Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose Despite the growing awareness of supply chains on industry 4.0 (I4.0) capabilities as the enabler of sustainable performance, little is known about what accelerates this interaction. Prior studies have focused on the ambidexterity dilemma and the need to adopt sustainable inter-organizational governance to drive I4.0 capabilities while achieving sustainable performance. To address these issues, this paper aims to explore the distinct and combined effects of several approaches such as digital business transformation (DBT), organizational ambidexterity (OA) and circular business models (CBMs) on the relationship between I4.0 capabilities and sustainable performance. Design/methodology/approach Drawing upon a hybrid methodology including structural equation modeling and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, this paper develops and tests a hypothetical model using data collected from 306 organizations in Europe, Asia and Africa. Findings The study findings lead to several important implications concerning the potential paths linking I4.0 and sustainable performance. Notably, the DBT was found to mediate this relationship by integrating circular principles to devise business models. Moreover, OA was found to substitute the CBMs in developing new sustainable business models and reconcile sustainability. Originality/value The study is among the first to analyze the combined effects of OA, DBT and CBMs on the relationship between I4.0 capabilities and sustainable performance at the supply chain level. Moreover, the findings propose several solutions to resolve the sustainability dilemma through I4.0 capabilities, DBT, OA and CBMs.

The study empirically investigates the relationship between corporate governance and the triple bottom line sustainability performance through the lens of agency theory and stakeholder theory. We claim, in fact, that no single theory fully accounts for all the hypothesised relationships. We measure sustainability performance through manual content analysis on sustainability reports of the US-based companies. The study extends the existing literature by investigating the impact of selected corporate governance mechanisms on each dimension of sustainability performance, as defined by the GRI framework. Our approach allows to identify which governance mechanisms foster triple bottom line performance, also revealing that some mechanisms fit only specific dimension(s) of sustainability. The fact-based findings provide support for a new beginning in the theorising process in which the theories must try not only to provide rationale for the impact of corporate governance on sustainability, but also to explain which dimension of sustainability might be more affected. The most important implication for practitioners is the support for sustainability practices, which may be gained through implementation of particular corporate governance mechanisms. The findings contribute also to the improvement of the ongoing standard setting process, in particular as it concerns the in-depth revision of the economic dimension of sustainability carried out under the new GRI framework.

Research in marketing has increasingly focused on building knowledge about how firms' marketing contributes to performance outcomes. A key precursor to accurately diagnosing the value firms' marketing creates is conceptualizing and operationalizing appropriate ways to assess performance outcomes. Yet, to date, there has been little conceptual development and no systematic examination of how researchers in marketing should conceptualize and measure the performance outcomes associated with firms' marketing. The authors develop a theory-based performance evaluation framework and examine the assessment of such performance outcomes in 998 empirical studies published in the top 15 marketing journals from 1981 through 2014. The results reveal a large number of different performance outcome measures used in prior empirical research that may be only weakly related to one another, making it difficult to synthesize findings across studies. In addition, the authors identify significant problems in how performance outcomes in marketing are commonly conceptualized and operationalized. They also reveal several theoretically and managerially important performance areas in which empirical knowledge of marketing's impact is limited or absent. Finally, they examine the implications of the results, provide actionable guidelines for researchers, and suggest a road map for systematically improving research practice in the future.

Although the study of salesperson performance traditionally has focused on salespeople's activities and relationships with customers, scholars recently have proposed that salespeople's intraorganizational relationships and activities also play a vital role in driving sales performance. Using data from 286 salespeople in a unique social network analysis, the authors explore the effects of salespeople's intraorganizational relationships on objective salesperson performance as well as the role of political skill in developing intraorganizational relationships. The results indicate that two types of social network characteristics (i.e., relational centrality and positional centrality) contribute substantially to salesperson performance. Moreover, salespeople's political skill is shown to be an antecedent to relational centrality but, surprisingly, not positional centrality. This finding demonstrates that researchers should not assume that all centralities represent similar underlying network characteristics. In light of these results, the authors discuss several implications for both managers and researchers as well as directions for further research.

Net Promoter Score (NPS) has been widely adopted by managers as a measure of customer mindset and predictor of sales growth. Over time, practitioners have evolved the use of NPS from its original purpose as a transaction-based customer loyalty metric, towards a metric for tracking overall brand health which includes responses from non-customers. Despite enduring managerial popularity, academics remain skeptical of NPS, citing methodological issues and ongoing concerns with NPS measurement. This study re-visits the use of NPS as a predictor of sales growth by analyzing data from seven brands operating in the U.S. sportswear industry, measured over five years. Our results confirm—within the context of our study—that while the original premise of NPS is reasonable, the methodological concerns raised by academics are valid, and only the more recently developed brand health measure of NPS (using an all potential customer sample) is effective at predicting future sales growth.

PurposeAs large multinational firms are increasingly tasked with developing sustainable supply chains, their role in improving the sustainability performance of their suppliers is critical. This paper examines the dual role of a buyer firm, as a customer and as an important stakeholder, and identifies several attributes of the buyer firm and the dyadic relationship that could help improve the sustainability performance of suppliers.Design/methodology/approachA dyadic multi-year dataset is created using financial and customer data from the Compustat database and sustainability data from MSCI ESG ratings database. The hypotheses are tested using econometric panel data techniques.FindingsThe findings indicate that a buyer's legitimacy is a key factor that affects supplier's sustainability performance. The effect of legitimacy is much higher when the buyer and supplier firms have an aligned focus on similar sustainability dimensions. The market power of the buyer also increases the effect of legitimacy, though power without legitimacy is not effective.Originality/valueThe study expands the understanding of how buyer firms can influence suppliers on sustainability by highlighting the key role played by legitimacy and aligned focus and the supporting role of market power. The study contributes to both the stakeholder salience literature and the buyer–supplier relationship literature by showing evidence for complementarity between market power and legitimacy. Buyer firms can use the results of the study to focus their efforts on suppliers where a significant improvement in sustainability can be expected.

This paper shows that CEOs are fired after bad firm performance caused by factors beyond their control. Standard economic theory predicts that corporate boards filter out exogenous industry and market shocks from firm performance before deciding on CEO retention. Using a hand-collected sample of 3,365 CEO turnovers from 1993 to 2009, we document that CEOs are significantly more likely to be dismissed from their jobs after bad industry and, to a lesser extent, after bad market performance. A decline in industry performance from the 90th to the 10th percentile doubles the probability of a forced CEO turnover.

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the impact of I4.0 technologies and their interoperability on supply chains (SCs) performance and how the integration of such technologies and their interoperability can create pathways for SCs resilience post-COVID-19. This is of paramount importance in the context of COVID-19 as the investigation around I4.0 technologies may provide relevant insights on how SCs may better respond to unexpected situations like the current pandemic with the use of digital technologies.Design/methodology/approachA survey research method was designed based on some constructs extracted from the literature regarding the main disruptive technologies, interoperability, elements of supply chains processes (SCPs) performance such as integration, collaboration, transparency, efficiency, responsiveness and profitability. The data were collected from March to July 2020 from different regions of the world when the peak of the first wave of the pandemic had occurred. The survey resulted in 115 valid responses. The study used a combination of descriptive, correlation and multiple regression methods to analyse the data.FindingsThe study indicates that disruptive technologies significantly impact SCPs performance (integration, collaboration, responsiveness and transparency) and their resilience. The findings did not support the notion that these technologies improve the efficiency of SCs, a significant contrast to the existing literature. Our findings also refute the existing understanding that interoperability moderates the impact of disruptive technologies on SCPs performance and enhancing the resilience of SCs. However, the findings show that the integration of I4.0 technologies and their interoperability has a positive impact on SCPs profitability.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings strongly advocate that this integration plays an important role in improving SC performance, and a future pathway of SC resiliency post-COVID-19. Considering that the I4.0 trend will impact SCs in the coming years, this study brings a relevant contribution to researchers and practitioners.Originality/valueThis study makes a unique contribution by investigating a novel causal relationship between the main elements (I4.0 technologies, interoperability, processes performance and strategic outcomes) related to the SC in this new context.