A META-ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRATION

AND FIRM PERFORMANCE

RUDOLF LEUSCHNER, DALE S. ROGERS
Rutgers University

FRANOIS F. CHARVET
Staples, Inc., Northeastern University

As supply chain activities become more dispersed among customers,

suppliers and service providers, there is an increased need for customers
and suppliers to work together more closely. Supply chain integration
(SCI) has been a highly researched topic during the last 20 years. A meta-
analytic approach is used to provide a quantitative review of the empirical
literature in SCI, and examines relevant design and contextual factors.
Eighty independent samples across 86 peer-reviewed journal articles, yield-
ing a total of 17,467 observations, were obtained and analyzed. While
general support exists in favor of the positive impact of SCI on firm per-
formance in the literature, this research helps clarify mixed findings that
presently exist. Our results indicate that there is a positive and significant
correlation between SCI and firm performance. Additional subgroups and
moderators are tested and provide nuanced views of the scope and specific
dimensions of SCI, firm performance and their relationships.

Keywords: supply chain integration; performance measurement; meta-analysis;

archival research; resource-based view; resource-advantage theory; relational view

INTRODUCTION The term supply chain integration (SCI) has been

As supply chains mature, their complexity increases.
Managers are asked to improve productivity while
increasing customer service. Shareholders expect prof-
itability to grow quarter over quarter. These internal
and external forces have the effect that often tasks that
previously were performed internally become outsour-
ced (Williamson, 2008). This results in increased
interaction among firms in a supply chain and
requires closer relationships to ensure that the flows
of product, information and payments operate effi-
ciently (Flynn, Huo, & Zhao, 2010; Frohlich & West-
brook, 2001; Thun, 2010; Wagner, 2003). Managing
these relationships requires cross-functional and cross-
firm business processes with appropriate levels of
information sharing, operational coordination and
select close partnerships (Charvet, 2008; Lambert &
Cooper, 2000; Rai, Patnayakuni, & Seth, 2006;
Sanders, 2007).
Acknowledgment: We would like to thank Senay Demirkan Delice
for her help in the initial data collection.
defined as the extent of engagement with suppliers
and customers (Frohlich & Westbrook, 2001). The
terms supply chain collaboration (Stank, Keller, &
Daugherty, 2001) and supply chain coordination
(Carr, Kaynak, & Muthusamy, 2008) are used to
describe elements of SCI. As collaboration begins
with customers and extends back through the firm
(), integration is needed both internally and
externally (Stank et al., 2001, p. 29). In addition,
integration involves coordinating () the forward
physical flow of deliveries and the backward coordi-
nation of information technology (Frohlich &
Westbrook, 2001). Therefore, it is believed that collab-
oration and coordination are elements of SCI
(Mackelprang, Robinson, & Webb, 2012).
The focus of this research is on SCI. To integrate all
of the studies we collected into one framework, we
provide the following definition of SCI for this
research. SCI is the scope and strength of linkages in
supply chain processes across firms. Information,
operational and relational integration facilitate the
linkages in supply chain processes between firms. The

34 Volume 49, Number 2

 A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance

scope of SCI can be integration with customers, sup-
pliers, internal or external. The overall premise of our
research is to test whether tighter integration leads to
better firm performance.
A large increase in research investigating SCI has
been observed in the SCM discipline, as shown in
Figure 1. Until now, only a few qualitative reviews of
the SCI literature can be found (Chen, Daugherty, &
Landry, 2009b; Fabbe-Costes & Jahre, 2008; Simatup-
ang & Sridharan, 2005; Van der Vaart & van Donk,
2008). While such studies have a substantial contribu-
tion to the field, they do have inherent drawbacks
because it is challenging to objectively tie together pri-
mary research. As the debate between Hanushek
(1989, 1994) and Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald
(1994a,b) has shown, a subjective review of existing
literature may be just that. In addition, the results of a
meta-analysis can be used subsequently to suggest
areas in need of further investigation. SCI has often
been operationalized and measured differently, and
this adds to the challenge of integrating the findings.
Overall, empirical evidence seems to support the posi-
tive impact of SCI on firm performance, however
mixed findings are not uncommon (Flynn et al.,
2010). In addition, the selection of firm performance
as the dependent variable is a natural link and has
been critical in the literature (Fabbe-Costes & Jahre,
2008; Van der Vaart & van Donk, 2008). The more
important decision is how to measure and evaluate
firm performance, which is multi-dimensional. It has
been show that a single study does not have enough
power, due to the relatively small sample size, to
explain the magnitude of a statistical relationship
(Hunter, 2001; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Therefore,
aggregating several studies into a meta-analysis is of
critical importance in order to draw conclusions that
are valid beyond the limited situations in which they
were obtained and make empirical generalizations
(Leone & Schulz, 1980).
The primary purpose for this study is thus to provide
the first comprehensive, quantitative and integrative
review of empirical research linking SCI to overall firm
performance. The methodological advantage of a meta-
analytic study is that statistical artifacts such as sam-
pling or measurement error can be accounted for (Hun-
ter & Schmidt, 1990). Another advantage is the ability
to examine how various study design factors may affect
the relationship between SCI and firm performance:
(1) Is there evidence of a positive correlation between
SCI and firm performance? (2) Does the correlation

FIGURE 1
Published Supply Chain Integration Articles

Note: Articles were identified via a keyword search on supply chain integration
and supply chain collaboration among peer-reviewed articles in the EBSCO
Business Source Complete database where the search was performed on title,
abstract and keywords.

April 2013 35
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
between SCI and firm performance vary across different
dimensions and operationalizations of SCI? and (3)
Does the correlation between SCI and firm perfor-
mance vary across different performance dimensions?
The remainder of the study is organized as follows.
The theoretical background and research hypotheses
are developed in the following section. Following that
section, the research methodology is described and
results of the meta-analysis are reported. Last, conclu-
sions are presented, including theoretical implications,
managerial implications, limitations and recommen-
dations for future research.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
The process of achieving and maintaining higher
levels of integration is complex and may demand
unwarranted resources. To add structure to the rela-
tionship of SCI to firm performance, researchers have
grounded their studies in a variety of organizational
theories. An overview of the most commonly used
theoretical bases is provided next and highlighted in
Table 1. Our primary theoretical focus in this meta-
analysis is on the resource-based view (RBV) of the
firm with the extensions of resource-advantage (R-A)
theory and the relational view (RV) of the firm. We
also use secondary but important theoretical lenses,
which are described later.
Resource-Based View of the Firm
The RBV posits that firms can be viewed as collec-
tions of resources, some of which can be considered
strategic resources (Penrose, 1959; Wernerfelt, 1984).
Strategic resources are valuable, rare and imperfectly
imitable and substitutable (Barney, 1991). As they are
distributed heterogeneously across firms, they can
result in a sustained competitive advantage (Barney,
1991; Peteraf, 1993). Supply chain scholars have
acknowledged that internal/cross-functional and exter-
nal integration with customers and suppliers can be
complex and requires unique capabilities that may be
difficult or costly to implement (Barney, 2012; Chen,
Daugherty, & Roath, 2009a; Chen et al., 2009b). SCI
can be seen as an internal strategic resource that could
result in a competitive advantage and improved firm
performance (Barney, 2012).
Resource-Advantage Theory and the RV of the Firm.
An extension of RBV, R-A theory, focuses not just on
resources per se, but more specifically on advanta-
geous resources, which give firms a competitive advan-
tage (Hunt & Davis, 2008). Resources under R-A
theory are tied to their contribution in producing a
market offering that has value as perceived by custom-
ers and the degree to which they are available are
used to create a competitive advantage (Hunt & Davis,
2012; Priem & Swink, 2012). Another extension of
36 Volume 49, Number 2
the RBV, the RV, postulates that firms can benefit
from inter-firm integration and strategic partnerships
to acquire valuable resources they lack in-house (Dyer
& Singh, 1998). Whereas the RBV focuses on internal
strategic resources, the RV contends that a competitive
advantage also originates from inter-firm resources
that cannot be captured or owned by one firm in iso-
lation (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Lavie, 2006; Lorenzoni &
Lipparini, 1999). Inter-firm integration can often
result in winwin situations where the total supply
chain benefits are increased due to the use of hard to
imitate specialized assets, skills and information.
Mesquita, Anand, and Brush (2008) argue that the
RBV and RV can be seen as complementary rather
than competitive theories. They present empirical evi-
dence showing that joint knowledge acquisition, sup-
pliers investment in dyad-specific assets and
capabilities, and buyer-supplier alliance relational gov-
ernance are partnership-specific resources that cannot
be explained by the RBV alone.
Secondary Theoretical Lenses
In addition to the primary theories, four secondary
theories were identified among the articles in the sam-
ple. With roots in both the RBV and RV, the knowl-
edge-based view (KBV; Argote, 1999; Grant, 1996;
Kogut & Zander, 1992) states that SCI can help firms
coordinate and deploy knowledge resources by
exchanging valuable information across the organiza-
tional boundary with key suppliers and customers.
Social exchange theory (SET), with origins in sociology
(Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962) and relational marketing
(Dwyer, Schur, & Oh, 1987; Morgan & Hunt, 1994),
has been used to explain the need for closer interaction
between organizations, which posits that the basic
motivation for integration is the seeking of rewards and
avoidance of punishments (Emerson, 1962). Transac-
tion cost economics (TCE) also highlighted some of the
integration benefits (Williamson, 1975). Transaction
costs are the expenses generated by identifying fair
market prices, negotiating and carrying out economic
exchange. With respect to SCI, TCE predicts that firms
should fare better if they appropriately adjust their
governance mechanisms to the underlying transactions
(Williamson, 1975, 1991, 2008). The information
processing theory (IPT) posits that coping with infor-
mation is an organizations main task and that more
information has a positive link with performance
(Galbraith, 1973). This, however, is not a constant
effect as an inflection point can be reached at which
more information does not lead to better performance.
Hypothesis Development
The theoretical bases provide a lens for examining
the 80 independent samples included in this meta-
analysis. Researchers in our sample have used different
 A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance

TABLE 1
Theoretical Bases for Supply Chain Integration

Theory Relevant Themes Sample Empirical Studies

Resource-based Firms can develop a unique capability and Chen et al. (2009b),
view (RBV) excel in integrating with firms in the and Mesquita et al.
Barney (1991), and supply chain. Supply chain integration (2008)
Wernerfelt (1984) as a strategic resource can lead to a
sustained competitive advantage and
superior firm performance.
Relational view (RV) Strategic resources can also arise at Deveraj, Krajewski,
Dyer and Singh (1998), the inter-firm level. The achievement and Wei (2007),
Lavie (2006), and Lorenzoni of a competitive advantage via supply and Mesquita
and Lipparini (1999) chain integration is dependent on the et al. (2008)
generation of relational rents
between multiple firms.
Knowledge-based view (KBV) Supply chain integration helps Rosenzweig et al.
Argote (1999), Grant (1996), deploy knowledge resources by (2003), Paulraj et al.
and Kogut and Zander (1992) exchanging valuable information (2008), Swink
(operational and strategic information) et al. (2007), and Rai
across the organizational boundary et al. (2006)
with supply chain partners.
Social exchange theory (SET) Relational governance mechanisms Johnston et al. (2004),
Blau (1964), Emerson (1962), such as trust and commitment can Prahinski and Benton
Dwyer et al. (1987), MacNeil be used to achieve a higher degree (2004), Golicic and
(1980), and Morgan of integration between supply chain Mentzer (2005),
and Hunt (1994) partners. Relational exchange Griffith, Harvey, and Lusch
relationships can be more effective (2006), Gulati and Sytch
and efficient, though, the risk of (2007), and Nyaga,
opportunism can dampen Whipple, & Lynch (2010)
these benefits.
Transaction cost Supply chain integration may help Lee, Kwon, and
economics (TCE) firms reduce the burden of transaction Severance (2007)
Coase (1937), Rindfleisch cost, and implement safeguard
and Heide (1997), and mechanisms to mitigate the threat
Williamson (1975, 1991, of opportunism. Asset specificity
2008) and uncertainty are important
factors to consider when selecting
the most appropriate inter-
organizational governance form.
Information processing Increased flow and quantity Swink et al. (2007),
theory (IPT) of information can lead decision- Wong, Boon-itt, and
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), makers to be able to improve Wong (2011)
Thompson (1967), Galbraith the performance of the firm itself
(1973), and Huber (1991) and has positive effects on the
performance of the supply
chain.

definitions, dimensions and operationalizations to
examine SCI (for a more thorough review see: Fabbe-
Costes & Jahre, 2008; Van der Vaart & van Donk,
2008). While there was divergence among researchers,
an aggregate view of SCI is important and is used as a
starting point for evidence that SCI indeed has an
effect on firm performance. Generally, a meta-analysis
can be utilized effectively not only to examine narrow,
well-defined constructs, but also to assess relation-
ships involving more broadly defined constructs
(Crook, Ketchen, Combs, & Todd, 2008; Nair, 2006).
As mentioned earlier, integration among companies
within the supply chain can be complex and requires
unique capabilities that may be difficult or costly to

April 2013 37
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
imitate (Barney, 2012; Chen et al., 2009a,b). Being
able to manage these integrative relationships better
than the firms competitors is a valuable internal stra-
tegic resource. As such, we predict that SCI enables
management to achieve a sustainable competitive
advantage which can be viewed by improved firm per-
formance (Barney, 2012). Therefore, the first hypothe-
sis for this research is the following.
H1: Supply Chain Integration is positively related
to firm performance.
Dimensions of SCI. After the evaluation of the
overall effect of SCI on firm performance, we have the
opportunity to directly evaluate whether diverging con-
struct measurement types alter the nature, or magni-
tude, of the broader relationship. Researchers made the
distinction between different dimensions of integra-
tion. Frohlich and Westbrook (2001, p. 187) explicitly
focus on the operational aspect in their definition:
The development of shared operational activities with
customers and/or suppliers. Flynn et al. (2010, p. 59)
define SCI as the degree to which a manufacturer stra-
tegically collaborates with its supply chain partners
and collaboratively manages intra- and inter-organiza-
tion processes, emphasizing the strategic nature of
SCI. Because of such divergent definitions, a more
comprehensive classification of constructs was neces-
sary. This classification was developed based on a syn-
thesis of the classifications shown in Table 2, with the
goal of succinctly classifying all retained articles.
The linkage between integration efforts and firm per-
formance is a central tenant of this research. Because
SCI requires investment, the objective of management
is to see a return on that investment. All articles in
our sample tested this linkage. In line with our
theoretical lenses, we view SCI as a resource, which
enables the firm to achieve a competitive advantage
and thus leads to comparably better performance.
After reviewing these diverging, though related, views
and analyzing the vast sample of empirical studies col-
lected for the meta-analysis, three dimensions were
developed to compare and contrast the specific effects
of SCI on firm performance. This classification encom-
passes a wide range of prior conceptualizations which is
necessary in a comprehensive summary of the literature.
When management in two firms first engages in SCI,
they share data and information (Kim & Lee, 2010; Lee,
2000; Olorunniwo, & Li, 2011; Saeed, Malhotra, & Gro-
ver, 2005). Thus, (1) information integration refers to the
coordination of information transfer, collaborative
communication and supporting technology among
firms in the supply chain. The next dimension in the
progression is when management integrates activities in
addition to the sharing of information (Ireland &
Webb, 2007; Kim & Lee, 2010; Kulp, Lee, & Ofek, 2004;
38 Volume 49, Number 2
Lee, 2000; Saeed et al., 2005; Van der Vaart & van Donk,
2008): (2) Operational integration refers to the collabora-
tive joint activity development, work processes and
coordinated decision making among firms in the supply
chain. The last dimension builds on the previous two
and goes beyond activities focusing on attitudes (Ire-
land & Webb, 2007; Lee, 2000; Saeed et al., 2005; Van
der Vaart & van Donk, 2008): (3) Relational integration
refers to the adoption of a strategic connection between
firms in the supply chain characterized by trust, com-
mitment and long-term orientation (Chen, Paulraj, &
Lado, 2004; Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Hult, Ketchen, & Sla-
ter, 2004; Johnson, 1999).
H2a: Information Integration is positively related
to firm performance.
H2b: Operational Integration is positively related
to firm performance.
H2c: Relational Integration is positively related to
firm performance.
Dimensions of Firm Performance. As the focus of
this research, the linkage between SCI and firm perfor-
mance is evaluated in more detail. While most empiri-
cal studies find a significant positive association
between SCI and firm performance, some also reveal
significant negative effects, and the magnitude of the
association varies considerably. To better understand
this relationship, performance effects collected in the
meta-analysis were summarized and evaluated across
three categories. Financial firm performance was mea-
sured using either revenue minus cost-based measures,
such as profitability and return on assets, or purely
revenue-based measures, like sales and market share.
Customer-oriented performance consists of measures
related to an improvement in customer satisfaction and
customer loyalty, or closely related constructs. Finally,
operational performance consists of improvements in
key competitive capabilities including cost, quality,
delivery, flexibility and innovation (Hill, 1994; Ward,
McCreery, Rizman, & Sharma, 1998). Analyses were
conducted both on aggregate firm performance and
each separate dimension. Several studies found a signif-
icant relationship between SCI and firm performance.
Thus, we hypothesize that SCI is positively correlated
with different measures of firm performance.
H3a: Supply Chain Integration is positively related
to business performance.
H3b: Supply Chain Integration is positively related
to relational performance.
H3c: Supply Chain Integration is positively related
to operational performance.
 TABLE 2
Supply Chain Integration Dimensions

SCI Types
Authors (Dimensions) Description
Lee (2000) Information Integration The sharing of information and knowledge among and
members of the supply chain (demand information and
inventory status, capacity plans, production schedules,
and promotion plans, demand forecasts and shipment
schedules).
Coordination and Refers to the redeployment of decision rights, work
resource sharing and resources to the best-positioned supply
chain member (e.g., VMI, CRP programs, shared
warehousing, inventory pooling).
Organizational and Tight organizational relationships between companies
relationship linkage (integrated communication channels, performance
measures and incentives).

April 2013
Ireland and Webb (2007) Strategic Intention of the firms within the supply chain to
integrate their actions and interactively adjust their
behaviors while pursuing opportunities over time.
Includes both short-term (e.g., supplier scheduling,
visibility) and long-term goals and efforts (e.g., joint
flexibility, adaptation).
A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance

Operational Product and process integration across firms within

strategic supply chains (e.g., allowing suppliers to
assume responsibility for product engineering activities
and product development; including suppliers to
understand the complexity and scope of coordinated
processes).
Technological Sharing of knowledge and capabilities within the
strategic supply chain.

39
40
Table 2 (Continued).
SCI Types
Authors (Dimensions) Description
Van der Vaart and Practices Tangible activities or technologies that play an
and van Donk (2008) important role in the collaboration of a focal firm
with its suppliers and/or customers (e.g., use of
EDI, VMI, integrated production planning, delivery
synchronization).
Attitudes Measures attitude of buyers and suppliers towards
each other (intangible), e.g., long-term orientation,
joint problem sharing and planning, trust.
Patterns Include activities like frequent visits, face-to-face,
meetings/communication, formal periodic evaluations
of suppliers/customers.
Kim and Lee (2010) Strategic The extent to which supply chain partners actually
forecast demand and plan business activities jointly
while taking into account each others
long-term success.
Systems The extent to which supply chain partners strive to
make and keep their communication systems
compatible with each other to be ready for inter-firm

Volume 49, Number 2

forecasting and planning in addition to routine electronic
transactions and information exchange
within the supply chain.
Journal of Supply Chain Management

Saeed, Malhotra, and Strategic The extent to which members of the supply chain have
and Grover (2005) developed joint knowledge sharing routines that
facilitate use of innovative practices, sharing of
new ideas, and working together in identifying
and implementing improvement initiatives.
Operational The extent to which supply chain members link decisions
at different stages of the supply chain by routinely
coordinating various operational processes and activities
through information sharing.
Financial The extent to which supply chain members jointly
invest in projects of mutual interest.
 A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance
Moderator Analysis
One of the advantages of a meta-analysis is that it
enables the researcher to examine theoretically rele-
vant measurement characteristics that may explain the
variability in effect sizes (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).
These moderators enable examination of a more
detailed and specific view of SCI and of firm perfor-
mance. The moderators were evaluated by construct-
ing specific subgroups that can then be compared
against main effects to determine the impact of that
specific moderator.
In addition to the previously described hypotheses,
we examined four scopes of SCI: supplier integration,
customer integration, external integration and internal
integration. These were mutually exclusive constructs
that appeared in the sample articles. While some
researchers focused on specific aspects, like customer
and supplier integration (Cousins & Menguc, 2006;
Homburg & Stock, 2004; Koufteros, Cheng, & Lai,
2007), others used more expansive constructs to
illustrate the scope of integration efforts (Frohlich &
Westbrook, 2001; Thun, 2010). Supplier integration
(Chen, Tian, Ellinger, & Daugherty, 2010a; Corsten &
Felde, 2004; Flynn et al., 2010; Lee, Kwon, & Severance,
2007) moves beyond just buying and selling activities
and involves close relationships that involve suppliers
in activities like product development and manufactur-
ing support (Croxton, Garca-Dastugue, Lambert, &
Rogers, 2001). Customer integration (Germain & Iyer,
2006; Sanders, 2008) is the mirror image of supplier
integration and it depends on proactively determining
the requirements of the customer and ensuring to meet
those requirements (Powell, 1995). External integration
is integration with customers and suppliers simulta-
neously (Jayaram, Kannan, & Tan, 2004; Stank et al.,
2001). While not a core SCI construct for this study,
several articles included internal integration into their
research models, some see internal integration between
the four walls of the company as an implicit compo-
nent of SCI (Flynn et al., 2010; Rosenzweig, Roth, &
Dean, 2003), while others operationalize it as an ante-
cedent or complement to external integration (Nara-
simhan, Swink, & Viswanathan, 2010; Sanders, 2007).
We refer to it as the integration between functions or
departments within a single firm (Braunscheidel & Sur-
esh, 2009; Closs & Savitskie, 2003; Koufteros, Rawski,
& Rupak, 2010).
There were also several types of firm performance
that were examined individually. Within business per-
formance, we specifically examined financial perfor-
mance and customer-oriented performance. Financial
performance is an important measure of firm perfor-
mance and has been used in several studies within
our sample (Germain, Davis-Sramek, Lonial, & Raju,
2011; Vickery, Jayaram, Droge, & Calantone, 2003).
Customer-oriented performance is a more perception-
April 2013
based measure that includes attitudes like satisfaction
and loyalty (Johnston, McCutcheon, Stuart, & Ker-
wood, 2004; Narasimhan, Jayaram, & Carter, 2001).
Within operational performance, there were enough
studies to evaluate the specific effects of cost, quality,
delivery, innovation and flexibility. The importance of
evaluating these relationships is to enable us to gain a
deeper understanding of where exactly the perfor-
mance benefits from better SCI arise. The conceptual
framework for this research is depicted in Figure 2.
METHODOLOGY
In this section, we first describe sample selection.
Next, the coding of the studies is explained. Then, we
detail the meta-analytic procedures that were used to
test the hypotheses.
Sample Selection
To test our research model, we gathered correlations
between relevant constructs and followed the random
coefficient meta-analysis approach suggested by Hunter
and Schmidt (2004). Relevant articles for the meta-
analysis were identified via a literature search using the
EBSCO Business Source Complete database including
appropriate keywords. An overview of the search terms
and search results is shown in Table 3. The search was
restricted to academic peer-reviewed journals, and it
was ensured that the search results were indeed
research articles and not editorials or book reviews. No
other limitations were placed on the search. This pro-
cedure yielded 552 articles that were further inspected.
Individual items of the constructs were assessed to
ensure that the authors used measures of the constructs
of interest that had face validity and that inter-con-
struct zero-order correlations were obtainable. To be
considered usable, the articles had to employ an
empirical research methodology and include at least
one measure of SCI and one measure of firm perfor-
mance, as shown in Table 3. Forty-eight articles were
retained. In addition to the keyword search, a snow-
balling approach was also used to retrieve additional
studies and it required us to inspect articles that were
cited by our retained articles or that cited our retained
articles. This procedure yielded another 38 usable arti-
cles. In total, 86 articles using 80 independent samples
(k) and representing 17,467 observations (N) were suc-
cessfully identified, coded and used for further analy-
sis. They are shown in Appendix A.
Coding
A formal coding framework, based on the theoretical
framework and potential moderators, was established
and employed independently by two of the authors.
All articles were double-coded and any discrepancies
were resolved via discussion. The inspection of articles
41
 Journal of Supply Chain Management

FIGURE 2
Research Framework

TABLE 3
Search Terms and Results

Search Terms Results Empirical Usable Retained

supply chain integration 256 86 35 30
supply chain collaboration 123 27 14 12
supplier integration 64 8 2 1
customer integration 58 14 3 2
supplier collaboration 21 2 1 0
customer collaboration 15 8 4 3
Snowballing 38
Total Articles 552 145 59 86

required a thorough assessment of the scale items to
identify several characteristics of the scale: (1) we deter-
mined whether the scale was consistent with any of
our definitions of SCI; (2) we assessed whether the
construct was consistent with any of the SCI dimen-
sions in Figure 2; (3) we examined whether the con-
struct was consistent with any of types of firm
performance; and (4) we identified whether there were
any moderators (Figure 2). To ensure that the items of
each construct should reflect the respective subgroup,
75% of the items should closely match our definition
for that construct (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Each arti-
cle was evaluated in the above manner, and we
obtained correlations and reliabilities for all constructs
of interest. The independent coding exposed fourteen
differences, yielding an interrater reliability of
95.93 percent (14 differences/(86 studies * 4 codings
per study)). Multiple publications based on the same
sample were treated as a single sample to maintain the
assumption of independence among correlations
(Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). In the case of multiple cor-
relations for one relationship, the composite of the
correlation coefficients was computed using aggrega-
tion methods described in the meta-analytic proce-
dures section. If zero-order inter-construct correlations
or reliabilities were not reported in the article, we solic-
ited the required information via e-mail. If we were
not successful, the tracing rule was used to reproduce
the correlations of interest (Kenny, 1979). In the case
that only item-level correlations were reported, a

42 Volume 49, Number 2

 A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance
confirmatory factor analysis was used to derive the
inter-construct correlations (Droge, Jayaram, & Vickery,
2004). Each article was evaluated and the constructs
were classified into a-priori categories (Figure 2), which
were then used to test the hypotheses, by splitting the
studies into different sub-groups depending on the
operationalization of the constructs and the use of the
previously mentioned moderators.
Meta-Analytic Procedures
The widely employed meta-analytic procedures
described by Hunter and Schmidt (1990, 2004) were
followed for the hypothesis testing via three stages:
(1) the main effect testing; (2) the moderator exis-
tence testing; and (3) the moderating effects testing.
In the first stage, the overall relationship correlation
between SCI and firm performance was assessed. The
correlation (r) was used to assess the relationships
between the constructs of interest (see Geyskens,
Krishnan, Steenkamp, & Cunha, 2009; and Shadish &
Haddock, 1994 for discussion on different effect
sizes). Corrections were applied for measurement
error (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Hunter & Schmidt,
2004; Rosenthal, 1991). If no scale reliability was
reported or if a single-item scale was used, the com-
mon practice of substituting the mean reliability was
followed (Chen, Damanpour, & Reilly, 2010b; Crook
et al., 2008; Mackelprang & Nair, 2010; Nair 2006).
Each sample was weighed by its compound attenua-
tion factor, which consists of the reliability of the
scale and the sample size. Several articles had more
than one correlation of interest and those were com-
bined into a composite (Arthur, Bennett, & Huffcutt,
2001) following Hunter and Schmidt (1990, pp. 457
460). Publication bias, also referred to as the file
drawer problem, may occur because studies that pro-
duce statistically nonsignificant findings are less likely
to be submitted to journals or be accepted for publi-
cation (Rosenthal, 1979). Therefore, the fail safe
number was assessed for each group and sub-group,
which indicates how many additional studies would
have to be found to obtain a nonsignificant result
(Rosenberg, 2005).
RESULTS
To test our studys hypotheses, the correlation
between our constructs of interest was evaluated. The
results are shown in Tables 4 and 5. To determine the
strength and significance of the relationship, several
measures were calculated. For each relationship, the
number of independent samples (k) and the overall
sample size (N) are provided. The observed correla-
tion (ro) and the corrected correlation (rc) were com-
puted (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). These measures
provide a point estimate of the sample correlation
April 2013
that is then assessed as to whether it is significantly
different from zero. The range of uncorrected correla-
tions and the 90% credibility interval are also
reported (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004, p. 83). The Q Sta-
tistic is a measure of heterogeneity and a large signifi-
cant value points to unexplained variance being
present in the sample or subsample (Hunter &
Schmidt, 1990, p. 111). The fail safe numbers for
each subgroup range from 107 to 61,995, and thus,
we conclude there is little risk of additional studies
changing the results we obtained.
The relationships between SCI and firm performance
were evaluated, and the results provide evidence that
the link is positive and significant (Table 4). To exam-
ine the more specific types of firm performance, an
overall view of SCI is necessary, and thus, we exam-
ined the aggregate effect of SCI on overall firm perfor-
mance first. The other relationships can then be
compared subsequently. The corrected correlation
between SCI and firm performance was 0.36, which is
significant at the 0.05 level, and thus, we conclude
there is support for H1. In addition to the main
effects testing, several moderators, based on the opera-
tionalization of the SCI construct, were tested and are
shown in Table 3. Three types of integration were
evaluated specifically: information (H2a), operational
(H2b) and relational (H2c). While information inte-
gration and relational integration show significant
correlation with firm performance, operational inte-
gration does not have a significant correlation with
firm performance. Drawing on the RBV, it can be
argued that these types of integration are more
difficult to imitate and as such can lead to better firm
performance. The nominal correlation does not differ
widely from the others, but the variance and the cred-
ibility interval explain why it cannot be concluded
that it is significantly different from zero. Four
additional scopes of SCI were evaluated: supplier,
customer, external and internal integration. There is
weak support for a significant correlation between
supplier integration because the corrected correlation
has a larger standard deviation that prevents us from
concluding it is larger than zero. There is no support
to conclude that a significant correlation between cus-
tomer integration and firm performance exists in this
sample. External and internal integration show a posi-
tive and significant correlation with firm performance.
In addition to the different operationalizations of
SCI, we also evaluated whether the correlation
between SCI and firm performance is impacted by
measurement differences in the dependent variables.
The results are shown in Table 5. We found weak sup-
port for H3a, but strong support for H3b and H3c.
While business performance, which is conceptualized
as the top line benefits of SCI, has weak support,
additional subgroups were evaluated, such as financial
43
 Journal of Supply Chain Management

TABLE 4
Results for Specific Supply Chain Integration Subgroups

Relationship
(Impact on Firm Credibility
Performance) k N ro rc Range Interval Q Fail Safe
1. H1: Supply 80 17,248 0.32 *
0.36 *
0.18 0.84 0.06 0.66 526.02 **
61994.80
Chain
Integration
2. H2a: 33 6,723 0.33* 0.38* 0.09 0.78 0.07 0.69 201.00** 17995.80
Information
Integration
3. H2b: 33 6,700 0.30 0.34 0.09 0.90 0.01 0.70 260.78** 5236.25
Operational
Integration
4. H2c: 14 2,651 0.36* 0.41* 0.15 0.79 0.06 0.75 103.69** 3282.30
Relational
Integration
5. Supplier 48 10,601 0.29* 0.33 0.05 0.79 0.03 0.63 312.92** 3600.88
Integration
6. Customer 31 7,003 0.25 0.29 0.18 0.73 0.01 0.59 207.22** 10086.52
Integration
7. External 15 3,949 0.35* 0.42* 0.16 0.69 0.10 0.73 121.14** 8159.23
Integration
8. Internal 22 4,627 0.30* 0.34* 0.09 0.64 0.07 0.60 111.69** 1235.56
Integration
*p-value < 0.05; **p-value < 0.01.

performance and customer-oriented performance. The
correlation between SCI and financial performance
was not significant. The evaluation of the link
between SCI and customer-oriented performance was
highly significant and did not show any heterogeneity,
so that we can conclude that there is no evidence for
significant moderators being present in the sample.
This was the only subgroup where it was possible to
resolve all the heterogeneity. Additional subgroups of
operational performance were evaluated: cost, quality,
delivery, innovation and flexibility. The relationships
between SCI and quality, delivery, and innovation
were significant. No significant relationship between
SCI and cost and SCI and flexibility could be found.
The implications of these results are described in the
next section in addition to limitations and suggestions
for future research.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we accumulated and integrated the
results of empirical research on the relationship
between SCI and firm performance that may lead to
generalizable evidence for advancement of theory and
practice on SCI. Inconsistencies in original research
results may be due to artifacts such as sample sizes
and measurement errors in the original studies. Sub-
group analysis of moderators showed that the major-
ity of samples have a significant relationship between
different operationalizations of SCI and operational-
izations of firm performance along theoretical expecta-
tions. A necessary implication of this meta-analysis for
future research is that when results are contradicting
or nonsignificant, it may be due to the studys hetero-
geneous factors, for example, the industry, the type of
companies that were considered, or even the time per-
iod in which the research was conducted. In that case,
a detailed assessment of significant differences in cor-
relation coefficients for various subgroups may explain
deviating results.
Implications for Theory
In initiating this study, we encountered an expansive
literature base that appeared to use an array of per-
spectives and different theories in investigating SCI.
We examine SCI under the lens of the RBV of the firm
and the extensions of the RBV that were R-A theory
and the RV. Our primary objective for this meta-
analysis was to investigate whether SCI as a firm
resource is related to better firm overall performance.

44 Volume 49, Number 2

 A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance

TABLE 5
Results for Specific Firm Performance Subgroups

Relationship
(Impact of
Supply Chain Credibility
Integration) k N ro rc Range Interval Q Fail Safe
* **
9. H3a: Business 33 7,768 0.29 0.33 0.06 0.72 0.03 0.63 226.66 29399.73
Performance
10. Financial 18 4,498 0.24 0.27 0.06 0.69 0.02 0.52 101.97** 1794.81
Performance
11. Customer 5 832 0.31** 0.37** 0.25 0.37 0.26 0.48 1.56 106.97
-oriented
Performance
12. H3b: 6 1,378 0.64** 0.72** 0.37 0.86 0.44 1.01 33.70** 2825.34
Relational
Performance
13. H3c: 60 12,072 0.31* 0.35* 0.18 0.84 0.09 0.60 274.38** 8870.43
Operational
Performance
14. Cost 24 4,070 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.58 0.07 0.48 98.74** 967.58
15. Quality 11 2,483 0.23* 0.26 0.10 0.53 0.04 0.48 42.06** 365.19
16. Delivery 22 4,671 0.25* 0.30* 0.10 0.42 0.14 0.46 50.55** 2623.70
17. Innovation 11 2,186 0.22* 0.26* 0.09 0.43 0.11 0.41 22.60* 655.58
18. Flexibility 16 3,274 0.19 0.22 0.09 0.44 0.04 0.40 42.33** 353.14
*p-value < 0.05; **p-value < 0.01.

This can help determine whether SCI should be
viewed as a source of competitive advantage. In this
article, we have presented a theoretical framework to
aid in providing parsimony and to distinguish
between three dimensions of SCI (information, opera-
tional and relational). Our classification of SCI can be
used to interpret past research on SCI and clarifies the
concept for future research. Setting a baseline via this
meta-analysis synthesizes existing knowledge and aids
scholars in scoping new research.
The overall positive and significant relationship
between SCI and firm performance (H1) is a signifi-
cant, but not surprising result (Christopher, 2005).
Closer integration is significantly correlated with bet-
ter firm performance. This finding fits with the theo-
retical bases that we highlighted in this research.
While this result does not specifically point to causal-
ity, it should be expected that firms engaging in inte-
gration efforts should experience higher firm
performance as a result. It is also apparent that this
general relationship is characterized by considerable
heterogeneity (Q = 526.02**), which was then
reduced in subsequent subgroups.
Prior research provides support for the notion that
firms have the opportunity to leverage integration
mechanisms with customers and suppliers to achieve
organizational performance benefits (Cooper, Lambert
& Pagh, 1997; Lambert, Cooper, & Pagh, 1998; Ste-
vens, 1989; Lee, 2000). At the same time, researchers
have noted that firms working toward higher levels of
SCI are likely to face a number of challenges (Fabbe-
Costes & Jahre, 2007; Fawcett & Magnan, 2002). In
the next step, three separate operationalizations of SCI
were analyzed. Information integration is significantly
correlated with firm performance (H2a). This result
can be explained by arguing that sharing of informa-
tion will enable both companies to operate more
efficiently (Zhou & Benton, 2007). It can also be
explained with IPT, where better information for the
right parts of a firm can lead to a competitive advan-
tage. In addition, internal integration also has a signif-
icant correlation with firm performance. These two
types of integration are generally considered as requir-
ing the least involvement and effort.
For the relationship between operational integra-
tion and firm performance, we did not find a signifi-
cant correlation (H2b). A higher level of integration
likely causes temporarily higher costs, and it is possi-
ble that the resulting increase in performance is not
large enough to recoup those higher costs. Firms
that were surveyed in the original studies may also
not have been able to yet recognize the positive

April 2013 45
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
results of operational integration, as these benefits
may take longer to realize. It is not possible to
obtain a firm-specific perspective with our research,
but we find it likely that the risk of failure at this
stage of SCI is significant and therefore the results
we obtain have such a large variance. This interpreta-
tion is additionally supported by the two modera-
tors, supplier integration and customer integration,
having a nonsignificant correlation with firm perfor-
mance. This is not to say that an improvement in
firm performance does not occur, but our results
seem to indicate that the variance, and therefore the
associated risk, is higher regarding the return on
investment.
Relational integration, which mainly draws on the
RV as its theoretical base (Dyer & Singh, 1998), does
have a significant correlation with firm performance
(H2c). It is understood that only firms that have a
long-term relationship will be able to attain such a
level of integration. Therefore, it is not surprising that
the payoff from closer integration is higher and there
is less risk involved with that type of integration. It is
also reasonable to assume that firms that are seeking
this level of integration do have more experience with
integration efforts and the chance for success is
increased even more. As such we believe that it should
not be uniformly assumed that tighter integration is
better in all situations. It comes with a higher level of
management effort, and there must be a business rea-
son for investing resources into the relationship. This
view is supported by Lambert, Emmelhainz, and
Gardner (1996) who present a model that describes
how firm relationships should be structured at the
appropriate level. Both companies should take into
account the drivers, facilitators and management
resources available for managing the relationship.
The evaluation of different measures of firm perfor-
mance revealed several noteworthy findings. The
impact of SCI on business performance, which is gen-
erally associated with revenue generation and profit-
ability, is not significant (H3a). The weak link to
revenue generation and the bottom line is not surpris-
ing because most of the benefits from SCI are expected
to be in the form of cost savings (Madhok, & Tallman,
1998). Such efficiencies often do not have the profit-
ability impact to warrant a significant change in the
bottom line as the savings do not have the same profit
leverage as revenue increases (Marn & Rosiello, 1992).
More specifically, financial performance also had a
nonsignificant effect, which is additional evidence. The
impact of SCI on customer-oriented performance,
which specifically is related to relational outcomes
such as satisfaction, trust and commitment, has a high
and significant correlation. This result points to the
fact that closer integration with customers and to a les-
ser extent with suppliers can have intangible benefits
46 Volume 49, Number 2
that can improve the relationship. These benefits may
not be immediately measurable in financial or busi-
ness terms, but marketing researchers argue that lagged
financial benefits occur as a result of customer-oriented
performance (Guo, Kumar, & Jiraporn, 2004).
A few studies used relational performance as an out-
come measure, and the correlation was the highest we
obtained in this study (H3b). Most of the studies
(four of six) used relational SCI as the antecedent.
While this result is impressive, we must also caution
that we cannot exclude cognitive bias as one of the
explanations for this result. It would be more impres-
sive if such high correlations would be obtained with
financially based performance measures. We generally
advise researchers against the use of fully perceptual
measures because this often overlooked concern of
cognitive bias can inflate the relationship.
Most studies (k = 60) in our sample used opera-
tional performance as one of the outcome variables
and a positive and significant aggregate correlation
was found (H3c). While this aggregate view of perfor-
mance is important, the specific subgroups of opera-
tional performance should be evaluated further. With
three of five subgroups not having significant correla-
tions, several conclusions can be drawn. Cost
improvements are a not significant outcome of SCI,
and this result, while surprising to some, highlights
the fact that substantial resource commitment is nec-
essary when undertaking integrative activities between
customers and suppliers. The impact of SCI on quality
was also not significant, and we attribute this to qual-
ity being an imprecise measure that can be interpreted
in several ways. As such, it may not be possible to
accurately trace the improvements to quality gains. In
addition, quality is always a moving target, and the
overall customer perception of quality will be influ-
enced by the competitors in the marketplace. The cor-
relation between SCI and delivery performance was
positive and significant. One of the main areas where
firms integrate is how products are delivered, thus it is
not surprising that delivery performance is signifi-
cantly affected by SCI. Another significant effect is the
link between SCI and innovation. We draw on SET to
explain that managers from customers and suppliers
working together might create opportunities for inno-
vation, purely based on the fact that they are interact-
ing with each other. Therefore, SCI has the effect that
people from different companies can likely encounter
opportunities for improvement in their daily interac-
tions as part of a larger integration initiative. The last
subgroup that was evaluated was the impact of SCI
on flexibility, and we attribute this result to the fact
that different companies may have different con-
straints (Christopher & Holweg, 2011). While the con-
straints become clearer through integration, it may
not be possible to overcome them.
 A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance
Implications for Managers
A meta-analysis, such as the one described in this arti-
cle, can help managers understand the level and signifi-
cance of the relationship between SCI and firm
performance. More specifically, this study can help
answer questions such as what type of SCI has the
chance to lead to the highest benefits in terms of firm
performance. There is evidence that SCI leads to higher
firm performance, in general; however, more impor-
tantly managers should understand what will be most
beneficial to their organization. On the basis of our
results, all levels of integration can be beneficial for
firm performance; however, operational integration
can have varying results. The operational benefits of
SCI are only found in the areas of delivery performance
and innovation. This result provides support to the
notion that managers should not expect quick payoffs
from their integration initiatives, like cost savings and
quality improvement, but it is more likely that longer
term, more durable performance gains can be
obtained.
Limitations of the Research
As with any research, there are several limitations
that must be pointed out. By definition, a meta-analy-
sis relies on available studies. While we performed a
thorough literature search and snowballing to iden-
tify all suitable articles, there still is the possibility that
some studies were missed. However, due to the num-
ber of samples that we were able to obtain (80 inde-
pendent samples) and the high fail-safe numbers
(Tables 4 and 5), we are confident that any additional
studies would be unlikely to change the results. While
every effort was made to obtain all the information
necessary for each suitable study, we did encounter
some difficulties in retrieving correlations and reliabil-
ities for some studies. If that information was not
available from the authors and we could not impute
it otherwise, we had to drop those studies from this
meta-analysis. We were able to obtain a significantly
larger number of samples than some other recently
published articles using this methodology (Mackelp-
rang & Nair, 2010; Nair, 2006). However, due to
restrictions in the sample, we were not able to exam-
ine more sample-specific moderators.
Suggestions for Future Research
It is of critical importance for our discipline to
assess a phenomenon over an extended period of
time. Once there are sufficient empirical studies, a
meta-analysis can be performed to aggregate the
results. This methodology should be employed to
study other phenomena in the supply chain manage-
ment domain. It would be interesting to see how SCI
is viewed over an extended period of time. While such
April 2013
longitudinal studies are difficult to operationalize,
they would add significantly to our understanding of
this important phenomenon.
Due to the small sample size of the SCI customer-ori-
ented subgroup, it is clear that additional studies are
necessary in this area. The nonsignificant correlations
between SCI and cost performance, and SCI and qual-
ity performance might be be due to the focus of opera-
tional-level management primarily on delivery issues.
As such, we suspect that in the future we may find dif-
ferent results and as such it is worth investigating this
effect more.
At this point, we would like to encourage authors,
referees and editors to agree to a consistent standard of
reporting for empirical survey-based research, which
can only improve methodological rigor. At a mini-
mum, the correlations between the latent variables and
the reliabilities of the constructs should be reported. In
addition, detailed information on how the scales were
developed should be required to trace the origin of a
scale and to enable other researchers in the field to
assess the quality of the constructs. Such a standard
would not just make it easier to aggregate studies in a
meta-analysis, but also enable readers to evaluate stud-
ies more quickly and objectively. As we have seen in
some of the studies we evaluated, some constructs that
were based on previously developed measures were
modified without explanation. Therefore, we call on
our colleagues to adhere to this standard in order to
increase the methodological rigor of our field.
Supply chain integration has been a highly
researched topic in the past 20 years. In this meta-
analysis, we examined this significant body of litera-
ture to quantitatively summarize the results. The main
benefit of our analysis is that we were able to estimate
the overall population effect of SCI on firm perfor-
mance and within the relevant subgroups. The posi-
tive association reinforces the importance of this
construct, but the significant amount of heterogeneity
in most subgroups is evidence that additional research
is necessary before we can make generalizable state-
ments. As such we call for more research on the rela-
tionship between SCI and firm performance.
REFERENCES
Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating,
retaining and transferring knowledge. Norwell, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2001).
Conducting meta-analysis using SAS. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bagchi, P. K., & Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2005). Supply
chain Integration: A European Survey. The Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Management, 16 (2), 275
294.
47
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained
competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17
(1), 99120.
Barney, J. B. (2012). Purchasing, supply chain man-
agement and sustained competitive advantage:
The relevance of resource-based theory. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 48 (2), 36.
Benton, W. C., & Maloni, M. (2005). The influence of
power driven buyer/seller relationships on supply
chain satisfaction. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 23, 122.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New
York: Wiley.
Boon-Itt, S., & Paul, H. (2006). A study of supply
chain integration in thai automotive industry: A
theoretical framework and measurement. Manage-
ment Research News, 29 (4), 194205.
Braunscheidel, M. J., & Suresh, N. C. (2009). The
organizational antecedents of a firms supply
chain agility for risk mitigation and response.
Journal of Operations Management, 27, 119140.
Braunscheidel, M. J., Suresh, N. C., & Boisnier, A. D.
(2010). Investigating the impact of organizational
culture on supply chain integration. Human
Resource Management, 49 (5), 883911.
Cao, M., Vonderembse, M. A., Zhang, Q., & Ragu-
Nathan, T. S. (2010). Supply chain collaboration:
Conceptualisation and instrument development.
International Journal of Production Research, 48
(22), 66136635.
Carr, A. S., & Kaynak, H. (2007). Communication
methods, information sharing, supplier develop-
ment and performance: An empirical study of
their relationships. International Journal of Opera-
tions and Production Management, 27 (4), 346370.
Carr, A. S., Kaynak, H., & Muthusamy, S. (2008). The
cross functionaI coordination between opera-
tions, marketing, purchasing and engineering and
the impact on performance. International Journal
of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 13
(1), 5577.
Carr, A. S., & Pearson, J. N. (1999). Strategically man-
aged buyersupplier relationships and perfor-
mance outcomes. Journal of Operations
Management, 17, 497519.
Charvet, F. F. (2008). Supply Chain Collaboration: The
Role of Key Contact Employees. Unpublished disser-
tation. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Chen, J., Damanpour, F., & Reilly, R. R. (2010b).
Understanding antecedents of new product devel-
opment speed: A meta-analysis. Journal of Opera-
tions Management, 28 (1), 1733.
Chen, H., Daugherty, P. J., & Landry, T. D. (2009b). Sup-
ply chain process integration: A theoretical frame-
work. Journal of Business Logistics, 30 (2), 2746.
Chen, H., Daugherty, P. J., & Roath, A. S. (2009a).
Defining and operationalizing supply chain pro-
cess integration. Journal of Business Logistics, 30
(1), 6384.
Chen, I. J., Paulraj, A., & Lado, A. A. (2004). Strategic
purchasing, supply management, and firm perfor-
48 Volume 49, Number 2
mance. Journal of Operations Management, 22, 505
523.
Chen, H., Tian, Y., Ellinger, A. E., & Daugherty, P. J.
(2010a). Managing logistics outsourcing relation-
ships: An empirical investigation in china. Journal
of Business Logistics, 31 (2), 279299.
Christopher, M. (2005). Logistics and supply chain man-
agement: Creating value-added networks. Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Christopher, M., & Holweg, M. (2011). Supply chain
2.0: Managing supply chains in the era of turbu-
lence. The International Journal of Physical Distribu-
tion and Logistics Management, 41 (1), 6382.
Closs, D. J., & Savitskie, K. (2003). Internal and exter-
nal logistics information technology integration.
The International Journal of Logistics Management,
14 (1), 6376.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economi-
ca, 4 (16), 386405.
Cooper, M. C., Lambert, D. M., & Pagh, J. (1997).
Supply chain management: More than a new
name for logistics. The International Journal of
Logistics Management, 8 (1), 114.
Corsten, D., & Felde, J. (2004). Exploring the perfor-
mance effects of key-supplier collaboration: An
empirical investigation into Swiss buyer-supplier
relationships. The The International Journal of Physi-
cal Distribution and Logistics Management, 35 (6),
445461.
Cousins, P. D., Handfield, R. B., Lawson, B., & Peter-
sen, K. J. (2006). Creating supply chain relational
capital: The impact of formal and informal social-
ization processes. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 24, 851863.
Cousins, P. D., & Lawson, B. (2007). The effect of
socialization mechanisms and performance mea-
surement on supplier integration in new product
development. British Journal of Management, 18,
311326.
Cousins, P. D., & Menguc, B. (2006). The implica-
tions of socialization and integration in supply
chain management. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 24 (5), 604620.
Crook, T. R., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Todd, S.
Y. (2008). Strategic resources and performance: A
meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29,
11411154.
Croxton, K. L., Garca-Dastugue, S. J., Lambert, D. M.,
& Rogers, D. S. (2001). The supply chain manage-
ment processes. The International Journal of Logis-
tics Management, 12 (2), 1336.
Dabhilkar, M., Bengtsson, L., von Haartman, R., &
Ahlstro, P. (2009). Supplier selection or collabora-
tion? Determining factors of performance improve-
ment when outsourcing manufacturing. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 15, 143153.
Deveraj, S., Krajewski, L., & Wei, J. C. (2007). Impact
of eBusiness technologies on operational perfor-
mance: The role of production information inte-
gration in the supply chain. Journal of Operations
Management, 25, 11991216.
 A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance
Dong, Y., Carter, C. R., & Dresner, M. E. (2001). JIT
purchasing and performance: An exploratory anal-
ysis of buyer and supplier perspectives. Journal of
Operations Management, 19, 471483.
Droge, C., Jayaram, J., & Vickery, S. K. (2004). The
effects of internal versus external integration prac-
tices on time-based performance and overall firm
performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22
(6), 557573.
Dwyer, F. R., Schur, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Develop-
ing buyerseller relationships. Journal of Marketing,
51 (2), 1127.
Dyer, J. H., & Hatch, N. (2006). Relation-specific
capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers:
Creating advantage through network relationships.
Strategic Management Journal, 27, 701719.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view:
Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganiza-
tional competitive advantage. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 23 (4), 660679.
Eltantawy, R. A., Giunipero, L., & Fox, G. L. (2009). A
strategic skill based model of supplier integration
and its effect on supply management perfor-
mance. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 925
936.
Emerson, R. (1962). Powerdependence relations.
American Sociological Review, 27 (1), 3141.
Fabbe-Costes, N., & Jahre, M. (2007). Supply chain
integration improves performance: The Emperors
new suit? The International Journal of Physical Dis-
tribution and Logistics Management, 37 (10), 835
855.
Fabbe-Costes, N., & Jahre, M. (2008). Supply chain
integration and performance: A review of the evi-
dence. The International Journal of Logistics Manage-
ment, 19 (2), 130154.
Fawcett, S. E., & Magnan, G. M. (2002). The rhetoric
and reality of supply chain integration. The Inter-
national Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 32 (5), 339361.
Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2010). The impact
of supply chain integration on performance: A
contingency and configuration approach. Journal
of Operations Management, 28 (1), 5871.
Forza, C. (1996). Achieving superior operating perfor-
mance from integrated pipeline management: An
empirical study. The International Journal of Physi-
cal Distribution and Logistics Management, 26 (9),
3663.
Frohlich, M. T., & Westbrook, R. (2001). Arcs of inte-
gration: An international study of supply chain
strategies. Journal of Operations Management, 19
(2), 185200.
Fynes, B., de Burca, S., & Voss, C. (2005). Supply
chain relationship quality, the competitive envi-
ronment and performance. International Journal of
Production Research, 43 (16), 33033320.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations.
Addison-Wesley.
Germain, R., Davis-Sramek, B., Lonial, S. C., & Raju,
P. S. (2011). The impact of relational supplier
April 2013
exchange on financial performance: A study of the
hospital sector. Journal of Business Logistics, 32 (3),
240253.
Germain, R., & Iyer, K. N. (2006). The interaction of
internal and downstream integration and its asso-
ciation with performance. Journal of Business Logis-
tics, 27 (2), 2952.
Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J. E. M., &
Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation of
meta-analysis practices in management research.
Journal of Management, 35 (2), 393419.
Gimenez, C., & Ventura, E. (2005). Logistics-produc-
tion, logistics-marketing and external integration:
Their impact on performance. International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, 25 (1),
2038.
Golicic, S. L., & Mentzer, J. T. (2005). Exploring the
drivers of interorganizational relationship magni-
tude. Journal of Business Logistics, 26 (2), 4771.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based the-
ory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17,
109122.
Griffith, D. A., Harvey, M. G., & Lusch, R. F. (2006).
Social exchange in supply chain relationships: The
resulting benefits of procedural and distributive jus-
tice. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 8598.
Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2007). Dependence asymme-
try and joint dependence in interorganizational
relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a man-
ufacturers performance in procurement relation-
ships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 3269.
Guo, C., Kumar, A., & Jiraporn, P. (2004). Customer
satisfaction and profitability: Is there a lagged
effect? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 12 (3), 129
144.
Ha, B., Park, Y., & Cho, S. (2011). Suppliers affective
trust and trust in competency in buyers: Its effect
on collaboration and logistics efficiency. Interna-
tional Journal of Operations and Production Manage-
ment, 31 (1), 5677.
Handfield, R. B., Petersen, K., Cousins, P., & Lawson,
B. (2009). An organizational entrepreneurship
model of supply management integration and
performance outcomes. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 29 (2),
100126.
Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential
expenditures on school performance. Educational
Researcher, 18 (4), 4562.
Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Money might matter some-
where: A response to hedges, laine, and green-
wald. Educational Researcher, 23 (4), 58.
Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994a).
Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of
the effects of differential school inputs on student
outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23 (3), 514.
Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994b).
Money does matter somewhere: A response to
Hanushek. Educational Researcher, 23 (4), 910.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for
meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.
49
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
Hill, T. (1994). Manufacturing strategy Text and cases.
Irwin, Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Homburg, C., & Stock, R. M. (2004). The link
between salespeoples job satisfaction and cus-
tomer satisfaction in a business-to-business con-
text: A dyadic analysis. Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, 32 (2), 144158.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The
contributing processes and the literatures. Organi-
zation Science, 2, 88115.
Hult, G. T., Ketchen, D. J., & Slater, S. F. (2004).
Information processing, knowledge development,
and strategic supply chain performance. Academy
of Management Journal, 47 (2), 241253.
Hunt, S. D., & Davis, D. F. (2008). Grounding supply
chain management in resource-advantage theory.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44 (1), 1021.
Hunt, S. D., & Davis, D. F. (2012). Grounding supply
chain management in resource-advantage theory:
In defense of a resource-based view of the firm.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48 (2), 1420.
Hunter, J. E. (2001). Re-inquiries: The desperate need
for replications. Journal of Consumer Research, 28
(2), 149158.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods for
meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods for
meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research
findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). A multi-theo-
retic perspective on trust and power in strategic
supply chains. Journal of Operations Management,
25 (2), 482497.
Iyer, K. N., Germain, R., & Claycomb, V. A. (2009).
B2B e-commerce supply chain integration and
performance: A contingency fit perspective on the
role of environment. Information and Management,
46 (6), 313322.
Jayaram, J., Kannan, V. R., & Tan, K. C. (2004). Influ-
ence of initiators on supply chain value creation.
Journal of Production Research, 42 (20), 4377
4399.
Jayaram, J., & Tan, K. C. (2010). Supply chain integra-
tion with third-party logistics providers. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics, 125, 262
271.
Johnson, J. L. (1999). Strategic integration in indus-
trial distribution channels: Managing the interfirm
relationship as a strategic asset. Journal of the Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, 27 (1), 418.
Johnston, D. A., McCutcheon, D. A., Stuart, F. I., &
Kerwood, H. (2004). Effects of supplier trust on
performance of cooperative supplier relationships.
Journal of Operations Management, 22, 2338.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causation. New
York: John Wiley.
Kim, D., & Cavusgil, E. (2009). The impact of supply
chain integration on brand equity. Journal of Busi-
ness and Industrial Marketing, 24 (7), 496505.
Kim, D., & Lee, R. P. (2010). Systems collaboration
and strategic collaboration: Their impacts on sup-
50 Volume 49, Number 2
ply chain responsiveness and market performance.
Decision Sciences, 41 (4), 955981.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the
firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication
of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383397.
Koufteros, X., Cheng, T. C. E., & Lai, K. H. (2007).
Black-box and gray box supplier integration in
product development: Antecedents, consequences
and the moderating role of firm size. Journal of
Operations Management, 25 (4), 847870.
Koufteros, X., Rawski, G. E., & Rupak, R. (2010).
Organizational integration for product develop-
ment: The effects on glitches, on-time execution
of engineering change orders, and market success.
Decision Sciences, 41 (1), 4980.
Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M., & Jayaram, J. (2005).
Internal and external integration for product
development: The contingency effects of uncer-
tainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Deci-
sion Sciences, 36 (1), 97133.
Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. (2007).
The relationships between supplier development,
commitment, social capital accumulation and per-
formance improvement. Journal of Operations Man-
agement, 25, 528545.
Kulp, S. C., Lee, H. L., & Ofek, E. (2004). Manufac-
turer benefits from information integration with
retail customers. Management Science, 50 (4), 431
444.
Lambert, D. M., & Cooper, M. C. (2000). Issues in
supply chain management. Industrial Marketing
Management, 29 (1), 6583.
Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998).
Supply chain management: Implementation issues
and research opportunities. The International Jour-
nal of Logistics Management, 9 (2), 119.
Lambert, D. M., Emmelhainz, M. A., & Gardner, J. T.
(1996). Developing and implementing supply
chain partnerships. The International Journal of
Logistics Management, 7 (2), 118.
Lau, A. K., Tang, E. P., & Yam, R. C. (2010). Effects of
supplier and customer integration on product
innovation and performance: Empirical evidence
in Hong Kong manufacturers. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 27, 761777.
Lau, A. K., Yam, R. C., & Tang, E. P. (2007). Supply
chain product co-development, product modular-
ity and product performance: Empirical evidence
from Hong Kong manufacturers. Industrial Man-
agement and Data Systems, 107 (7), 10361065.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of inter-
connected firms: An extension of the resource-
based view. Academy of Management Review, 31
(3), 638658.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentia-
tion and integration in complex organizations.
Organizational Science, 12 (1), 147.
Lawson, B., Tyler, B. B., & Cousins, P. D. (2008).
Antecedents and consequences of social capital on
buyer performance improvement. Journal of Opera-
tions Management, 26, 446460.
 A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance
Lee, H. L. (2000). Creating value through supply
chain integration. Supply Chain Management
Review, 4 (4), 3036.
Lee, G. J. (2010). Employee flow as an integrated and
qualitative system: Impact on business-to-business
service quality. Journal of Business-to-Business Mar-
keting, 17, 128.
Lee, C. H., Huang, S. Y., Barnes, F. B., & Kao, L.
(2010). Business performance and customer rela-
tionship management: The effect of IT, organisa-
tional contingency and business process on
Taiwanese manufacturers. Total Quality Manage-
ment, 21 (1), 4365.
Lee, C. W., Kwon, I. W., & Severance, D. (2007). Rela-
tionship between supply chain performance and
degree of linkage among supplier, internal inte-
gration, and customer. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 12 (6), 444452.
Leone, R. P., & Schulz, R. L. (1980). A study of market-
ing generalizations. Journal of Marketing, 44, 1018.
Li, G., Yang, H., Sun, L., & Sohal, A. S. (2009). The
impact of IT implementation on supply chain
integration and performance. International Journal
of Production Economics, 120, 125138.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. (1999). The leveraging
of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organiza-
tional capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic
Management Journal, 20, 317338.
Mackelprang, A. W., & Nair, A. (2010). Relationship
between just-in-time manufacturing practices and
performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Jour-
nal of Operations Management, 28, 283302.
Mackelprang, A. W., Robinson, J. L., & Webb, G. S.
(2012). Supply Chain Integration: A Meta-Analy-
sis and Future Directions. Presented at the CSCMP
Supply Chain Management Educators Conference,
Atlanta, GA.
MacNeil, I. R. (1980). Power, contract, and the eco-
nomic model. Journal of Economic Issues, 14 (4),
909923.
Madhok, A., & Tallman, S. B. (1998). Resources,
transactions and rents: Managing value through
interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization
Science, 9 (3), 326339.
Maloni, M., & Benton, W. C. (2000). Power influences
in the supply chain. Journal of Business Logistics,
21 (1), 4973.
Marn, M. V., & Rosiello, R. L. (1992). Managing
price, gaining profit. Harvard Business Review, 70
(5), 8494.
Mesquita, L. F., Anand, J., & Brush, T. H. (2008). Com-
paring the resource-based and relational views:
Knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alli-
ances. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 913941.
Moberg, C. R., Whipple, T. W., Cutler, B. D., & Speh,
T. W. (2004). Do the management components
of supply chain management affect logistics per-
formance? The International Journal of Logistics
Management, 15 (2), 1530.
April 2013
Mollenkopf, D., & Dapiran, G. P. (2005). The impor-
tance of developing logistics competencies: A
study of Australian and New Zealand firms. Inter-
national Journal of Logistics: Research and Applica-
tions, 8 (1), 114.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commit-
ment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Jour-
nal of Marketing, 58 (3), 2038.
Nair, A. (2006). Meta-analysis of the relationship
between quality management practices and firm
performance Implications for quality manage-
ment theory development. Journal of Operations
Management, 24, 948975.
Nakano, M. (2009). Collaborative forecasting and
planning in supply chains: The impact on perfor-
mance in Japanese manufacturers. The Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 39 (2), 84105.
Narasimhan, R., Jayaram, J., & Carter, J. R. (2001). An
empirical examination of the underlying dimen-
sions of purchasing competence. Production and
Operations Management, 10 (1), 115.
Narasimhan, R., & Kim, S. W. (2002). Effect of supply
chain integration on the relationship between
diversification and performance: Evidence from
Japanese and Korean firms. Journal of Operations
Management, 20 (3), 303323.
Narasimhan, R., & Nair, A. (2005). The antecedent
role of quality, information sharing and supply
chain proximity on strategic alliance formation
and performance. International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics, 96, 301313.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., & Viswanathan, S. (2010).
On decisions for integration implementation: An
examination of complementarities between prod-
uct-process technology integration and supply chain
integration. Decision Sciences, 41 (2), 197227.
Narayanan, S., Jayaraman, V., Luo, Y., & Swamina-
than, J. M. (2011). The antecedents of process
integration in business process outsourcing and
its effect on firm performance. Journal of Opera-
tions Management, 29 (12), 316.
Nyaga, G. N., Whipple, J. M., & Lynch, D. F. (2010).
Examining supply chain relationships: Do buyer
and supplier perspectives on collaborative rela-
tionships differ? Journal of Operations Management,
28, 101114.
Olorunniwo, F. O., & Li, X. (2011). Information shar-
ing and collaboration practices in reverse logistics.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
15 (6), 454462.
Paulraj, A., Lado, A. A., & Chen, I. J. (2008). Inter-
organizational communication as a relational
competency, antecedents and performance out-
comes in collaborative buyersupplier relationships.
Journal of Operations Management, 26 (1), 4564.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the
firm. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive
advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 14 (3), 179191.
51
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as
competitive advantage: A review and empiri-
cal study. Strategic Management Journal, 16 (1), 15
38.
Prahinski, C., & Benton, W. C. (2004). Supplier evalu-
ations: Communication strategies to improve sup-
plier performance. Journal of Operations
Management, 22, 3962.
Priem, R. L., & Swink, M. (2012). A demand-side per-
spective on supply chain management. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 48 (2), 713.
Quesada, G., Rachamadugu, R., Gonzalez, M., & Mar-
tinez, J. L. (2008). Linking order winning and
external supply chain integration strategies. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 13
(4), 296303.
Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., & Seth, N. (2006). Firm per-
formance impacts of digitally-enabled supply
chain integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly, 30
(2), 225246.
Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost
analysis: Past, present, and future applications.
Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 3054.
Rodrigues, A. M., Stank, T. P., & Lynch, D. F. (2004).
Linking strategy, structure, process, and perfor-
mance in integrated logistics. Journal of Business
Logistics, 25, 6594.
Rosenberg, M. S. (2005). The file-drawer problem
revisited: A general weighted method for calculat-
ing fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution,
59 (2), 464468.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The File Drawer Problem and
the tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin,
86 (3), 638641.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for
social research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rosenzweig, E. D., Roth, A. V., & Dean, J. W. (2003).
The influence of an integration strategy on com-
petitive capabilities and business performance: An
exploratory study of consumer products manufac-
turers. Journal of Operations Management, 21, 437
456.
Saeed, K. A., Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (2005).
Examining the impact of interorganizational sys-
tems on process efficiency and sourcing leverage
in buyersupplier dyads. Decision Sciences, 36 (3),
365396.
Sanders, N. R. (2007). An empirical study of the
impact of e-business technologies on organiza-
tional collaboration and performance. Journal of
Operations Management, 25 (6), 13321347.
Sanders, N. R. (2008). Pattern of information
technology use: The impact on buyersuppler
coordination and performance. Journal of Opera-
tions Management, 26 (3), 349367.
Sanders, N. R., & Premus, R. (2005). Modeling the
relationship between firm IT capability, collabora-
tion, and performance. Journal of Business Logistics,
26 (1), 123.
Scannell, T. V., Vickery, S. K., & Droge, C. L. (2000).
Upstream supply chain management and compet-
52 Volume 49, Number 2
itive performance in the automotive supply indus-
try. Journal of Business Logistics, 21 (1), 2348.
Sezen, B. (2008). Relative effects of design, integration
and information sharing on supply chain perfor-
mance. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 13 (3), 233240.
Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining
estimates of effect size. In H. M. Cooper & L. V.
Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis
(pp. 261281). New York: Russell Sage Founda-
tion.
Shin, H., Collier, D. A., & Wilson, D. D. (2000). Sup-
ply management orientation and supplier/buyer
performance. Journal of Operations Management, 18
(3), 317333.
Simatupang, T. M., & Sridharan, R. (2005). Supply
chain discontent. Business Process Management
Journal, 11 (4), 349369.
Squire, B., Cousins, P. D., Lawson, B., & Brown, S.
(2009). Benefiting from suppliers capabilities:
Empirical evidence for the extended resource-
based view of the firm. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 29 (8),
766788.
Stank, T. P., Keller, S. B., & Daugherty, P. J. (2001).
Supply chain collaboration and logistical service
performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 22 (1),
2948.
Stevens, G. C. (1989). Integrating the supply chain.
The International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, 19 (8), 38.
Swink, M., Narasimhan, R., & Wang, C. (2007). Man-
aging beyond the factory walls: Effects of four
types of strategic integration on manufacturing
plant performance. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 25 (1), 148164.
Tai, Y. M., Ho, C. F., & Wu, W. H. (2010). The perfor-
mance impact of implementing web-based e-pro-
curement systems. International Journal of
Production Research, 48 (18), 53975414.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Thun, J. (2010). Angles of integration: An empirical
analysis of the alignment of internet-based infor-
mation technology and global supply chain inte-
gration. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46
(2), 3044.
Van der Vaart, T., & van Donk, D. (2008). A critical
review on survey-based research in supply chain
integration. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics, 111 (1), 4255.
Vereecke, A., & Muylle, S. (2006). Performance
improvement through supply chain collaboration
in Europe. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 26 (11), 11761198.
Vickery, S. K., Jayaram, J., Droge, C., & Calantone, R.
(2003). The effects of an integrative supply chain
strategy on customer service and financial perfor-
mance: An analysis of direct versus indirect rela-
tionships. Journal of Operations Management, 21
(5), 523539.
 A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance

Villena, V. H., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Revilla, E.
(2009). The decision of the supply chain execu-
tive to support or impede supply chain integra-
tion: A multidisciplinary behavioral agency
perspective. Decision Sciences, 40 (4), 635665.
Vlachos, I., & Bourlakis, M. (2006). Supply chain col-
laboration between retailers and manufacturers:
Do they trust each other? Supply Chain Forum, 7
(1), 7081.
Wagner, S. M. (2003). Intensity and managerial scope
of supplier integration. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 39 (4), 415.
Wang, E. T., Tai, J. C., & Wei, H. L. (2006). A virtual
integration theory of improved supply-chain per-
formance. Journal of Management Information Sys-
tems, 23 (2), 4164.
Ward, P. T., McCreery, J. K., Rizman, L. P., & Sharma,
D. (1998). Competitive priorities in operations
management. Decision Sciences, 29 (4), 1035
1046.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). The resource-based view of the
firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2), 171
180.
Wiengarten, F., Humphreys, P., Cao, G., Fynes, B., &
McKittrick, A. (2010). Collaborative supply chain
practices and performance: Exploring the key role
of information quality. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 15 (6), 463473.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchy: Anal-
ysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic
organization: The analysis of discrete structural
alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36
(2), 269296.
Williamson, O. E. (2008). Outsourcing: Transaction
cost economics and supply chain management.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44 (2), 516.
Wong, C. Y., Boon-itt, S., & Wong, C. (2011). The
contingency effects of environmental uncertainty
on the relationship between supply chain integra-
tion and operational performance. Journal of Oper-
ations Management, 29, 604615.
Zacharia, Z. G., Nix, N. W., & Lusch, R. F. (2011).
Capabilities that enhance outcomes of an episodic
supply chain collaboration. Journal of Operations
Management, 29, 591603.
Zhou, H., & Benton, W. C. (2007). Supply chain prac-
tice and information sharing. Journal of Operations
Management, 25, 13481365.
supply chain management, and sustainability. Dr. Le-
uschner also is pursuing studies of the generalizability
of research and replication, with a specific focus on
meta-analysis. His work has appeared in many outlets,
including the Journal of Business Logistics and the Jour-
nal of Supply Chain Management.
Dale S. Rogers (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is
a professor of logistics and supply chain management,
and Co-Director of the Center for Supply Chain Man-
agement, at Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey.
He also serves as the Leader in Sustainability and
Reverse Logistics Practices for ILOS (Instituto de Logis-
tics e Supply Chain) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In
2012, Dr. Rogers became the first academic recipient
of the International Warehouse and Logistics Associa-
tion Distinguished Service Award in its 120-year
history.
Franois F. Charvet (Ph.D., The Ohio State Univer-
sity) is the Logistics Network Strategist for Staples,
Inc. In this role, he is responsible for setting the stra-
tegic direction governing Staples network of fulfill-
ment centers, distribution centers and delivery
organizations. Dr. Charvet currently is leading the
introduction of network optimization tools and pro-
moting analytics-driven methods to support strategic
supply chain design initiatives at Staples. Prior to join-
ing the private sector, Dr. Charvet was an assistant
professor of supply chain management at Northeast-
ern University. He has published the results of his
research into supply chain analytics, supply chain
integration and collaboration, and logistics customer
service in outlets that include the Journal of Business
Logistics, the Journal of Supply Chain Management, and
Supply Chain Forum.

Rudolf Leuschner (Ph.D., The Ohio State Univer-

sity) is an assistant professor in the Department of
Supply Chain Management and Marketing Sciences at
Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey. His
research interests include logistics customer service,

April 2013 53
54
APPENDIX A
List of Samples and Articles

Sample Article Author(s) Journal Year Sample Size Min r Max r Mean r No. of rs
1 1 Vickery, S. K., Jayaram, J., Droge, C., JOM 2003 57 0.01 0.58 0.31 12
Calantone, R.
2 Droge, C., Jayaram, J., JOM 2004
Vickery, S. K.
3 Scannell, T. V., Vickery, JBL 2000
S. K., Droge, C. L.
2 4 Johnston, D. A., McCutcheon, D. A., JOM 2004 164 0.30 0.43 0.36 6
Stuart, F. I., Kerwood, H.
3 5 Bagchi, P. K., Skjoett-Larsen, T. IJLM 2005 149 0.08 0.19 0.13 16
4 6 Benton, W. C., Maloni, M. JOM 2005 180 0.34 0.86 0.59 3
7 Maloni, M., Benton, W. C. JBL 2000
5 8 Carr, A. S., Pearson, J. N. JOM 1999 739 0.40 0.40 0.40 1
6 9 Chen, I. J., Paulraj, A. JOM 2004 221 0.04 0.27 0.16 6
Lado, A. A.
7 10 Corsten, D., Felde, J. IJPDLM 2005 135 0.02 0.40 0.22 3
8 11 Cousins, P. D., Handfield, JOM 2006 111 0.35 0.62 0.46 11
R. B., Lawson, B.,
Petersen, K. J.

Volume 49, Number 2

12 Lawson, B., Tyler, B. B., JOM 2008
Cousins, P. D.
9 13 Cousins, P. D., Lawson, B. BJM 2007 142 0.14 0.65 0.42 10
Journal of Supply Chain Management

14 Cousins, P. D. Menguc, B. JOM 2006

10 15 Dong, Y., Carter, C. R., JOM 2001 124 0.50 0.50 0.50 1
Dresner, M. E.
11 15 Dong, Y., Carter, C. R., JOM 2001 131 0.18 0.18 0.18 1
Dresner, M. E.
12 16 Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., JOM 2010 617 0.22 0.46 0.33 6
Zhao, X.
13 17 Fynes, B., de Burca, IJPR 2005 200 0.28 0.28 0.28 1
S., Voss, C.
14 18 Germain, R., Iyer, K. N. JBL 2006 152 0.00 0.55 0.24 7
19 Iyer, K. N, Germain, R., IM 2009
Claycomb, V. A.
15 20 Golicic, S. L., Mentzer, J. T. JBL 2006 322 0.75 0.82 0.79 2
 1 (Continued).
Appendix A (Continued).
Sample Article Author(s) Journal Year Sample Size Min r Max r Mean r No. of rs
16 21 Jayaram, J., Kannan, IJPR 2004 527 0.08 0.23 0.16 2
V. R., Tan, K. C.
17 22 Johnson, J. L. JAMS 1999 160 0.21 0.27 0.24 3
18 23 Krause, D. R., Handfield, JOM 2007 370 0.09 0.37 0.28 8
R. B., Tyler, B. B.
19 24 Moberg, C. R., Whipple, IJLM 2004 249 0.11 0.48 0.24 14
T. W., Cutler, B. D., Speh, T. W.
20 25 Narasimhan, R., Kim, S. W. JOM 2002 379 0.08 0.17 0.11 9
21 25 Narasimhan, R., Kim, S. W. JOM 2002 244 0.03 0.16 0.09 9
22 26 Narasimhan, R., Jayaram, J., POM 2001 179 0.28 0.28 0.28 1
Carter, J. R.
23 27 Narasimhan, R., Nair, A. IJPE 2005 228 0.29 0.71 0.50 2
24 28 Prahinski, C., Benton, W. C. JOM 2004 139 0.23 0.25 0.24 2
25 29 Sanders, N. R., Premus, R. JBL 2005 245 0.24 0.37 0.31 2
26 30 Shin, H., Collier, D. A., JOM 2000 176 0.20 0.53 0.33 4
Wilson, D. D.

April 2013
27 31 Stank, T. P., Keller, S. B., JBL 2001 306 0.32 0.38 0.35 2
Daugherty, P. J.
28 32 Swink, M., Narasimhan, JOM 2007 224 0.05 0.29 0.14 12
R., Wang, C.
29 33 Hult, G. T., Ketchen, D. J., AMJ 2004 58 0.36 0.55 0.23 8
Slater, S. F.
A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance

30 34 Rosenzweig, E. D., Roth, A. JOM 2003 238 0.17 0.32 0.27 7

V., Dean, J. W.
31 35 Paulraj, A., Lado, A. A., JOM 2008 221 0.21 0.28 0.23 4
Chen, I. J.
32 36 Deveraj, S., Krajewski, L., JOM 2007 120 0.05 0.40 0.17 2
Wei, J. C.
33 37 Li, G., Yang, H., Sun, L., IJPE 2009 182 0.78 0.90 0.84 2
Sohal, A. S.
34 38 Carr, A. S., Kaynak, H. IJOPM 2007 223 0.07 0.31 0.19 10

55
56
1 (Continued).
Appendix A (Continued).
Sample Article Author(s) Journal Year Sample Size Min r Max r Mean r No. of rs
39 Carr, A. S., Kaynak, H, IJMTM 2008
Muthusamy, S.
35 40 Quesada, G., SCM 2008 646 0.04 0.20 0.10 15
Rachamadugu,
R., Gonzalez, M.,
Martinez, J. L.
36 41 Sezen, B. SCM 2008 125 0.12 0.35 0.27 6
37 42 Wong, C. Y., Boon-itt, S., JOM 2011 151 0.23 0.46 0.38 12
Wong, C.
38 43 Frohlich, M. T., JOM 2002 485 0.44 0.45 0.45 2
Westbrook, R.,
39 44 Boon-Itt, S., Paul, H. MRN 2006 28 0.27 0.50 0.24 15
40 45 Braunscheidel, M. J., JOM 2009 218 0.08 0.52 0.31 12
Suresh, N. C.
46 Braunscheidel, M. J., HRM 2010
Suresh, N. C.,
Boisnier, A. D.
41 47 Lau, A. K., Yam, R. C., IMDS 2007 251 0.07 0.24 0.17 11
Tang, E. P.
48 Lau, A. K., Tang, E. P., JPIM 2010

Volume 49, Number 2

Yam, R. C.
42 49 Kim, D., Cavusgil, E. JBIM 2009 184 0.31 0.42 0.37 2
43 50 Villena, V. H., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., DS 2009 133 0.16 0.22 0.19 2
Journal of Supply Chain Management

Revilla, E.
44 51 Mollenkopf, D., Dapiran, G. P. IJLRA 2005 194 0.16 0.25 0.21 10
45 52 Squire, B., Cousins, P. D., IJOPM 2009 104 0.04 0.04 0.04 1
Lawson, B., Brown, S.
46 53 Vlachos, I., Bourlakis, M. SCFIJ 2006 97 0.18 0.43 0.31 2
47 54 Wang, E. T., Tai, J. C., JMIS 2006 149 0.19 0.32 0.26 2
Wei, H. L.
48 55 Sanders, N. R. JOM 2008 241 0.21 0.34 0.28 8
49 56 Narayanan, S., Jayaraman, V., JOM 2011 205 0.60 0.64 0.62 2
Luo, Y., Swaminathan, J. M.
50 57 Olorunniwo, F. O., Li, X. SCM 2010 65 0.30 0.66 0.47 4
51 58 Wiengarten, F., Humphreys, P., SCM 2010 153 0.15 0.53 0.33 3
Cao, G. Fynes, B., McKittrick, A.
 Appendix A (Continued).
1 (Continued).
Sample Article Author(s) Journal Year Sample Size Min r Max r Mean r No. of rs
52 59 Gimenez, C., Ventura, E. IJOPM 2005 64 0.29 0.73 0.50 3
53 60 Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., Seth, N. MISQ 2006 110 0.04 0.40 0.24 12
54 61 Lee, C. H., Huang, S. Y., TQM 2010 132 0.34 0.39 0.37 2
Barnes, F. B., Kao, L.
55 62 Jayaram, J., Tan, K. C. IJPE 2010 411 0.28 0.28 0.28 1
56 63 Lee, G. J. JBBM 2010 170 0.37 0.37 0.37 1
57 64 Tai, Y. M., Ho, C. F., Wu, W. H. IJPR 2010 137 0.42 0.42 0.42 1
58 65 Cao, M., Vonderembse, M. A., IJPR 2010 211 0.69 0.69 0.69 1
Zhang, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T. S.
59 66 Zacharia, Z. G., Nix, N. W., Lusch, R. F. JOM 2011 473 0.54 0.62 0.58 2
60 67 Ha, B., Park, Y., Cho, S. IJOPM 2011 265 0.15 0.73 0.37 3
61 68 Nakano, M. IJPDLM 2009 65 0.53 0.70 0.62 3
62 69 Vereecke, A., Muylle, S. IJOPM 2006 374 0.06 0.31 0.15 24
63 70 Closs, D. J., Savitskie, K. IJLM 2003 306 0.08 0.45 0.24 3
64 71 Dabhilkar, M., Bengtsson, L., JPSM 2009 136 0.06 0.31 0.09 9
von Haartman, R., Ahlstro, P.

April 2013
65 72 Eltantawy, R. A., Giunipero, L., Fox, G. L. IMM 2009 152 0.72 0.72 0.72 1
66 73 Koufteros, X., Rawski, G. E., Rupak, R. DS 2010 191 0.11 0.16 0.14 3
67 74 Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M., Jayaram, J. DS 2005 244 0.03 0.38 0.19 9
68 75 Chen, H., Daugherty, P. J., Roath, A. S. JBL 2009 124 0.58 0.69 0.64 2
69 76 Chen, H., Tian, Y., Ellinger, A. E., Daugherty, P. J. JBL 2010 124 0.43 0.43 0.43 1
70 77 Lee, C. W., Kwon, I. W., Severance, D. SCM 2007 122 0.54 0.61 0.58 6
A Meta-Analysis of SCI and Firm Performance

71 78 Nyaga, G. N., Whipple, J. M., Lynch, D. F. JOM 2010 370 0.30 0.35 0.33 2
72 78 Nyaga, G. N., Whipple, J. M., Lynch, D. F. JOM 2010 255 0.43 0.49 0.46 2
73 79 Griffith, D. A., Harvey, M. G., Lusch, R. F. JOM 2006 290 0.17 0.23 0.20 2
74 80 Gulati, R., Sytch, M. ASQ 2007 151 0.18 0.60 0.40 3
75 81 Handfield, R. B., Petersen, K., Cousins, P., Lawson, B. IJOPM 2009 151 0.13 0.51 0.31 4
76 82 Germain, R. Davis-Sramek, B., Lonial, S. C., Raju, P. S. JBL 2011 175 0.10 0.10 0.10 1
77 83 Zhou, H., Benton, W. C. JOM 2006 125 0.28 0.36 0.32 2
78 84 Rodrigues, A. M., Stank, T. P., Lynch, D. F. JBL 2004 284 0.34 0.48 0.42 3
79 85 Mesquita, L. F., Anand, J., Brush, T. H. SMJ 2008 253 0.31 0.31 0.31 1
80 86 Forza, C. IJPDLM 1996 43 0.17 0.28 0.22 4

57