The purpose of this paper is to examine new rules of exchange in retailer‐supplier relationships imposed by the retail chains, to analyse factors facilitating this institutional…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine new rules of exchange in retailer‐supplier relationships imposed by the retail chains, to analyse factors facilitating this institutional change and to reveal the links between channel power and relational conflicts.
Design/methodology/approach
Survey data were collected from 500 managers of retail chains and their suppliers in five Russian cities. The sample includes firms of different sizes that sell food and home electronic appliances. After the diffusion of new contract arrangements is examined, logistic regression models are constructed to evaluate major sources of relational conflicts.
Findings
The findings indicate that power‐advantaged firms disseminate new rules of exchange effectively. However, relational conflicts largely originate not from these new demands but from the frequent contract infringements by both exchange parties.
Research limitations/implications
The study is confined to two sectors of retail trade in one country. Further research is required to determine the effects on channel relationships of the financial crisis and of the adoption of restrictive federal legislation.
Practical implications
Practitioners should recognise the need to provide socio‐political legitimacy for the new rules of exchange. Otherwise, they may face relational conflicts and provoke restrictive state regulations. Public officials should know that relational conflicts may originate largely from opportunistic behaviour by exchange parties rather than from abuse of market power.
Originality/value
This paper presents the first systematic quantitative study of retailer‐supplier relationships in Russia. It investigates institutional change and relational conflicts as perceived by both exchange parties.
Details
Keywords
We argue that claims of an entrepreneurial miracle as a description of private sector development in post-communist Europe conflates entrepreneurship with self-employment. The…
Abstract
We argue that claims of an entrepreneurial miracle as a description of private sector development in post-communist Europe conflates entrepreneurship with self-employment. The difference between the two hinges on the Weberian distinction between enterprise- and household-centered businesses. We then present two paradigms, the entrepreneurial that emphasizes the first and the post-Fordist that stresses the importance of the second business type, and provide data on businesses and individual motivation of business owners. We find more support for the post-Fordist approach. Then we show that business forms, primarily associated with self-employment have different recruitment patterns and rewards than other, more entrepreneurial forms. We end with a plea to disaggregate the various forms of independent, private sector activity in future research.
Anne Toppinen, Ritva Toivonen, Antti Mutanen, Vadim Goltsev and Natalia Tatti
The existing literature emphasizes the strategic choices of core competencies/capabilities based on intangible and tangible resources, and the combination of these as the base for…
Abstract
Purpose
The existing literature emphasizes the strategic choices of core competencies/capabilities based on intangible and tangible resources, and the combination of these as the base for developing firm‐level strategies. However, little is known about the organizational structure, strategic orientation, and future goals of woodworking firms in the East‐European countries in transition. This paper aims to produce information contributing to these information needs regarding Northwest Russia (NWR).
Design/methodology/approach
The largest potential increase in both production of and demand for wood products is in Russia, and this paper examines the issue in a case study of 18 small‐ and medium‐sized wood industry companies in NWR using thematic semi‐structured personal interviews.
Findings
The results indicate that closeness to the main markets, good logistics connections and access to large markets, i.e. other than raw‐material related factors, are the main perceived sources of competitive advantage among the Northwest Russian woodworking firms. Intangible resources are valued over tangible assets in case companies.
Practical implications
The companies target to shifting their production from commodity products, towards more specialized products and focusing on increasing the exports to the European Union. This is likely to intensify competition in the international markets for wood products in the future.
Originality/value
The paper provides new information about forest industry small and medium‐sized wood industry enterprises and their current business environment in NWR.