Strategic supplier performance in a competitive landscape: Enhancing organizational performance through lean supply chain management

Garcia-Buendia, Noelia; Moyano-Fuentes, José; Maqueira-Marín, Juan Manuel; Romano, Pietro; Molinaro, Margherita Article Strategic supplier performance in a competitive landscape: Enhancing organizational performance through lean supply chain management BRQ Business Research Quarterly Provided in Cooperation with: Asociación Científica de Economía y Dirección de Empresas (ACEDE), Madrid Suggested Citation: Garcia-Buendia, Noelia; Moyano-Fuentes, José; Maqueira-Marín, Juan Manuel; Romano, Pietro; Molinaro, Margherita (2025) : Strategic supplier performance in a competitive landscape: Enhancing organizational performance through lean supply chain management, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, ISSN 2340-9444, Sage Publishing, London, Vol. 28, Iss. 2, pp. 474-490, https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444231210566 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/327080 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444231210566 Business Research Quarterly 2025, Vol. 28(2) 474 –490 © The Author(s) 2023 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/23409444231210566 journals.sagepub.com/home/brq Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm). Introduction To cope with increasing competitive intensity, organizations need to adapt their operations and competitive strategies in their search for paths to improvement (Hallgren & Olhager, 2009). However, these days competition takes place between supply chain networks rather than individual firms. The selection of the best competitive strategy to operate effectively and efficiently under high competitive pressure is, therefore, determined by the improvement needs of the organization and its supply chain structure (Qi et al., 2011). The role of supply chain (SC) collaboration is especially relevant in the supply context (M. Srinivasan et al., 2020), so the management of key supply stakeholder relationships could have relevant strategic implications for the selection and adoption of new management practices (Y. Kim & Choi, 2018). In this context, Lean Supply Chain Strategic supplier performance in a competitive landscape: Enhancing organizational performance through lean supply chain management Noelia Garcia-Buendia1, José Moyano-Fuentes2, Juan Manuel Maqueira-Marín2, Pietro Romano3 and Margherita Molinaro4 Abstract In a context characterized by increasing competitive pressure, supply chain collaboration has gained greater relevance and lean principles have been integrated into supply chain management to address the challenge of achieving better organizational performance. The purpose of this study is to understand the roles of strategic supplier performance and competitive intensity in Lean Supply Chain Management (LSCM) implementation and its performance. We use a variance-based Structural Equation Model analysis with empirical data from a sample of 273 Spanish companies to analyze the relationships among strategic suppliers, competitive intensity, LSCM implementation, and performance. Our findings indicate that strategic supplier performance is positively associated with LSCM implementation and that this relationship is heightened in highly competitive industries. Our results also reveal the indirect association of LSCM implementation in the strategic supplier performance-organizational performance relationship. JEL CLASSIFICATION: M11 Keywords Lean Supply Chain Management, Competitive intensity, Strategic supplier, Organizational performance, Structural Equation Model 1 Department of Business Administration, Marketing, and Sociology, University of Jaen, Jaen, Spain 2 Department of Business Administration, Marketing, and Sociology, University of Jaen, Linares, Spain 3 Polytechnic Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Udine, Udine, Italy 4 Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy Corresponding author: Noelia Garcia-Buendia, Department of Business Administration, Marketing, and Sociology, University of Jaen, Campus Las Lagunillas, 23071 Jaen, Spain. Email: [email protected] 1210566BRQ0010.1177/23409444231210566Business Research QuarterlyGarcia-Buendia et al. research-article2023 Regular Paper Garcia-Buendia et al. 475 Management (LSCM) is an SC strategy that facilitates waste elimination, quality improvement, cost reductions, and increased flexibility over the SC (Swenseth & Olson, 2016; Womack & Jones, 1996) by extending the production pull outside the boundaries of the single manufacturing plant to incorporate upstream and downstream SC partners (Hines et al., 2004). Although several researchers have described the successful implementation of LSCM and reported positive outcomes, the implementation of lean principles along the SC is not a simple process (Tortorella et al., 2018). Several interfaces must be managed and attention and control of lean-based processes must be extended to the entire SC (Soni & Kodali, 2012). Identifying effective drivers and appropriate contexts for LSCM implementation, thus, becomes crucial to support companies in maximizing the success of their efforts (Tortorella et al., 2017). Previous works have already explored the factors linked to LSCM. Some studies have investigated the development of a lean SC based on customer sensitivity and risk alleviation (Nishat Faisal et al., 2006), while others have focused on the competitive strategy selection as antecedent to a lean SC strategy (Qi et al., 2011). Some authors have dealt with the impact of environmental complexity and dynamism on lean practices implementation (Azadegan et al., 2013). Finally, the implementation of Lean Management (LM) internally by the SC partners has been empirically demonstrated to enable the advancement of LM implementation along the whole SC (MoyanoFuentes et al., 2021). Despite the attention given to various types of factors related to LSCM, the previous literature’s understanding of the role of SC partners and industry characteristics for an effective LSCM implementation is still limited. On the one hand, the strategic implications of SC collaboration with primary SC partners in the adoption of management strategies have already been highlighted, as weak ties and strong ties have been found more effective than intermediate ties in value creation in the buyer-supplier context (Y. Kim & Choi, 2018). Similarly, scholars have shown that strategic purchasing plays a key role in fostering cooperative relationships and integration with suppliers (Andersen & Rask, 2003; Paulraj et al., 2006), as well as in enabling greater responsiveness to customers (I. J. Chen & Paulraj, 2004) and better performance outcomes for both buyer and supplier enterprises (Rezaei et al., 2018). Iyer et al. (2019) and Yildiz Çankaya (2020) have even shown that a learning orientation and strategic sourcing motivate LSCM implementation. However, on the other hand, the specific role of suppliers and, in particular, their ability to continuously improve the performance level offered to buyers in an LSCM context is still not clear. Exploring this issue is essential for advancing LSCM implementation since it would give buyer firms important indications on how to select and monitor their suppliers and, ultimately, support their development to foster the adoption of LSCM strategies and, subsequently, maximize organizational performance. In addition, it is worth highlighting that the context in which the SC operates may determine the selection of the best competitive strategy to pursue (Hallgren & Olhager, 2009). Particularly, the presence of high competitive pressures in the industry, rapid and unpredictable changes in the market, and repercussions of the competition’s behavior can be expected to influence not only firm strategy and performance (Hallgren & Olhager, 2009; Qi et al., 2011) but also SC partners’ decisions and outcomes (Lee & Rha, 2016). So, in an environment of collaboration and cooperation such as that pursued through the implementation of LSCM (Tortorella et al., 2017), it would be interesting to study whether the competitive intensity of the industry plays a role in the relationship between strategic supplier performance and LSCM implementation. The existence of competitive pressures and quick and unpredictable competitive moves could indeed encourage SC members to defend themselves against a hostile environment by implementing lean principles along the SC, thus changing the contextual conditions in which LSCM is pursued. In light of the aforementioned discussion, our work aims to expand research on the factors associated with LSCM implementation by seeking to comprehend the role of external strategic factors such as strategic supplier performance and competitive intensity in the adoption of LSCM and the consequent performance outcomes. Based on the previous literature that found that SC components mediate in explaining key supply relationships and firm performance (Hofer et al., 2012; Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2021; Qrunfleh & Tarafdar, 2013), this article explores the mediating role of LSCM implementation in the relationship between strategic supplier performance and organizational performance. This article is structured as follows. The second section provides the theoretical framework and the reasoning that leads to the hypotheses. The third section describes the sample, measures, and data collection. The fourth section reports the analysis of the results. A discussion, the theoretical and managerial implications, and some opportunities for future research are presented in the fifth section. Finally, the sixth section gives the main conclusions of our research. Theoretical background and research hypotheses This research posits that external forces are driving the implementation of LM along the SC. To develop this study, we draw on the relational view of Resource-Based Theory (RBT). According to RBT, firms can attain a long-term competitive advantage by efficiently combining rare, valuable, and unique resources (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991). Furthermore, as the relational view of RBT 476 Business Research Quarterly 28(2) (relational Resource-Based View, RRBV) emphasizes the network as the unit of analysis rather than individual enterprises (Dyer & Singh, 1998), achieving improved performance is dependent on the resources of both the focal firm and its SC members. According to this theory, the SC is a difficult-to-imitate competitive weapon that can improve the capacity of operational processes and result in an improvement in the performance of the focal company (Ketchen & Hult, 2007) and of integrated SC management (Lummus et al., 1998). This theoretical framework supports the benefits of sharing resources and capabilities with SC members to achieve better outcomes (Alshahrani et al., 2018; Iyer et al., 2019; M. Srinivasan et al., 2020), which is the goal of LSCM implementation. Indeed, these collaborative and cooperative relationships with suppliers can be sparked by the strategic role of the key suppliers that have been seen to perform well. In this sense, better upstream performance could be associated with the extension of LM principles along the SC and improvements in buyer firm performance, which could be stronger in highly competitive industries. Strategic supplier performance and LSCM One of the most relevant prerequisites of LSCM implementation is the level of strategic purchasing, namely the development of close strategic relationships with a reduced number of indispensable suppliers (Cousins & Spekman, 2003). According to multiple authors (e.g., Bortolotti et al., 2016; Ruiz-Benitez et al., 2019), and in view of the benefits that the SC provides to partners following the postulates of RRBV, the implementation of LSCM practices is driven by mutual trust and commitment, long-term interaction, regular information-sharing, and beneficial situations for all strategic SC partners. It is no accident that close relationships and strong SC integration are considered the main challenges faced by organizations that launch lean initiatives (Jayaram et al., 2008; Perez et al., 2010). The implementation of lean principles triggers a change in organizations’ purchasing strategies and policies based on a greater degree of trust in supplier relationships (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012; Sako & Helper, 1998). Past empirical evidence has demonstrated that a greater level of partnership with suppliers positively influences LM implementation at an internal level (Jayaram et al., 2008), thereby enabling the implementation of lean throughout the SC (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2021). Consequently, relationships with strategic suppliers that perform well are expected to play an important role in the extension of LM throughout the SC. Besides affecting LSCM implementation, strategic purchasing is also considered a key driver for strategic supplier performance: according to Paulraj et al. (2006), the higher the strategic level of purchasing, the better the performance of strategic suppliers. Supplier quality, flexibility, delivery, and cost performance can thus be improved through collaborative strategic purchasing relationships (I. J. Chen & Paulraj, 2004; Shin et al., 2000), which in turn enables firms to build up flexibility along the SC and increase customer satisfaction (Sáenz et al., 2018) as SC flexibility and LSCM are similar concepts (Maqueira et al., 2021). Considering the above themes and based on the RRBV, it can be argued that strategic supplier performance is also associated with LSCM implementation. For example, the high inventory turnover and low inventory levels underlying LSCM can be more easily achieved when key suppliers obtain good performance results in terms of quality, delivery, and flexibility. Similarly, LSCM practices such as modularization and standardization require an appropriate selection of suppliers that should meet specific cost, time, quality, and reliability criteria (Belkadi et al., 2018). An effective pull system and setup time reduction would be accomplished through consistent on-time deliveries from key suppliers (Daine et al., 2011; Kaynak, 2002; Van Nieuwenhuyse & Vandaele, 2006; Y. C. Wu, 2003). The ability of the lean SC to adapt to changes in its environment and to handle uncertainties could also be enhanced by the higher flexibility and reliability provided by suppliers (J. Chen et al., 2013; Oh & Rhee, 2008). Strategic suppliers’ focus on cost control and quality conformance may have an enabling role in the identification and reduction of waste along the SC (Browning & Heath, 2009; Parveen & Rao, 2009). Also, strategic supplier performance indicates the need to establish long-standing partnerships with reliable suppliers (Rezaei et al., 2018), which would stimulate LSCM implementation. Accordingly, we hypothesize that: H1: Better strategic supplier performance is positively related to a higher level of LSCM implementation Competitive intensity as a moderator of the strategic supplier performance-LSCM relationship Increased global competition forces manufacturing firms to take action in terms of both strategic positioning and operational performance. According to Hallgren and Olhager (2009), the existence of high competitive pressure influences the competitive strategy implemented by a firm. However, according to the RRBV, organizations are entrenched in a network of relationships that can affect their competitive behavior (Ketchen et al., 2004; MoyanoFuentes & Martínez-Jurado, 2016), so the focus should be extended to the entire SC rather than the individual firm. Nowadays, globalization has changed how firms operate and compete to be successful, and this process has afforded major relevance to the SC network. Garcia-Buendia et al. 477 SCs operating in highly competitive industries have a greater need to improve their operations strategy to secure a competitive advantage at the SC level than those operating in more stable contexts. In this sense, firms faced with greater competitive intensity are expected to adopt diverse strategies to improve their positions, including collaboration (Burgers et al., 1993) as a valuable capability to improve operational processes in the SC in line with the RRBV. A high level of competitive intensity sparks what Ketchen et al. (2008) call the “best value SC.” Subsequently, Garrido-Vega et al. (2023) found that firms react to higher competitive intensity with higher levels of adaptability and alignment in the SC to add greater value for customers. Cross-functional collaborations with SC partners are critical for retaining or gaining a market advantage when competition is intense, and customers are able to select from many different alternatives in the market (M. Srinivasan et al., 2020). Based on the RRBV, high levels of competitive intensity can lead to a greater motivation to collaborate with SC partners due to firms’ need to dissipate competitive pressures (Ang, 2008). Thus, the competitive intensity that a firm faces is a result of its lack of resources or its inability to utilize its resources and has implications for its ability to collaborate. Competitive dynamics induce firms to pursue cooperative and mutually advantageous SC arrangements to enhance performance (Flynn et al., 2010; Kalubanga & Gudergan, 2022) and as a strategic response to reduce competitive pressure (M. Srinivasan et al., 2020). Collaboration ensures numerous benefits for partners that enable them to endure competition (J. Wu & Pangarkar, 2010). The quest for maximum customer value in highly competitive contexts necessitates the achievement of effective and efficient flows of materials, financials, and information, which requires collaborations with suppliers and customers (Heirati et al., 2016). The LM principles and practices have been included in the SC integrative approach (Cudney & Elrod, 2010; Tortorella et al., 2017) to respond to competitive pressures for higher flexibility, higher delivery reliability, lower costs, and better quality. LSCM implementation enables long-term relationships to be established based on mutual confidence and engagement, regular information-sharing, and win-win relationships with the key SC agents (Bortolotti et al., 2016; Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2021; RuizBenitez et al., 2019). Specifically, strategic purchasing encourages a fit between manufacturers’ and suppliers’ strategies, leading to collaboration in the presence of changes in business environments (M. Kim & Chai, 2017). In this context, strategic supplier performance may have a decisive role to play in the implementation level of LSCM, and according to the RRBV, this role could be even more important in situations of high competitive intensity for maintaining organizational performance at the very least. Firms operating in highly competitive markets have a greater need for effective and quality SC relationships based on cooperation, adaptation, and trust (J. Chen et al., 2013; Han et al., 2021; Heirati et al., 2016), so competitive intensity can boost the association between strategic supplier performance and LSCM implementation. Following this reasoning, the role of strategic supplier performance in a context of high competitive intensity would trigger a strengthening of collaborative relationships with key suppliers and thus lead to an increase in the level of LSCM implementation. Therefore, the second hypothesis is formulated as follows: H2: The competitive intensity of the industry positively moderates the relationship between strategic supplier performance and LSCM implementation Mediating role of LSCM in the relationship between strategic supplier performance and organizational performance Based on the RRBV, high SC process integration implies the integration of buyer and supplier firms’ strategic resources to develop capabilities, relationships, and processes, which generates a source of competitive advantage for the focal firm (Prajogo et al., 2016). The past literature has found evidence that substantiates that key supply relationships play an integrative participatory role in the strategic planning process and associated performance gains (Nair et al., 2015). This requires building a strategic alignment process for collaboration (Ukko & Saunila, 2020), and this could be achieved by implementing an SC strategy that stimulates collaboration between SC members, such as LSCM. In this sense, some researchers have claimed that strategic integration with suppliers can bring down costs and boost overall LSCM performance (Simpson & Power, 2005; So & Sun, 2010). On the other hand, in highly changing contexts such as today’s, companies have to demand a significant level of flexibility in their relationships with key suppliers to achieve a reduction in operating costs (R. Srinivasan & Swink, 2018). This flexibility in turn enables control over the flow of materials and information to ensure reliability in customer deliveries (Lopes de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2020). Similarly, extending vendor management inventory to key suppliers has a strong impact on reducing unit manufacturing cost and high stock turnover (Yao et al., 2007). Precisely, all this pressure for more flexibility, higher delivery reliability, and lower costs causes a gradual but rapid deployment of lean principles, practices, and tools throughout the SC, that is, the advancement of LSCM implementation (Bortolotti et al., 2016; GarciaBuendia et al., 2021). The collaborative and integrative relationships with SC partners pursued by LSCM implementation, and with 478 Business Research Quarterly 28(2) those on the upstream side, specifically, lead to performance improvements in a wide range of areas. In particular, some authors have stated that operational and inventory-related costs can be reduced through upstream LSCM practices (Azevedo et al., 2012). Prajogo and Olhager (2012) argue that logistics integration in lean SC contexts leads to reliable order cycles and cost and inventory reduction, among other advantages. The use of VSM along the SC is expected to reduce waste and waiting times, thus positively affecting the firm cycle time (Seth et al., 2017; Wee & Wu, 2009), while the long-term forecasting of customer demands that underlies LSCM implementation may help to improve on-time delivery (Thanki & Thakkar, 2016; Y. C. Wu, 2003). Also, internal lean implementation needs to be implemented along the SC for focal firm efficiency to be improved (MoyanoFuentes et al., 2021). Following the RRBV, SC activities play a relevant role in the firm’s ability to achieve superior performance from its SC strategy (Hsu et al., 2009). Studies also suggest that a firm’s SC strategy should be effectively aligned with its SC practices to achieve enhanced performance (Qrunfleh & Tarafdar, 2013). According to the above, it can be seen that improvement of the focal firm’s results requires a strategic alignment process that drives collaboration between SC partners. Improving the performance of key suppliers by itself is not enough, and it must be complemented by progress in LSCM implementation. As such, improved performance of strategic suppliers would be the basis for driving the development of lean practices and techniques through the SC to improve firm performance, far exceeding the isolated impact that strategic supplier performance has on organizational performance. Therefore, LSCM would play a mediating role in the strategic supplier performanceorganizational performance relationship. Taking all these arguments together, the following hypothesis can be proposed: H3: LSCM implementation mediates the association between strategic supplier performance and organizational performance Figure 1 shows the theoretical research model. Methodology Sample and data collection This study has focused on focal enterprises operating in several industrial sectors in Spain, as previous works already published on LSCM implementation have done (Garcia-Buendia et al., 2023; Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2021). The selection of focal firms enables a broad perspective of what happens upstream and downstream in the SC. The use of firms located in a relatively homogeneous geographic, cultural, legal, and political space allows to minimize the impact of other variables that cannot be controlled in empirical research (Rojo et al., 2016). The manufacturing firms selected for the study had to have at least 50 employees to ensure that they had managers responsible for the SC and resources and capabilities focused on managing their SC strategies. These organizations belonged to industrial sectors occupying an intermediate Figure 1. Theoretical research model. Garcia-Buendia et al. 479 position in the SC, that is, based on the approach of van der Vaart et al. (2012), sectors near the two ends of the SC (upstream/downstream) were not considered, for example, related to raw materials and their transformation, transportation, and services. Data for the study population were taken from the SABI (Iberian Balance Sheet Analysis System) database, and the population was classified into sectors based on the Spanish CNAE (National Classification of Economic Activities) catalog. The size criterion was addressed by selecting from SABI in 2017 firms that had had an average workforce of a minimum of 50 employees in at least 3 of the previous 5 years, while the position in the SC criterion was met by identifying in CNAE the sectors focused on manufacturing activities (group C) and excluding any other industries focused on service activities within this group. The study population was 2,650 Spanish focal manufacturing companies. Responses were collected via a questionnaire. A draft version of the survey was checked by five globally recognized SC management researchers to confirm its quality and content validity. These researchers were asked to analyze the relevance of the explored issues, the correctness of the proposed questions/answers, the survey design and wording, and the rating scale, inter alia. This process enabled them to include any relevant comments about item wording, content, and questionnaire structure. These five researchers were selected based on their extensive experience in the topic, that is, the quantity and quality of their publications in the SC management field. The meaning and comprehension of the item definitions were guaranteed by a pilot study with five experienced supply chain management managers from Spanish firms belonging to different industrial sectors to ensure that the items were correctly understood, meaningful, and complete. This is a procedure used to reduce response bias and ensure the validity and quality of the instrument used (Saunders et al., 2009). The items used in the present study were directed at the most informed respondents regarding the topic of the specific questionnaire, that is, SC managers, operations managers, or logistics managers. Respondents were expressly asked to give answers on the SC practices and strategies used, SC network structure, and performance. A computerassisted telephone interviewing system was used to collect data from the respondents in conjunction with a backup web questionnaire to allow any non-responding interviewees to complete the survey. Fieldwork was performed during the first half of 2018. The questionnaires were completed by respondents from a total of 273 firms (10.3% response rate) from a variety of sectors and with different firm sizes and ages. Accordingly, the analysis and all reported statistics are based on a sample of 273 companies. The sample size has been judged to be appropriate and not to jeopardize the result’s reliability. The distribution of firms among the different sectors was similar in the population and the sample, as indicated by the chi-square test (20.970, p-value = .074), and the three most important sectors in the population representing 48.6% of the total firms in the population and 50.6% in the sample (see Appendix 1). There was no evidence of response bias when comparing the firms’ number of workers, annual sales, and gross operating profit of respondents and non-respondents (Mann–Whitney test: number of workers p-value = .053, annual sales p-value = .175, and gross operating profit p-value = .548), and no specific patterns were followed in the reasons for refusing to take part in the study. In addition, no significant differences between first and late responses were found, which rules out any late response bias. These analyses prove that the sample was statistically representative of the population and randomly gathered. Table 1 presents the demographic data of the sample. Measures Four multi-item constructs were identified and taken into account in this article: competitive intensity (CI), strategic supplier performance (SUP), LSCM, and efficient growth (EG). The items presented in this study are a subset of the larger survey completed by the respondents. CI, SUP, and LSCM were measured on five-point Likert-type scales, while EG was built on objective performance metrics taken from SABI. CI was built as a reflective standard construct and operationalized as an observable four-item scale based on Hallgren and Olhager (2009) to measure the degree of competitive pressure in the industry in which the focal firm operated. Respondents were asked to rate the CI of their industry on the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree. The strategic SUP factor was built as a reflective standard construct based on the items previously proposed by I. J. Chen and Paulraj (2004) and included observable variables such as key supplier reliability, quality, flexibility, and cost. This provided information about the level of performance of strategic suppliers. Respondents were asked to rate the performance of the companies’ two most important suppliers over the previous 3 years on the following scale: 1 = decreased significantly; 2 = decreased slightly; 3 = remained the same; 4 = increased slightly; 5 = increased significantly. LSCM implementation was taken from the measurement instrument of LSCM validated by Moyano-Fuentes et al. (2019) as a reflective second-order construct that included three distinctive lower-order dimensions: implementation of tools to remove waste along the SC (LSCM_T) with two observable variables, operationalization (LSCM_O) with two observable variables, and strategic planning (LSCM_P) with four observable variables. Respondents were asked to rate on the following scale the degree to which they agreed 480 Business Research Quarterly 28(2) with several statements related to lean at the SC level: 1 = totally disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = totally agree. EG was built as a reflective standard construct previously used in LM research (Hofer et al., 2012) based on observable objective performance metrics of firms obtained from the SABI database: return on assets (ROA) and sales growth. To be precise, we assessed ROA as the average ROA for 2017, 2018, and 2019 while sales growth was calculated as the average of sales growth rates for the periods 2017–2018 and 2018–2019. Table 2 reports the survey items for each factor. Data analysis Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLSSEM) was used to analyze the data. PLS-SEM was preferred over covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) as it can be easily applied when the structural model is complex and includes many constructs, indicators, and/or model relationships such as higher-order constructs, mediation, and interaction/moderation terms (Hair et al., 2022). Common method bias To diminish any common method bias that could jeopardize findings in this study, different procedural remedies were applied following Podsakoff et al. (2012): item scale and wording were improved to reduce ambiguity, and data for items were obtained from different sources, that is, self-reported (survey) and objective metrics (SABI database) (see “Measurement model assessment— Confirmatory Composite Analysis” and “Structural model assessment” sections). Subsequently, a statistical procedure was used to detect potential sources of common method bias: Harman’s single-factor test (Harman, 1976). The result showed that the principal component extracted explained 18.29%, which is below the 50% established limit, suggesting that common method bias is unlikely to be a serious concern in this study. Appendix 2 gives the descriptive statistics of the variables, including mean, standard deviation, and correlations. Results Measurement model assessment— Confirmatory Composite Analysis Content validity was ensured by the selection of variables and constructs based on the existing literature and previously validated measures, and the pretest by internationally recognized researchers to check item clarity and legibility to increase accuracy in the responses. Table 3 reports the construct validity and reliability results for the measurement model. PLS algorithm for factor analysis was run on SmartPLS 4. CI, SUP, and EG were addressed as standard constructs, while LSCM was built as a higher-order construct based on previous empirical works that rigorously built this measure as such (Becker et al., 2023). LSCM was considered a reflective-reflective higher-order construct (type I) (Becker et al., 2023) and was estimated through the disjoint two-stage approach, following the estimation and assessment steps recommended by Becker et al. (2023). Following Hair et al. (2022), dimensions and indicators were verified to have loadings greater than 0.7. Indicators that loaded below 0.7 were carefully examined to check the effect of indicator removal on reliability and validity measures and some were removed (CI3, CI4, SUP6, LSCM5, and LSCM6) as their deletion led to an increase in internal consistency reliability without diminishing content validity. Then, the internal consistency reliability of the constructs was assessed through Jöreskog’s (1971) Table 1. Sample demographics. Frequency Percentage Industry (CNAE group C) Food products and tobacco 48 17.6 Chemical and pharmaceutical products 48 17.6 Manufacture of metal products 43 15.8 Manufacture of machinery and equipment 33 12.1 Motor vehicles 22 8.1 Meat industry 6 2.2 Electrical machinery and materials 14 5.1 Manufacture of beverages 7 2.6 Furniture industry 7 2.6 Informatics, electronics, and optics products 13 4.8 Manufacture of other transport material 12 4.4 Shoes and leather 5 1.8 Other manufacturing industries 9 3.3 Fabrics and textile 6 2.2 Total 273 100.0 Age (years) <10 1 0.4 10–29 82 30.0 30–49 132 48.4 >50 58 21.2 Total 273 100.0 Size (number of employees) 50–100 126 46.2 101–150 57 20.9 151–200 24 8.8 201–250 19 7.0 >250 47 17.2 Total 273 100.0 Garcia-Buendia et al. 481 composite reliability (CR) rhoc with values between 0.7 and 0.9 considered “satisfactory to good”. Next, the convergent validity of each construct measure was evaluated through the average variance extracted (AVE) for all items in each construct, giving values higher than 0.5 (see Table 3). Nomological validity was assessed by examining the higher-order construct scores and correlating them with other constructs in the nomological net such as LM implementation at the internal level (antecedent) and inventory turnover (consequent) (Hair et al., 2020; Manley et al., 2021; Sarstedt et al., 2019). Discriminant validity results are reported in Table 4. Discriminant validity was assessed with the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and the strictest Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) (Henseler et al., 2015; Voorhees et al., 2016) standard of 0.85. Structural model assessment After verifying that the measurement model assessment was satisfactory, the structural model was assessed. The VIF values ranged from 1.039 to 2.199, indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern in the structural model as these were <3.3 (Hair et al., 2022). The size and statistical significance of the path coefficients confirmed predictive power. In-sample prediction of the dependent constructs was assessed through R2 and the effect size f2. The R2 values of the endogenous constructs were examined as a measure of the explanatory power of the model (Shmueli and Koppius, 2011), finding LSCM R2 = 0.113 and EG R2 = 0.026. Both of these values were considered acceptable in the context of the study. The effect size (f2) Table 2. Constructs and measures. Construct Variable Source Competitive intensity (CI) CI1. We are in a highly competitive industry Hallgren and Olhager (2009) CI2. The competitive pressures on us are extremely high CI3. Competitive moves in our market are quick and unplanned, with slight longterm differences between the reactions of different companies CI4. We pay close attention to our competitors Strategic supplier performance (SUP) SUP1. Delivery reliability/consistency I. J. Chen and Paulraj (2004) SUP2. Quality SUP3. Cost control SUP4. Volume flexibility SUP5. Scheduling flexibility SUP6. On-time delivery Lean Supply Chain Management (LSCM) LSCM1. Value stream mapping is used to identify and eliminate waste throughout our supply chain Moyano-Fuentes etal. (2019) LSCM2. Our supply chain uses lean manufacturing techniques (such as pull flow, Kanban systems, and setup time reduction) LSCM3. Our supply chain generates high stock turnover and minimizes inventory LSCM4. Process and product standardization is a common practice in our supply chain LSCM5. Our supply chain delivers in small lot sizes LSCM6. Our supply chain does long-term forecasting of customer demands and only focuses on the current market segments LSCM7. In our supply chain, the strategy for handling uncertainty consists of using queues and buffers to protect sub-processes LSCM8. Our supply chain structure seldom changes Efficient growth (EG) EG1. ROA (average 2017, 2018, and 2019) SABI database EG2. Sales growth (average 2017–2018 and 2018–2019) Table 3. Measurement model results. Construct Dimension/Indicator Loadings CR AVE CI CI1 0.917 0.880 0.786 CI2 0.856 SUP SUP1 0.782 0.884 0.604 SUP2 0.718 SUP3 0.759 SUP4 0.807 SUP5 0.816 LSCM (HOC) LSCM_T (LOC) 0.567 0.772 0.537 LSCM_O (LOC) 0.772 LSCM_P (LOC) 0.832 EG EG1 0.840 0.744 0.594 EG2 0.694 Note. CR: Composite reliability; AVE: Average variance extracted; CI: competitive intensity; HOC: higher-order construct; LOC: lower-order construct; SUP: strategic supplier performance; LSCM: Lean Supply Chain Management; EG: efficient growth. 488 Business Research Quarterly 28(2) perspective of lean supply chain. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 5, 175–208. https:// doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2009.023232 Paulraj, A., Chen, I. J., & Flynn, J. (2006). Levels of strategic purchasing: Impact on supply integration and performance. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 12, 107– 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2006.08.002 Perez, C., de Castro, R., Simons, D., & Gimenez, G. (2010). Development of lean supply chains: A case study of the Catalan pork sector. Supply Chain Management, 15, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541011018120 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpsych-120710-100452 Prajogo, D., Oke, A., & Olhager, J. (2016). Supply chain processes: Linking supply logistics integration, supply performance, lean processes and competitive performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36, 220–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM03-2014-0129 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, 514– 522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.09.001 Qi, Y., Zhao, X., & Sheu, C. (2011). The impact of competitive strategy and supply chain strategy on business performance: The role of environmental uncertainty. Decision Sciences, 42, 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15405915.2011.00315.x Qrunfleh, S., & Tarafdar, M. (2013). Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply chain responsiveness: The role of strategic supplier partnership and postponement. Supply Chain Management, 18, 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM01-2013-0015 Ralston, P. M., Richey, R. G., & Grawe, S. J. (2017). The past and future of supply chain collaboration: A literature synthesis and call for research. International Journal of Logistics Management, 28, 508–530. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM09-2015-0175 Rezaei, J., Ortt, R., & Trott, P. (2018). Supply chain drivers, partnerships and performance of high-tech SMEs. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67, 629–653. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2017-0017 Rojo, A., Llorens-Montes, J., & Perez-Arostegui, M. N. (2016). The impact of ambidexterity on supply chain flexibility fit. Supply Chain Management, 21, 433–452. https://doi. org/10.1108/SCM-08-2015-0328 Ruiz-Benitez, R., López, C., & Real, J. C. (2019). Achieving sustainability through the lean and resilient management of the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49, 122–155. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-10-2017-0320 Sáenz, M. J., Knoppen, D., & Tachizawa, E. M. (2018). Building manufacturing flexibility with strategic suppliers and contingent effect of product dynamism on customer satisfaction. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 24, 238– 246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2017.07.002 Sako, M., & Helper, S. (1998). Determinants of trust in supplier relations: Evidence from the automotive industry in Japan and the United States. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 34, 387–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01672681(97)00082-6 Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27, 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ausmj.2019.05.003 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson. Seth, D., Seth, N., & Dhariwal, P. (2017). Application of value stream mapping (VSM) for lean and cycle time reduction in complex production environments: A case study. Production Planning & Control, 28, 398–419. https://doi. org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1300352 Shin, H., Collier, D. A., & Wilson, D. D. (2000). Supply management orientation and supplier/buyer performance. Journal of Operations Management, 18, 317–333. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0272-6963(99)00031-5 Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Velasquez Estrada, J. M., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69, 4552–4564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.049 Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. R. (2011). Predictive analytics in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 35, 553. https://doi.org/10.2307/23042796 Simpson, D. F., & Power, D. J. (2005). Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers. Supply Chain Management, 10, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540510578388 So, S., & Sun, H. (2010). Supplier integration strategy for lean manufacturing adoption in electronic-enabled supply chains. Supply Chain Management, 15, 474–487. https:// doi.org/10.1108/13598541011080455 Soni, G., & Kodali, R. (2012). Evaluating reliability and validity of lean, agile and leagile supply chain constructs in Indian manufacturing industry. Production Planning & Control, 23, 864–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287. 2011.642207 Srinivasan, M., Srivastava, P., & Iyer, K. N. S. (2020). Response strategy to environment context factors using a lean and agile approach: Implications for firm performance. European Management Journal, 38, 900–913. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.04.003 Srinivasan, R., & Swink, M. (2018). An investigation of visibility and flexibility as complements to supply chain analytics: An organizational information processing theory perspective. Production and Operations Management, 27, 1849–1867. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12746 Swenseth, S. R., & Olson, D. L. (2016). Trade-offs in lean vs. outsourced supply chains. International Journal of Production Research, 54, 4065–4080. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020754 3.2016.1173251 Thanki, S., & Thakkar, J. (2016). Value–value load diagram: A graphical tool for lean–green performance assessment. Production Planning & Control, 27, 1280–1297. https://doi. org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1220647 Tortorella, G. L., Giglio, R., Fettermmann, D. C., & Tlapa, D. (2018). Lean supply chain practices: An exploratory study Garcia-Buendia et al. 489 on their relationship. International Journal of Logistics Management, 29, 1049–1076. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJLM-06-2017-0141 Tortorella, G. L., Miorando, R., & Marodin, G. (2017). Lean supply chain management: Empirical research on practices, contexts and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 193, 98–112. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.07.006 Ukko, J., & Saunila, M. (2020). Understanding the practice of performance measurement in industrial collaboration: From design to implementation. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 26, Article 100529. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pursup.2019.02.001 van der Vaart, T., Pieter van Donk, D., Gimenez, C., & Sierra, V. (2012). Modelling the integration-performance relationship. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32, 1043–1074. https://doi. org/10.1108/01443571211265693 Van Nieuwenhuyse, I., & Vandaele, N. (2006). The impact of delivery lot splitting on delivery reliability in a twostage supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 104, 694–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijpe.2005.05.023 Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 119–134. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4 Waqas, U., Abd Rahman, A., Ismail, N. W., Kamal Basha, N., & Umair, S. (2023). Influence of supply chain risk management and its mediating role on supply chain performance: Perspectives from an agri-fresh produce. Annals of Operations Research, 324, 1399–1427. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10479-022-04702-7 Wee, H. M., & Wu, S. (2009). Lean supply chain and its effect on product cost and quality: A case study on Ford Motor Company. Supply Chain Management, 14, 335–341. https:// doi.org/10.1108/13598540910980242 Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon & Schuster. Wu, J., & Pangarkar, N. (2010). The bidirectional relationship between competitive intensity and collaboration: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27, 503– 522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-009-9156-1 Wu, Y. C. (2003). Lean manufacturing: A perspective of lean suppliers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23, 1349–1376. https://doi. org/10.1108/01443570310501880 Xu, D., Huo, B., & Sun, L. (2014). Relationships between intraorganizational resources, supply chain integration and business performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114, 1186–1206. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-05-2014-0156 Yang, Y., Jia, F., & Xu, Z. (2019). Towards an integrated conceptual model of supply chain learning: An extended resourcebased view. Supply Chain Management, 24, 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-11-2017-0359 Yao, Y., Evers, P. T., & Dresner, M. E. (2007). Supply chain integration in vendor-managed inventory. Decision Support Systems, 43, 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.021 Yildiz Çankaya, S. (2020). The effects of strategic sourcing on supply chain strategies. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 13, 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JGOSS-01-2019-0002 Appendix 1. Study population distribution and response rate by sector. Industry Population Sample Response rate Food products and tobacco 543 (20.5%) 48 (17.5%) 8.8% Chemical and pharmaceutical products 422 (15.9%) 48 (17.5%) 11.4% Manufacture of metal products 322 (12.2%) 43 (15.6%) 13.4% Manufacture of machinery and equipment 275 (10.4%) 33 (12.0%) 12.0% Motor vehicles 273 (10.3%) 22 (8.1%) 8.1% Meat industry 158 (6.0%) 6 (2.2%) 3.8% Electrical machinery and materials 141 (5.3%) 14 (5.1%) 9.9% Manufacture of beverages 106 (4.0%) 7 (2.5%) 6.6% Furniture industry 82 (3.1%) 7 (2.6%) 8.5% Informatics, electronics, and optics products 81 (3.1%) 13 (4.7%) 16.0% Manufacture of other transport material 77 (2.9%) 12 (4.4%) 15.6% Shoes and leather 63 (2.4%) 5 (1.8%) 7.9% Other manufacturing industries 60 (2.3%) 9 (3.3%) 15.0% Fabrics and textile 47 (1.8%) 6 (2.2%) 12.8% Total 2,650 (100%) 273 (100%) 10.3% Note: Chi-square test: 20.970, p-value = .074. 490 Business Research Quarterly 28(2) Appendix 2. Descriptive statistics: mean, standard deviation, and correlations. Item Mean SD CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 LSCM1 LSCM2 LSCM3 LSCM4 LSCM5 LSCM6 LSCM7 LSCM8 SUP1 SUP2 SUP3 SUP4 SUP5 SUP6 EG1 CI1 4.414 0.790 CI2 4.253 0.846 0.578** CI3 3.495 1.066 0.305** 0.369** CI4 4.022 0.933 0.271** 0.392** 0.221** LSCM1 2.121 1.327 0.050 –0.014 0.085 0.007 LSCM2 2.542 1.465 0.082 0.079 0.096 0.042 0.554** LSCM3 3.282 1.182 0.083 0.057 0.072 0.048 0.172** 0.261** LSCM4 3.63 1.037 0.013 0.073 0.059 0.084 0.200** 0.226** 0.378** LSCM5 3.366 1.317 0.059 0.088 –0.004 0.002 0.058 0.222** 0.000 0.067 LSCM6 3.114 1.243 0.184** 0.091 0.082 0.121* 0.174** 0.242** 0.270** 0.345** 0.207** LSCM7 2.681 1.188 0.094 0.102 0.174** 0.198** 0.171** 0.253** 0.145* 0.202** 0.201** 0.352** LSCM8 3.33 1.103 0.104 0.056 –0.017 0.032 –0.030 –0.006 –0.004 0.119* 0.101 0.237** 0.203** SUP1 3.707 0.895 0.058 0.059 0.041 0.157** –0.001 0.040 0.203** 0.246** 0.013 0.175** 0.074 –0.01 SUP2 3.821 0.742 0.002 0.020 0.159** 0.096 0.022 0.076 0.133* 0.090 –0.049 0.149* 0.180** 0.001 0.578** SUP3 3.652 0.825 0.030 0.032 0.150* 0.157** 0.005 0.020 0.123* 0.162** 0.020 0.242** 0.182** 0.058 0.467** 0.442** SUP4 3.56 0.806 0.113 0.007 0.112 0.135* 0.070 0.000 0.134* 0.108 0.003 0.149* 0.110 –0.027 0.517** 0.456** 0.492** SUP5 3.546 0.825 0.047 –0.003 0.093 0.213** 0.080 0.095 0.158** 0.129* 0.032 0.193** 0.118 –0.029 0.515** 0.436** 0.462** 0.697** SUP6 3.385 1.021 –0.029 –0.019 0.084 0.033 0.077 0.123* 0.001 0.155* 0.113 0.139* 0.095 0.073 0.332** 0.270** 0.228** 0.197** 0.247** EG1 3.755 15.514 0.016 –0.120* –0.021 0.076 0.090 0.098 0.050 0.090 0.034 0.085 0.042 –0.008 0.003 –0.020 0.120* 0.122* 0.165** 0.082 EG2 5.391 24.759 0.005 –0.019 0.009 –0.058 0.110 0.105 0.081 0.083 0.001 0.059 0.068 –0.162* 0.002 0.016 0.037 0.023 0.062 0.042 0.216** CI: competitive intensity; LSCM: Lean Supply Chain Management; SUP: strategic supplier performance; EG: efficient growth. Note: SD: standard deviation. *p < .05, **p < .01.