Search results

This study aims to investigate the conflicting views in supply chain and strategic management literature regarding cooperative supply chain relationships (CSCR) and firm performance. Supply chain literature suggests a universally positive impact of CSCR on performance, irrespective of a firm’s strategy. In contrast, strategic management literature contends that the effectiveness of CSCR depends on their alignment with the firm’s competitive strategy. The research aims to clarify this disparity, offering insights into the strategic use of CSCR for enhancing firm performance.

This paper theorizes the integration of perspectives for the impact of CSCR on firm performance by examining the relationships considering the alignment of cost leadership and product differentiation strategies with supplier and customer relationships. Plant-level survey data is analyzed using regression techniques to test four hypotheses.

All four main relationships (cost leadership, product differentiation, supplier relationship and customer relationship) on firm performance are statistically significant. However, cost leadership firms are better aligned to their chosen strategy when they have strong relationships with suppliers, whereas similar relationships with customers create misalignment, negatively influencing firm performance. In contrast, product differentiators benefit by investing in relationships with customers rather than with suppliers.

A firm’s performance does not solely depend on its CSCR efforts but on aligning them with the firm’s overall strategy. Therefore, managers need to be cognizant of the firm’s competitive strategy when investing in CSCR. Failing to do so could negatively impact firm performance and, eventually, its ability to compete in the marketplace.

Scholars have advocated for the importance of examining competing perspectives of phenomena, both within and across various bodies of literature, as cross-disciplinary analysis often brings enhanced focus and depth, leading to improved understanding. This research is one of the initial efforts to empirically analyze the varying perspectives on CSCR in supply chain and strategic management literature. This cross-disciplinary approach can yield a more integrated perspective.

Cyber-attacks that generate technical disruptions in organisational operations and damage the reputation of organisations have become all too common in the contemporary organisation. This paper explores the reputation repair strategies undertaken by organisations in the event of becoming victims of cyber-attacks.

For developing the authors’ contribution in the context of the Internet service providers' industry, the authors draw on a qualitative case study of TalkTalk, a British telecommunications company providing business to business (B2B) and business to customer (B2C) Internet services, which was a victim of a “significant and sustained” cyber-attack in October 2015. Data for the enquiry is sourced from publicly available archival documents such as newspaper articles, press releases, podcasts and parliamentary hearings on the TalkTalk cyber-attack.

The findings suggest a dynamic interplay of technical and rhetorical responses in dealing with cyber-attacks. This plays out in the form of marshalling communication and mortification techniques, bolstering image and riding on leader reputation, which serially combine to strategically orchestrate reputational repair and stigma erasure in the event of a cyber-attack.

Analysing a prototypical case of an organisation in dire straits following a cyber-attack, the paper provides a systematic characterisation of the setting-in-motion of strategic responses to manage, revamp and ameliorate damaged reputation during cyber-attacks, which tend to negatively shape the evaluative perceptions of the organisation's salient audience.

This study aims to analyse the strategic moves used by major tobacco corporations to thwart the ratification of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in Brazil.

The authors conducted a detailed historical case study spanning 1988–2005 and encompassing the period leading up to Brazil’s FCTC ratification. The authors collected qualitative data from various sources to triangulate and develop a comprehensive historical account.

The historical analysis identified three distinct phases. First, the acquisition of a Brazilian cigarette factory, Souza Cruz, by British American Tobacco dramatically altered power dynamics, strengthening the position of the tobacco industry. The second phase regards the era of dictatorship and the efforts of various actors advocating against smoking and the tobacco industry. The third phase involved Brazil’s re-democratisation and the challenges of securing FCTC ratification, during which fierce industry opposition had to be overcome. Throughout these phases, the authors identified four key strategies used by multinational corporations (MNCs) in Brazil to uphold unsustainable practices and products that contradicted public interests instead of reforming them: shaping collective memory, dissimulation, re-presentation and redirecting attention.

This study contributes to critical international business research on emerging economies by examining how Brazil’s position in the global capitalist system has influenced its dependency and how MNCs produce and maintain cycles of poverty and unsustainable practices through the exploitation of power dynamics within the country.

The purpose of this study is to understand how executives in technology companies relate to targets for gender equality, especially pertaining to top management.

The study draws on 19 interviews of CEOs, senior line managers and HR directors in ten technology companies operating in Finland. The method is (reflexive) thematic analysis.

Previous studies on the role of executives in promoting gender equality provide somewhat mixed results: while their role is vital, senior leaders may not be inclined to support gender equality targets and measures. Drawing on critical feminist theorizing, this study identifies three ways in which the executives in technology companies related to gender equality targets: endorsing, negotiating and resisting. However, all these responses were constrained by the executives’ assumption that their companies are meritocratic. The study illustrates how executives’ narrow understanding of gender equality and reliance on the presumably well-working systems, combined with underlying doubts about the competence of women, hinder the advancement of women to top management.

While previous studies have evaluated targets to increase the number/percentage of women, both in certain “ideal case” companies and in terms of their effectiveness more broadly, this study discusses how technology company executives navigate these targets in relation to women's assumed “competence”.