Justice and Contracts as Double-Edged Swords: Collaborative Product Innovation in Hub-and-Spoke Supply Chain Networks

IF 10.2 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Gordon Liu, Yantai Chen, Wai Wai Ko
{"title":"Justice and Contracts as Double-Edged Swords: Collaborative Product Innovation in Hub-and-Spoke Supply Chain Networks","authors":"Gordon Liu,&nbsp;Yantai Chen,&nbsp;Wai Wai Ko","doi":"10.1111/jscm.12340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study explores how inter-organizational justice, and formal contracts influence new product development (NPD) collaboration in supply chain networks. Challenging traditional transaction cost economics (TCE), the research focuses on collaborative NPD in hub-and-spoke supply chain structures. Data from 183 Chinese suppliers and 22 executive interviews reveal unexpected patterns in NPD collaboration. Procedural justice exhibits an inverted U-shaped relationship with NPD collaboration, linking higher fairness to improved collaboration up to a point, beyond which further increases may associate with diminishing returns. In contrast, distributive justice shows a U-shaped relationship with NPD collaboration, where higher equity initially relates to reduced collaboration but later correlates with renewed engagement. Notably, formal contracts amplify the negative interactions between these justice dimensions. This contradicts the conventional view of their complementary roles. These findings contribute to theoretical advancements by illustrating how inter-organizational justice mechanisms function differently in complex network structures compared to simple dyadic relationships. Careful calibration of inter-organizational justice dimensions and formal contracts proves essential for fostering productive NPD collaboration. These governance insights offer directions for enhancing supply chain relationship management.</p>","PeriodicalId":51392,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supply Chain Management","volume":"61 2","pages":"13-32"},"PeriodicalIF":10.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jscm.12340","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Supply Chain Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jscm.12340","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study explores how inter-organizational justice, and formal contracts influence new product development (NPD) collaboration in supply chain networks. Challenging traditional transaction cost economics (TCE), the research focuses on collaborative NPD in hub-and-spoke supply chain structures. Data from 183 Chinese suppliers and 22 executive interviews reveal unexpected patterns in NPD collaboration. Procedural justice exhibits an inverted U-shaped relationship with NPD collaboration, linking higher fairness to improved collaboration up to a point, beyond which further increases may associate with diminishing returns. In contrast, distributive justice shows a U-shaped relationship with NPD collaboration, where higher equity initially relates to reduced collaboration but later correlates with renewed engagement. Notably, formal contracts amplify the negative interactions between these justice dimensions. This contradicts the conventional view of their complementary roles. These findings contribute to theoretical advancements by illustrating how inter-organizational justice mechanisms function differently in complex network structures compared to simple dyadic relationships. Careful calibration of inter-organizational justice dimensions and formal contracts proves essential for fostering productive NPD collaboration. These governance insights offer directions for enhancing supply chain relationship management.

Abstract Image

正义与契约是把双刃剑:中心辐射型供应链网络中的协作式产品创新
本研究探讨了组织间公正和正式合同如何影响供应链网络中的新产品开发(NPD)合作。该研究挑战了传统的交易成本经济学(TCE),重点研究了枢纽-辐条式供应链结构中的新产品开发合作。来自 183 家中国供应商和 22 位高管的访谈数据揭示了 NPD 协作中意想不到的模式。程序公正与 NPD 协作呈现出一种倒 U 型关系,即公平性越高,协作越好,但在一定程度上,公平性越高,协作越好,但在一定程度上,公平性越高,协作越好,但在一定程度上,公平性越高,协作越好,但在一定程度上,公平性越高,协作越差。与此相反,分配公正与新产品开发合作呈现出一种 U 型关系,公平性越高,合作越少,但后来又会重新参与进来。值得注意的是,正式合同扩大了这些公正维度之间的负面互动。这与传统上认为它们具有互补作用的观点相矛盾。这些发现说明了与简单的二元关系相比,组织间公正机制如何在复杂的网络结构中发挥不同的作用,从而推动了理论的进步。事实证明,仔细校准组织间公正维度和正式契约对于促进富有成效的新产品开发合作至关重要。这些管理见解为加强供应链关系管理提供了方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
6.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: ournal of Supply Chain Management Mission: The mission of the Journal of Supply Chain Management (JSCM) is to be the premier choice among supply chain management scholars from various disciplines. It aims to attract high-quality, impactful behavioral research that focuses on theory building and employs rigorous empirical methodologies. Article Requirements: An article published in JSCM must make a significant contribution to supply chain management theory. This contribution can be achieved through either an inductive, theory-building process or a deductive, theory-testing approach. This contribution may manifest in various ways, such as falsification of conventional understanding, theory-building through conceptual development, inductive or qualitative research, initial empirical testing of a theory, theoretically-based meta-analysis, or constructive replication that clarifies the boundaries or range of a theory. Theoretical Contribution: Manuscripts should explicitly convey the theoretical contribution relative to the existing supply chain management literature, and when appropriate, to the literature outside of supply chain management (e.g., management theory, psychology, economics). Empirical Contribution: Manuscripts published in JSCM must also provide strong empirical contributions. While conceptual manuscripts are welcomed, they must significantly advance theory in the field of supply chain management and be firmly grounded in existing theory and relevant literature. For empirical manuscripts, authors must adequately assess validity, which is essential for empirical research, whether quantitative or qualitative.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信