. Leuschner et al. (2012) mostraron que la integración con distintos miembros de la cadena de suministro producía resultados asimétricos entre los participantes de la cadena de suministro, es decir, resultados diferentes aguas arriba o aguas abajo. En conclusión, si la SCI varía según el eslabón de la empresa en la cadena de suministro, el resultado de la integración también variará. Las investigaciones empíricas nos muestran que la integración con compradores aumenta los Resultados Relacionales, Comerciales y de Calidad Logística (Chang et al., 2016). Al establecer fuertes lazos con los compradores y tener una mayor comprensión de las necesidades de los compradores y de los cambios en la demanda, la integración con compradores proporciona una ventaja en diferenciación, que aumenta la satisfacción de los compradores y los previene de comprar a los competidores (Resultado Relacional). Según Chang et al., (2016) la SCI con los compradores también mejora la Calidad Logística, incrementando la flexibilidad, y mejorando las ventas (Resultado Comercial) Stank et al., (2001-2002) y ValletBellmunt (2010), probaron que aguas abajo se producían mejores Resultados Relacionales (satisfacción) y Resultados Logísticos de calidad (velocidad de entrega y flexibilidad en pedidos y entregas). Sin embargo, Mackelprang et al., (2014), mostraron que la integración con los compradores no tenía un impacto significativo en la reducción de Costes Logísticos. Las ventajas asociadas a la integración con los proveedores se revelan como Resultados Logísticos superiores (Wong et al., 2011) por una mejora de la eficiencia y reducción de costes de aprovisionamiento. Resolver problemas conjuntamente con los proveedores y aprovechar sinergias en la utilización de recursos y capacidades únicos y complementarios, permite identificar oportunidades para lograr costes relativamente más bajos (Chang et al., 2016). En esa línea, Vallet-Bellmunt (2010) demostró que la integración hacia el proveedor producía mejoras en costes, y, Stank et al. (2001-2002) mostraron que la integración aguas arriba tenía una relación negativa con los Resultados de Marketing (menor sensibilidad hacia el cliente). RELACIÓN ENTRE RESULTADOS LOGÍSTICOS Y DE MARKETING EN LA CADENA DE SUMINISTRO. DIFERENTES CAMINOS PARA FABRICANTES Y DISTRIBUIDORES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 122 Las funciones y las relaciones aguas arriba y abajo dependerán del eslabón en el que se encuentre la empresa en la cadena de suministro (Tarifa-Fernández y De Burgos-Jiménez, 2017). Por ello, consideramos que, si la empresa es fabricante o distribuidor, se modificarán las relaciones entre los distintos tipos de Resultados Logísticos y de Marketing. Por todo lo anterior se proponen las siguientes relaciones, que pueden observarse en la Figura 2: 1) Los Resultados Logísticos a corto plazo (Calidad Logística y Costes Logísticos) están relacionados directa y positivamente con los Resultados de Marketing (Resultados Relacionales y los Resultados Comerciales); 2) Los Resultados Logísticos a largo plazo (Servicio Logístico) están directa y positivamente relacionados con los Resultados de Marketing (Resultados Relacionales y los Resultados Comerciales); 3) Estas relaciones son distintas para fabricantes y para distribuidores. Costes Logísticos Calidad Logística Servicio Logístico Resultados Relacionales Resultados Comerciales Rol: Fabricante/ Distribuidor Figura 2. Propuesta de Estudio TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT Y PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 123 3. ESTUDIO EMPÍRICO En España, la construcción es un sector económico de gran relevancia a nivel de PIB y empleo, y cuenta con una importante capacidad de arrastre sobre otras industrias. El sector de la distribución de materiales de construcción en España (Mollá et al., 2007), se caracteriza por un entorno altamente competitivo con una gran heterogeneidad de empresas en cuanto a las características, surtido y servicios que ofrecen. Los materiales de construcción son distribuidos por almacenistas, minoristas, tiendas de bricolaje y por los propios fabricantes. Los clientes de los distribuidores son empresas promotoras/constructoras e instaladores industriales (60%), mientras que la venta directa al público supone el 40% (sobre todo los minoristas). Los distribuidores compran directamente a los fabricantes (73%), o a través de mayoristas (13%) y de centrales de compras (14%). La población de este estudio está formada por empresas del sector de material de construcción español, con un total de 2388 empresas (Alimarket, 2009a, 2009b). El trabajo de campo fue realizado por una empresa especializada (véase ficha técnica en la Tabla 1). Se alcanzó un porcentaje de respuesta del 18,84%, siendo el tamaño muestral de 450 empresas. Con un nivel de significatividad del 0,05 podemos decir que no existen diferencias significativas entre la muestra y la población para esas dos variables. Tabla 1. Ficha técnica de la Investigación Universo: Empresas del sector de material de construccion español, con un total de 2388 empresas (Alimarket, 2009a, 2009b). Muestra: 450 empresas (256 fabricantes y 194 distribuidores), que constituyen el 22,07% de los trabajadores y unas ventas del 20.72% del sector. Método de recogida de información: Encuesta telefónica por empresa especializada. Azar, cuotas zona geográfica y subsector. Error: ± 4.2 % (95% confianza) Medidas de Resultados: R. LOGÍSTICOS: CALIDAD LOGÍSTICA (3 ítems); COSTES LOGÍSTICOS (2 ítems); SERVICIO LOGÍSTICO (1 ítem) R. MARKETING: RESULTADOS COMERCIALES (3 ítems) y RESULTADOS RELACIONALES (2 ítems) Papel de la empresa: ¿Cuál es su actividad principal en la cadena de suministro: fabricante o distribuidor? Método de análisis: SEM (Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales) RELACIÓN ENTRE RESULTADOS LOGÍSTICOS Y DE MARKETING EN LA CADENA DE SUMINISTRO. DIFERENTES CAMINOS PARA FABRICANTES Y DISTRIBUIDORES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 124 Los responsables de proporcionar información en cada empresa de la muestra fueron el gerente (13%), el responsable de logística (15%), el responsable del departamento comercial (24%,) el de compras (un 19%), el responsable del departamento de administración (27%) y otros (5%). En la Tabla 2 se observa la heterogeneidad existente por los diversos los subsectores de la muestra. El cuestionario consta de dos módulos de preguntas. El primero se centra en las características propias de la empresa. El segundo recoge las medidas de resultados y del papel de la empresa en la cadena de suministro. Para medir los resultados, se les preguntó, tanto a fabricantes como distribuidores, para cada indicador: ¿Cómo estimaría las mejoras que ha obtenido en los resultados (logísticos, marketing) durante los últimos tres años debido a la integración con sus proveedores y sus clientes clave? Señálelo en una escala donde 1= sus resultados se han deteriorado en gran medida y un 7 si han mejorado notablemente. Respecto al Servicio Logístico, se ha utilizado una medida global que incluye en una única variable tanto la calidad logística como los costes logísticos, lo que permite una mejor comprensión de las interacciones entre los Resultados Logísticos y los de Marketing, como un todo o desde alguna de sus partes (Calidad Logística y Costes Logísticos). El resto de ítems se han obtenido de escalas de estudios previos. Tabla 2. Subsectores de la muestra (%) SUBSECTOR TOTAL FABRICANTE DISTRIBUIDOR Azulejo y sanitario 9,6 16,4 0,5 Cemento y hormigón 7,1 12,5 0 Central de compras 2,2 0 5,2 Fontanería y climatización 5,6 9,8 0 Hierros y carpintería metálica 6,4 11,3 0 Madera 1,8 3,1 0 Maquinaria 12,2 7,4 18,6 Material eléctrico 3,1 5,5 0 Multi-producto 33,1 1,2 75,3 Otros 18,9 32,8 0,5 Total 100 100 100 TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT Y PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 125 El papel de la empresa en la cadena de suministro se ha medido con la pregunta: ¿Cuál es su actividad principal en la cadena de suministro: fabricante o distribuidor? El papel de Fabricante incluye suministro de componentes, fabricantes y ensambladores finales del producto, mientras que el papel de Distribuidor incluye mayoristas, distribuidores, operadores logísticos y minoristas (Alimarket, 2099 a y b). En la Tabla 3 se observa la media de los resultados para el total de la muestra, los Fabricantes y los Distribuidores. Tabla 3. Descriptivos de Variables e Indicadores (escala 1-7) VARIABLES INDICADORES TOTAL FABRICANTE DISTRIBUIDOR Calidad Logística Promedio de pedidos entregados sin errores 4.51 4.54 4.47 Promedio de pedidos entregados a tiempo 4.49* 4.58 4.36 Flexibilidad para responder a cambios en pedidos 4.59 4.64 4.52 Costes Logísticos Costes de aprovisionamiento 4.24 4.28 4.19 Costes de las devoluciones 4.19 4.22 4.15 Servicio Logístico Servicio a los compradores 4.36 4.37 4.35 Resultados Comerciales Cuota de mercado 3.33 3.35 3.30 Crecimiento medio de ventas 3.10 3.13 3.08 Rentabilidad sobre ventas 3.42 3.46 3.36 Resultados Relacionales Satisfacción de los clientes 4.35 4.36 4.32 Lealtad de los clientes 4.21 4.21 4.22 * Existe diferencias de medias entre fabricantes y distribuidores al p<0.05 La validación empírica del modelo se ha llevado a cabo mediante el uso de ecuaciones estructurales con variables latentes y una perspectiva de multi-muestra, metodología que constituye una técnica de análisis multi-variante, cada vez más utilizada en la investigación en marketing y en empresa. Con ella, podemos analizar el impacto directo de una variable sobre otra, realizando un análisis comparativo sobre una muestra total, y sub-muestras: Fabricantes y Distribuidores. Los resultados obtenidos en las empresas españolas del sector de materiales de construcción se muestran en la Tabla 4 y en la Figura 3. RELACIÓN ENTRE RESULTADOS LOGÍSTICOS Y DE MARKETING EN LA CADENA DE SUMINISTRO. DIFERENTES CAMINOS PARA FABRICANTES Y DISTRIBUIDORES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 126 Tabla 4. Resultados del modelo estructural CALIDAD LOGÍSTICA COSTES LOGÍSTICOS SERVICIO LOGÍSTICO R2 Total Resultados Comerciales 0.21*** 0.33*** 0.11 0.14 Resultados Relacionales 0.28*** 0.01 0.67*** 0.67 Fabricantes Resultados Comerciales 0.22*** 0.34*** 0.07 0.17 Resultados Relacionales 0.31*** 0.02 0.68*** 0.74 Distribuidores Resultados Comerciales 0.21 0.28** 0.13 0.10 Resultados Relacionales 0.25 0.06 0.58*** 0.58 *** p<0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.10 MUESTRA TOTAL Costes Logísticos Calidad Logística Servicio Logístico Resultados Relacionales Resultados Comerciales Costes Logísticos Calidad Logística Servicio Logístico Resultados Relacionales Resultados Comerciales FABRICANTES DISTRIBUIDORES Relaciones Significativas No significativas Costes Logísticos Calidad Logística Servicio Logístico Resultados Relacionales Resultados Comerciales Figura 3. Relaciones significativas entre las variables Respecto a las relaciones identificadas en la teoría, una vez realizado el análisis de datos se puede decir lo siguiente. En primer lugar, atendiendo a la muestra total, señalar que la Calidad Logística y los Costes Logísticos presentan un efecto positivo y significativo en los TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT Y PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 127 Resultados Comerciales de la empresa (β= 0,21 p<0,00; β= 0,33 p<0,00). Esto se produce también en la sub-muestra de Fabricantes (β= 0,22 p<0,00; β= 0,34 p<0,00), pero no en la de los Distribuidores (β= 0,21 p>0,10; β= 0,28 p<0,05) donde la Calidad Logística no tiene influencia en los Resultados Comerciales y los Costes logísticos presentan un impacto levemente menor que en la sub-muestra de Fabricantes. En segundo lugar, a nivel de la muestra total, el Servicio Logístico y la Calidad Logística tienen efecto positivo y significativo sobre los Resultados Relacionales (β= 0,67 p>0,000; β= 0,28 p<0,00). Esto se produce también en la sub-muestra de Fabricantes (β= 0,68, p<0,000; β= 0,31, p<0.00), pero no en la de los Distribuidores donde el Servicio Logístico si tiene impacto (β= 0,58, p>0,00), aunque levemente menor que en los fabricantes y la Calidad Logística no tiene influencia en los Resultados Relacionales (β= 0,25, p>0,10). Por tanto, se detectan diferencias entre los Fabricantes y los Distribuidores. Para los Fabricantes, los Resultados Comerciales se consiguen a través de la Calidad y los Costes Logísticos, mientras que los Resultados Relacionales están influidos por la Calidad y el Servicio Logístico. Para los Distribuidores, los Resultados Comerciales se consiguen solo con eficiencias en Costes, mientras que los Resultados Relacionales se obtienen a través del Servicio Logístico. En los Distribuidores, la Calidad Logística no afecta a los Resultados de Marketing (Comerciales o Relacionales). 4. CONCLUSIONES El objetivo de este trabajo es identificar las relaciones entre los diferentes Resultados Logísticos y de Marketing de una empresa integrada y, si existen, diferencias según el eslabón que ocupe la empresa en la cadena de suministro. 4.1. Implicaciones teóricas A nivel de muestra total, se puede decir que los Resultados Logísticos de Calidad y Costes contribuyen a los Resultados Comerciales y que el Servicio Logístico apoyado por la Calidad Logística mejora los Resultados Relacionales. También se muestra que el Servicio Logístico es la variable con más peso en los Resultados Relacionales y los Costes Logísticos en los Resultados Comerciales. El resultado obtenido muestra la importancia del RELACIÓN ENTRE RESULTADOS LOGÍSTICOS Y DE MARKETING EN LA CADENA DE SUMINISTRO. DIFERENTES CAMINOS PARA FABRICANTES Y DISTRIBUIDORES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 128 Servicio Logístico (como un todo) para la mejora de los Resultados Relacionales o de Marketing a largo plazo, en línea con Innis y La Londe (1994). Tanto para Fabricantes como para Distribuidores, el Servicio Logístico mejora la satisfacción de los compradores y su lealtad. Cualquier mejora en el servicio logístico mejorará las relaciones a largo plazo entre fabricantes y distribuidores. Respecto a los Costes, no se utilizan, en ninguno de los dos casos, para construir relaciones a largo plazo, sino para aumentar los resultados a corto (ventas y cuota). Sin embargo, los caminos escogidos por los miembros del canal para mejorar los Resultados Comerciales y Relacionales son distintos. Así, los Fabricantes potencian los dos elementos del servicio: la Calidad Logística y la disminución de Costes para obtener mejores Resultados Comerciales, a través de los elementos del Resultado Logístico, tanto la fiabilidad y flexibilidad de las entregas como las disminuciones en costes. Además, los Fabricantes utilizan la Calidad Logística para mejorar la satisfacción y lealtad de los clientes, es decir las relaciones a largo plazo. Los Fabricantes utilizan la integración como elemento diferenciador, creando un mayor valor al comprador vía Servicio y Calidad logística. Estos resultados coinciden con los obtenidos por Chang et al. (2016). Los Distribuidores, en cambio, consiguen mejores Resultados Comerciales utilizando solo el Coste como elemento del Servicio. La fiabilidad y la flexibilidad no se utilizan ni para mejorar los Resultados Comerciales ni los Relacionales. Esto implica la importancia del Coste Logístico como elemento del servicio y, por tanto, los distribuidores utilizan la integración como elemento de ventaja en costes, en la misma línea que proponían Leuschner et al. (2013), y, en contra de lo obtenido por Mackelprang et al. (2014), para los que la reducción de costes no era significativa en la obtención de mejoras de Resultados Relacionales y Comerciales. Respecto al impacto sobre los resultados, los Fabricantes consiguen un mayor efecto sobre los Resultados Comerciales y Relacionales que los Distribuidores y la diferencia estriba en la Calidad Logística, que influye sobre ambos resultados. Si Fabricantes y Distribuidores están alineados en el servicio y en sus partes, obtendrán mejoras desde distintas fuentes: la Calidad y los Costes Logísticos. Cualquier mejora en la Calidad Logística, implicará mejoras en Resultados de Marketing a corto plazo y a largo plazo. Para los Distribuidores, la eficiencia en costes es altamente deseable, TERESA VALLET-BELLMUNT Y PILAR RIVERA-TORRES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 129 pero la orientación en costes es usualmente a corto plazo, las herramientas y actividades utilizadas para alcanzar menores costes son fáciles de imitar, lo que significa que las mejoras en resultados debidas a tales programas son difíciles de sustentar en el tiempo (Stank et al. 2001). Una empresa solo superará a sus competidores si es capaz de establecer una diferencia. Diferenciar el servicio logístico es la oportunidad de los distribuidores de ser parte integral de los negocios de sus compradores, conocer sus necesidades a largo plazo y ser capaces de satisfacerlas (Stank et al., 2001). 4.2. Implicaciones para los directivos Esta investigación es útil para los directivos en tanto que muestra la importancia estratégica del Servicio Logístico en la satisfacción del comprador y en su lealtad (Resultados Relacionales). Si se diseñan cambios en la estrategia de marketing y de logística de una empresa, hay que ver cómo afectarán al Servicio Logístico (Innis y La Londe, 1994). Por ello, nuestra propuesta para los directivos (tanto Fabricantes como Distribuidores) sería: 1) Entender los atributos que componen el Servicio Logístico, averiguar cuáles son las expectativas de los clientes sobre dicho servicio y mantener niveles aceptables del mismo a los menores costes posibles (Innis y La Londe, 1994). Para ello los directivos debe hacerse las siguientes preguntas: ¿Cómo mejora el Servicio Logístico la satisfacción de mi comprador? ¿Qué nivel de servicio aceptarían como mínimo mis compradores? ¿Qué nivel de servicio puedo ofrecer sin que se disparen los costes? 2) Entender la importancia de retener clientes vía servicio, frente a atraer nuevos clientes (Rust y Zahorik, 1993). Los directivos deben preguntarse: ¿Cuáles son los costes de mejorar el servicio para nuevos clientes? ¿Cuáles son los costes de mejorar el servicio para los clientes actuales? La ratio de retención de clientes es uno de los elementos más importantes de la cuota de mercado, y está motivado por el servicio al comprador. Para mejorar los Resultados Comerciales, es importante diseñar bien el servicio logístico en función del segmento al que se dirige la empresa (clientes nuevos o actuales). 3) Reconocer la importancia de la Logística sobre los objetivos de marketing a corto y largo plazo. Invertir los recursos RELACIÓN ENTRE RESULTADOS LOGÍSTICOS Y DE MARKETING EN LA CADENA DE SUMINISTRO. DIFERENTES CAMINOS PARA FABRICANTES Y DISTRIBUIDORES UCJC BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW | CUARTO TRIMESTRE 2018 | ISSN: 2659-3270 130 más adecuados a corto y a largo plazo para asegurar estas relaciones (Innis y La Londe, 1994). 4) Utilizar el Servicio Logístico como ventaja competitiva. Para ello, integrar las áreas de marketing y de logística con proveedores y con compradores. Algunos autores proponen que primero hay que integrar internamente estas dos funciones, y después, a la vez, con ambos lados de la cadena de suministro (Ataseven y Nair, 2017; Chang et al., 2016). 5) Tener claro que la mejora del servicio no es infinita. Llega un momento que cualquier mejora en el servicio supone unos costes superiores que no se traducen en beneficios (Rust y Zahorik, 1993). Así, las empresas con baja orientación de servicio al comprador (por ejemplo, los Distribuidores), todavía tienen margen de actuación, ya que un simple cambio mejorará la experiencia del comprador con el servicio con ningún o un pequeño coste para la empresa. Según nuestro estudio, mejoras en la fiabilidad y en la flexibilidad, mejorarían el servicio a un coste razonable. En empresas sin orientación al servicio, los cambios requerirán una revolución cultural en la organización. 4.3. Implicaciones para los investigadores Por último, los resultados de la SCI son un concepto complejo. Teniendo en cuenta la parcela de investigación a la que se ha acogido este estudio: relación entre Resultados Logísticos y de Marketing de empresas integradas, las limitaciones de las que adolece este estudio pueden ser fuente de futuras investigaciones. En primer lugar, hemos dado por hecho que estas empresas están integradas al preguntarles sobre los resultados de su integración aguas arriba y abajo en la cadena de suministro. Para mejorar la calidad del estudio, se podrían incluir indicadores de integración que permitiesen identificar configuraciones de SCI-Resultados, tal y como proponen Ataseven y Nair (2017) y como hicieron en su día Frolich y Westbrook (2001). Estudiar estas taxonomías, viendo diferencias en los distintos eslabones de la cadena de suministro no se ha estudiado hasta ahora, y mejoraría la comprensión de esta relación en la cadena de suministro. En segundo lugar, solo hemos visto las relaciones entre dos tipos de resultados: logísticos y de marketing, por lo que incluir indicadores de resultados financieros (tanto de percepciones