International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

Supply chain integration improves performance: the Emperor's new suit?

Nathalie Fabbe-Costes Marianne Jahre
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nathalie Fabbe-Costes Marianne Jahre, (2007),"Supply chain integration improves performance: the
Emperor's new suit?", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 37 Iss 10
pp. 835 - 855
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030710848941
Downloaded on: 22 October 2014, At: 02:49 (PT)
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2883 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Matthew Waller # one of the usual editors, Nathalie Fabbe#Costes, Marianne Jahre, (2008),"Supply chain
integration and performance: a review of the evidence", The International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 19 Iss 2 pp. 130-154
Cristina Gimenez, Taco van der Vaart, Dirk Pieter van Donk, (2012),"Supply chain integration and
performance: the moderating effect of supply complexity", International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 32 Iss 5 pp. 583-610
Paul Hong, David Dobrzykowski, Young Won Park, Dag Näslund, Hana Hulthen, (2012),"Supply chain
management integration: a critical analysis", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 4/5 pp.
481-501

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 198285 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

Supply chain
Supply chain integration integration
improves performance: the
Emperor’s new suit?
835
Nathalie Fabbe-Costes
Centre de REcherche sur le Transport et la LOGistique,
Université de la Méditerranée-Aix-Marseille II,
Aix-en-Provence Cedex, France, and
Marianne Jahre
Department of Strategy and Logistics,
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

Norwegian School of Management (BI), Oslo, Norway

Abstract
Purpose – In the literature authors state that there is a positive relation between supply chain
integration (SCI) and performance. They claim that this relation is widely discussed and supported
empirically. Other authors, however, suggest that integration might be more difficult in practice than in
theory, that it should be differentiated and that it is more rhetoric than reality. As integration has been
core of logistics and supply chain management since the 1980s, the purpose of this paper is to investigate
these somewhat contradictory statements and analyse prior studies regarding definitions and measures
of integration and performance as well as the reported empirical evidence on their relation.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on an extensive and systematic review of integration
articles within four highly ranked academic journals in logistics, supply chain and operations
management, this paper presents and discusses the results of prior empirical studies on relations
between integration and performance.
Findings – The analysis of the relevant articles indicates that empirical evidence cannot permit to
clearly conclude and that integration as well as performance is defined, operationalised and measured
in different and often limited ways. This might be a problem and the paper concludes with a provoking
question of whether SCI might be the Emperors’ New Suit of business.
Originality/value – The paper’s departure point is a controversial hypothesis: the contribution of
SCI is not as obvious as logistics and supply chain researchers usually think. The rigorous selection
and analysis of previous studies contributes with systematic knowledge within an important question.
Keywords Supply chain management, Integration, Performance levels
Paper type Literature review

Introduction and purpose

Many years ago there lived an emperor who was quite an average fairy tale ruler, with one
exception: he cared much about his clothes. One day he heard from two swindlers named
Guido and Luigi Farabutto that they could make the finest suit of clothes from the most
beautiful cloth. This cloth, they said, also had the special capability that it was invisible to
anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management
Being a bit nervous about whether he himself would be able to see the cloth, the emperor Vol. 37 No. 10, 2007
first sent two of his trusted men to see it. Of course, neither would admit that they could not pp. 835-855
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
see the cloth and so praised it. All the townspeople had also heard of the cloth and were 0960-0035
interested to learn how stupid their neighbors were. DOI 10.1108/09600030710848941
 IJPDLM The emperor then allowed himself to be dressed in the clothes for a procession through
town, never admitting that he was too unfit and stupid to see what he was wearing. For he
37,10 was afraid that the other people would think that he was stupid.
Of course, all the townspeople wildly praised the magnificent clothes of the emperor, afraid
to admit that they could not see them, until a small child said:
But he has nothing on!
This was whispered from person to person until everyone in the crowd was shouting that
836 the emperor had nothing on. The emperor heard it and felt that they were correct, but held his
head high and finished the procession’ (Hans Christian Andersen, 1837, http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/The_Emperor’s_New_Clothes).
The paper takes this little, but famous, story as a starting point for a discussion on
supply chain integration (SCI) and performance. What is the point of the story in
relation to our paper? One is that just because everyone believes something – here that
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

SCI gives better performance – it does not have to be true. Another is that there is no
such thing as a “stupid” question, e.g. such as the one we pose here – does SCI really
give better performance? – To gain knowledge. The somewhat contradictory
statements identified in the literature constitute the background to this question. On
the one hand, papers conclude that integration improves performance, e.g. Cagliano
et al. (2006, p. 284) who claim that “supply chain integration has been widely discussed
and supported on an empirical basis: many studies confirm that the higher the level of
integration the higher the operational and business performance of a firm”. This is in
line with other papers from 2000 onwards discussing SCI and performance (Stock et al.,
2000; Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Droge et al., 2004; Gimenez and Ventura, 2005).
On the other hand, it has been suggested that integration might be more difficult in
practice than in theory (Christopher and Jüttner, 2000; Harvard Business Review, 2003;
Power, 2005), that integration should be differentiated (Bask and Juga, 2001; Jahre and
Fabbe-Costes, 2005) and that integration is more rhetoric than reality (Fawcett and
Magnan, 2002).
As integration has been core of logistics and supply chain management since the
1980s, we find it interesting to go into this question and analyse prior studies regarding
definitions and measures of integration and performance and scrutinize the empirical
evidence that is reported on the relation between the two variables. Based on an
extensive review of integration articles within four highly ranked academic journals in
logistics, supply chain and operations management, this paper presents and discusses
the results of prior research on SCI and performance.
According to Gimenez and Ventura (2005, p. 21) prior performance studies can be
classified in three groups according to whether they study the relation between internal
SCI and performance, between external SCI and performance or both types of SCI with
regards to performance. In this paper, we focus on studies including external integration,
i.e. the two latter. The paper is structured as followed. First we present the research
design of the study including what and how papers have been selected and classified.
Then, our results with regards to definitions and measures used for independent (SCI)
and dependent (performance) variables are discussed, as well as main results with
regards to relations between SCI and performance as they are reported in the studies.
The discussion highlights main issues related to our research and findings. Finally, we
conclude and make suggestions for further research.
 Research design Supply chain
Here, research design for our study concerning the selection and classification of integration
papers is presented. In particular, we describe the framework for classification of SCI
and performance papers.

Selection of papers to be analysed

Our research is based on an extensive literature review of supply chain and logistics 837
integration (the two often being considered as synonymous). Using the keywords
“logistics integration” and/or “supply chain integration” in combination with
“framework” or “model” we started with a broad search within academic journals in
logistics, supply chain and operations management using Business Source Premier,
Emerald Management Xtra, EBSCO Host, Science Direct (Elsevier) and ISI Web of
Knowledge. The search came out with a large number of articles, from which we made a
choice. Based on a systematic review, considering that we wanted journals from
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

operations management as well as supply chain management, we ended up selecting

four journals which had published a significant amount of papers on this topic (see
“integration papers” rows in Table I), including:
(1) International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications (IJL-RA);
(2) International Journal of Operations & Production Management (IJOPM);
(3) International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
(IJPDLM);
(4) Journal of Operation Management (JOM).

Selected journals and years 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total (percent)

IJL-RA
Total number of papers 18 17 17 22 23 23 27 160
Integration papers 3 4 1 1 1 3 3 16 (10a)
Integration/performance 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 (18,75b)
IJOPM
Total number of papers 74 82 72 66 59 63 54 482
Integration papers 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 16 (3.32)
Integration/performance 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 (25)
IJPDLM
Total number of papers 53 41 47 42 46 42 43 332
Integration papers 3 4 2 4 3 2 5 23 (6.96)
Integration/performance 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 (13)
JOM
Total number of papers 30 37 39 22 35 36 49 261
Integration papers 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 16 (6.13)
Integration/performance 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 9 (56.25)
Total for four journals
Total number of papers 175 177 175 152 163 164 173 1,235
Integration papers 8 12 7 10 8 11 15 71 (5.75)
Integration/performance 3 2 2 3 1 4 4 19 (26.7)
Table I.
Notes: aPercentage calculated as share of total number of papers published; bPercentage calculated as Results from the selection
share of number of integration papers process
 IJPDLM We used journal rankings to support this selection. Considering OM journals, JCR
37,10 impact factor 2003 for JOM was 1.795. For IJOPM it was 0.547. Considering logistics
and supply chain management journals, IJPDLM and IJL-RA are in the EU top five in
Gibson et al. (2004) and in the Cranfield School of Management (2004) ranking. Harzing
(2007) provides a synthesis of the ranking of these four journals that can be considered
as “highly ranked and major refereed international journals” in our domain.
838 With basis in this selection, we made a systematic search for articles published
between 2000 and 2006 that adhered to the following criteria:
.
the word “integration” had to be included in the title, the key words and/or the
abstract; and
.
the word “logistics” and/or “supply chain” had to be included in the title, the key
words and/or the abstract.
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

Our search came out with 71 articles from a total of 1,235 published in these journals
between 2000 and 2006. We then read the 71 papers and selected all papers reporting
on empirical studies or discussing relations between supply chain and/or logistics
integration (noted as SCI in this paper) and performance as basis for our analysis.
In total, 19 papers were analysed in depth (the distribution of articles in the four
journals are listed in Table I), with basis in four points:
(1) the way supply chain and/or logistics integration was defined and/or measured;
(2) the way performance was defined and/or measured;
(3) type of relations found between SCI and performance; and
(4) the “answer” given regarding our key question: “Does SCI improve performance?”

As shown in Table II, the 19 papers that were selected are quite different in terms of
research approach. Four categories of papers emerge. The largest group comprises
classical hypothesis-testing deductive papers with formulation of hypotheses,
development of a model based on a literature review, and testing of the model with
basis in data collected through a survey. The second consists of papers also based on
surveys and statistics but which do not explicitly presents hypotheses or models for
testing. In accordance with discussions by Mentzer and Kahn (1995) and Sachan and
Datta (2005) on hypothesis testing we decided to classify these survey-based papers in
two different groups. The third category concerns papers based on case studies or
illustrations and which only discuss concepts and their relations on a qualitative basis.
Finally, we identified one paper based on mathematical simulations. It might
be interesting to note that 79 percent of the articles are quantitative, which may be
considered quite normal taking into account our topic on “linking SCI and performance”.
The overall empirical base of the papers is quite international: five papers are based
on empirical studies of firms from the USA, three papers have a broad and mixed
international base, three papers report on evidence from Australia (combined with
New Zealand in two of them), two papers concern Japan and Korea, two papers are
based on studies of firms from the UK, whereas the remaining papers deal one each
with firms from Italia, Malaysia, Spain or Sweden.
For the purpose of analysis and discussion, papers are systematically classified
with basis in a framework developed from prior literature on supply chain and logistics
integration (Fabbe-Costes and Jahre, 2006). The variety of ways independent and
 Supply chain
Number of papers
References (percent)a integration
Problematisation based on McMichael et al. (IJPDLM, 2000) 4 (21.05)
case studies or illustrations Forza et al. (IJL-RA, 2000)
Hertz (IJL-RA, 2001)
Loi (IJOPM, 2004) 839
Surveys (statistics) Frohlich and Westbrook (JOM, 2001) 4 (21.05)
Trent and Monczka (IJPDLM, 2003)
Mollenkopf and Dapiran (IJL-RA, 2005a, b)
Mollenkopf and Dapiran (IJPDLM, 2005a, b)
Model tested (surveys with Stock et al. (JOM, 2000) 10 (52.6)
hypothesis testing) Frohlich and Westbrook (JOM, 2002)
Narasimhan and Kim (JOM, 2002)
Rosenzweig et al. (JOM, 2003)
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

Vickery et al. (JOM, 2003)

Gimenez and Ventura (IJOPM, 2005)
Cousins and Menguc (JOM, 2006)
Kim (IJOPM, 2006)
Swink et al. (JOM, 2007)
Vachon and Klassen (IJOPM, 2006)
Simulation Sahin and Robinson (JOM, 2005) 1 (5.3)
Total number of papers 19 (100) Table II.
Research approaches in
Note: aPercentage calculated as share of total number of integration/performance papers (n ¼ 19) the selected papers

dependent variables, i.e. SCI and performance, are defined in studies are presented in
the next section. Articles were classified individually by the researchers and checked
for coherence, discrepancies being discussed and solved. Results were fed into an Excel
worksheet and a database developed in FilemakerPro.

An integrative framework for classification of studies

The multi-dimensional framework presented was developed with basis in an iterative
approach, moving between the evolving framework and the 71 articles on supply chain
and logistics integration identified in the review as reported above. The resulting
framework (Table III), that also includes classification of performance, is based on
three overall dimensions of SCI including layers, scopes and degrees of integration.
Layers of integration. Papers define supply chain and/or logistics integration with
basis in what aspects, i.e. layers, are or have to be integrated. Four intertwined layers
of integration can be outlined including integration of flows (physical, information,
financial), integration of processes and activities, integration of technologies and
systems and integration of actors (structures and organizations). All papers were
analysed with regards to the number and what layers were included. The papers differ
with regards to whether they are explicit or more implicit on the layers they consider.
We have chosen to take also implicit inclusion into consideration. An important point
concerns papers with a quantitative approach that measure integration. We noticed
that a number of papers has a gap between the discussion of integration in the
beginning (for example in the literature review) and the measures of integration
included in the analysis and hypothesis testing, with the latter being based on fewer
layers and a limited number of operational measures. For these papers, we choose to
 IJPDLM Coded elements Discussion Measure
37,10
Layers considered in SCI
Flows (physical, For each layer, yes (no) if it is For each layer, yes (no) if it is
informational, financial) included (or not) in SCI discussion included (or not) in SCI measure
Processes and activities
Systems and technologies
840 Actors (structures and
organizations)
Scope of SCI Five possible codes depending on Five possible codes depending on
scope discussed þ code if internal scope of SCI measure þ code if
integration is included internal integration is included
Degree of SCI Mono or multi depending on the Mono or multi depending on the
number of dimensions included in number of dimensions included in
explicit or implicit SCI discussion SCI measure
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

Performance Nature of performance discussed If performance is measured,

Table III. number and nature of items
Synthesis of our Link between SCI and Can be explicitly or implicitly If link between SCI and
integrative classification performance discussed, assessing that “the more performance is tested, what is the
framework is the better” or not result?

code what was discussed as well as what was measured because this is of importance
for the analysis and discussion.
Scopes of integration. The second important dimension that was included in the
framework is the scope of integration, i.e. nature and number of organizations or
participants included in the “integrated supply chain”. As pointed out in prior papers,
the scope of integration can vary (Harland, 1996; Mentzer et al., 2001; Jahre and
Fabbe-Costes, 2005). The following scopes were included:
.
Limited dyadic downstream: integration between the focal company and its
customers.
. Limited dyadic upstream: integration between the focal company and its suppliers.
.
Limited dyadic: integration between the focal company and its customers on the
one hand and with its suppliers on the other (i.e. both ways, but separately).
.
Limited triadic: integration of suppliers – focal company – customers (without
differentiating upstream and downstream relationships).
.
Extended: integration between more than three parties along the supply chain,
e.g. includes customers’ customers, suppliers’ suppliers or other stakeholders.

It is important to note that we eliminated the pure intra-organizational papers (only

dealing with internal supply chains or what is also often termed logistics integration).
It is interesting to note that some papers only consider external integration while
others take both internal and external integration into account. Similarly as for the
layers dimension, quantitative papers often include wider scopes in their discussion
compared to what they include in their measurements and hence their empirical
analysis. Again we coded papers both aspects.
Degrees of SCI. The third and final dimension of SCI included in the framework is the
degree of SCI. Our research question being “does more SCI leads to higher performance?”
 it is necessary to understand how this “more” is measured. As discussed above, SCI is a Supply chain
multidimensional concept, i.e. a composite of layers and scopes. Based on the literature integration
review and the analysis of articles included in the development of the framework, we
chose to make a distinction between the papers that discuss degree of SCI as being
multi-dimensional, i.e. SCI is discussed/measured for different layers and/or scopes or
different levels/layers for different actors (i.e. coded “multi”) and the papers that consider
it is uni-dimensional (i.e. coded “mono”). In some papers the degree of integration is not 841
explicitly mentioned and discussed, but can be interpreted as either “mono” or “multi”.
These papers are then coded “implicitly mono” and “implicitly multi”. As for layers and
scopes, there are differences in the quantitative papers between what is discussed and
what is measured, thus we coded both.
Performance. Performance is important in management sciences and business
administration. A search in EBSCO-Business Source Complete identified 705
peer-reviewed articles with a combination of performance and supply chain
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

management in the title, abstract and/or keywords. Many authors discuss problems
and challenges regarding performance definitions and measurements. In their literature
study of definitions and measures of logistics performance, Chow et al. (1994)
conclude that performance is a complex concept in logistics because of the multiple
goals. Some studies (Lynch et al., 2000) link logistics competencies and capabilities to
overall strategic firm performance, measured as net profit margins, return on assets,
return on investment, overall competitive position and general profitability. Hence, the
focus is on financial measures. Other studies (Stank et al., 2001) consider performance to
be a mix of operational (including marketing and logistics performance indicators) and
financial. In line with this, we analysed papers with regards to the number and the type
of performance measures included in the empirical studies as well as how the data were
retrieved, i.e. whether it is actual performance or perceptions by respondents filling out a
questionnaire. In addition, we reviewed the articles as to whose performance was
included, i.e. at the level of the supply chain, the firm or others (e.g. at plant level).
SCI related to performance. Our research question is “does more SCI leads to higher
performance?”. Hence, we are interested in what prior research explicitly or implicitly
discuss with regards to relations between SCI and performance and what empirical
evidence is given. As presented above, SCI is a multidimensional concept. Hence, in line
with the preceding discussion we analysed how the combination of dimensions is proved
to improve performance or not. Important to note is that again there are gaps between
what is discussed and what is measured. Hence, papers were coded on both these aspects.

Analysis of definitions and measures in the studies

This section presents the results from the analysis of the 19 papers (see Appendix for
details). First, we discuss how integration is defined and measured including layers,
scopes and degree. Convergences and divergences are identified. Second, we present
the results from the analysis of the performance measures included in the studies.
Finally, we give an overview of the papers with regards to the results of the relation
between integration and performance.

Defining and measuring supply chain integration

The layers dimension. All papers except one (Kim, 2006) include the flows and
processes/activities layers in their discussion of SCI. With regards to the actor layer,
 IJPDLM 16 of the 19 papers include it. The systems and technologies layer is the one with most
37,10 divergence between the papers. For example, in four of the papers this is not even
mentioned. Given the interest in ICT-systems and new technologies in logistics and
supply chain management, we find this somewhat surprising. The majority of papers
(13, i.e. 68.4 percent) consider that integration consists of all four layers. Further, some
papers clearly point out the relationship between the layers (McMichael et al., 2000;
842 Forza et al., 2000; Hertz, 2001).
There are differences in the quantitative papers with regards to what layers they
include in the discussion and what they include in the measures of SCI. With basis in
these papers, it is interesting to note that 12 articles (63 percent)[1] explicitly measure
logistics or SCI. There is no difference between the discussions and the measures
concerning the processes layer. With regards to the actor layer there is only one paper
discussing it that does not measure it. However, there are more differences for the flows
and systems layers. Whereas 11 papers discuss the flows layer, only seven include it in
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

the measurement of SCI. Further, of the ten papers that discuss systems layers, only
seven include it in the measure. This reinforces the findings of SCI discussion
mentioned above with regards to systems and technologies. The consensus on flows in
the discussions is not confirmed in measurements, which also is surprising. Finally, we
can notice that of the 12 papers measuring SCI there are eight papers that include all
four layers in their SCI discussion, but only five that include them all in their
measurement. It is also worth mentioning that these 12 papers use Likert-scales for
measuring SCI distributed on 1-10 (one paper), 1-7 (six papers) and 1-5 (eight papers)
scales. From our analysis we can conclude that the majority of papers use a multiple
approach when measuring the content, i.e. layers, of SCI.
The scope dimension. With regards to discussion of the scope dimension (Table IV),
68.4 percent of the papers we have analysed are limited to the first tier of partners in
the chain, the majority including both customers and suppliers (two papers are
restricted to only customers or suppliers). Further, the majority of the 19 papers
(68.4 percent) combine external and internal integration.
It is interesting to note that of the papers considering an extended scope, only two
are quantitative. Of the selected papers, 13 measure SCI. With regards to differences in
the quantitative papers on discussion and measurements, there are only three papers
that measure a narrower scope compared to what they discuss (Mollenkopf and
Dapiran, 2005b; Gimenez and Ventura, 2005; Cousins and Menguc, 2006). There is only
one paper that measures extended scope (Rosenzweig et al., 2003). Hence, we can
conclude that among all the papers there are big variations regarding the scope, but
when it comes to the quantitative papers they are quite consistent with regard to
measuring only limited parts of the supply chain (perhaps not so surprising due to the
methodological constraints in quantitative research) and to combining external and
internal integration in SCI measure.
The degree of SCI. In Table V we see that there is no agreement on whether to use a
multi or a mono dimension for degree of SCI even if a majority of papers discusses a
multi-approach (61.2 percent). Concerning the mono-dimension papers all but one
(Rosenzweig et al., 2003) use a limited scope when defining SCI.
Further, compared to layers, the difference between what is discussed and what is
measured is small. Among the 13 papers that measure SCI only two (Vickery et al.,
2003; Cousins and Menguc, 2006) are not coherent: they use mono-measures while
 Supply chain
Scopes of Papers including
integration in Papers including external and Nb (percentage integration
SCI discussion only external scope internal scope of total)a

Limited dyadic Sahin and Robinson (2005) 1 (5.3)

downstream
Limited dyadic Trent and Monczka (2003) 1 (5.3) 843
upstream
Limited dyadic Vachon and Klassen (2006) Cousins and Menguc (2006), 4 (21)
(with both Swink et al. (2007) and
suppliers and Narasimhan and Kim (2002)
customers)
Limited triadic Frohlich and Westbrook Kim (2006), Mollenkopf and 7 (36.8)
(2001, 2002) Dapiran (2005a, b),
Stock et al. (2000)
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

and Vickery et al. (2003)

Extended McMichael et al. (2000) and Forza et al. (2000), 6 (31.6)
Hertz (2001) Gimenez and Ventura (2005),
Loi (2004) and
Rosenzweig et al. (2003)
Total number of 6 (31.6) 13 (68.4) 19 (100)
papers (percent)b
Table IV.
Notes: aPercentage calculated as share of total number of integration/performance papers (n ¼ 19); Scopes considered in the
b
Percentage calculated as share of total number of papers discussing degree dimension (n ¼ 18) selected papers

Nature of degree in SCI Number of paper

discussion (percent)a Paper

Implicitly mono dimension 1 (5.5) Mollenkopf and Dapiran (2005a)

Mono dimension 6 (33.3) Stock et al. (2000), Frohlich and Westbrook (2001,
2002), Rosenzweig et al. (2003), Trent and
Monczka (2003) and Kim (2006)
Implicitly multi dimension 3 (16.7) Forza et al. (2000), Hertz (2001) and Loi, 2004
Multi dimension 8 (44.5) Narasimhan and Kim (2002), Gimenez and
Ventura (2005), Sahin and Robinson (2005),
Mollenkopf and Dapiran (2005b), Vickery et al.
(2003), Vachon and Klassen (2006), Cousins and
Menguc (2006) and Swink et al. (2007)
Total number of papersb 18 papers
Table V.
a
Note: Percentage calculated as share of total number of papers discussing degree dimension (n ¼ 18); Degree of integration
b
There is one paper, McMichael et al. (2000) that does not discuss degree. Hence, it was not possible to considered in the selected
classify regarding degree and we have thus excluded it from this part of the analysis papers

discussing multi-degree SCI. It is interesting to notice that among the papers

measuring SCI, a majority use a mono-degree measure (61.5 percent), which is the
opposite result compared to what is in discussion (Table V). We also find it interesting
that the papers using a multi degree measure of SCI are recent (Narasimhan and Kim,
2002; Mollenkopf and Dapiran, 2005b; Gimenez and Ventura, 2005; Vachon and
Klassen, 2006; Swink et al., 2007).
 IJPDLM Defining and measuring performance
37,10 Concerning this point we posed two questions in our analysis. First, is performance
clearly defined and in that case, how? Second, if performance is measured, how is it
measured? With regards to question two (on which we focused), some papers limit
performance to logistics/supply chain whereas others have a wider approach with a
mix of operational logistics or supply chain and financial performance (e.g. Kim, 2006
844 uses 13 items) and three papers use pure financial performance, i.e. do not include
logistics/supply chain indicators. Implicitly, all papers (that measure performance)
except three only deal with performance of the firm, i.e. the company within which
respondents work. Accordingly, only three of the papers we have analysed use any
form of inter-organizational measures of performance. Table VI gives an overview. It is
also interesting to notice that all the papers use senior managers’ perceptions of
performance. Only one paper (Narasimhan and Kim, 2002) includes actual data on
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

performance (market share growth and sales growth). The number of items used for
measuring performance varies from three (Vickery et al., 2003) to 19 items (Frohlich
and Westbrook, 2001) with a mean of 7.5.
One conclusion is that there is no consensus regarding how performance is to be
measured. Further, it is striking that very few papers include performance of others in
the supply chain in addition to the focal firm. Finally, the data collected (except 2) are
based on perceptions only. Even if some authors argue for their choice (Rosenzweig
et al., 2003, p. 446; Vickery et al., 2003, p. 532; Gimenez and Ventura, 2005, p. 26), the
relevance of certain questions could be discussed. For example, a typical question is
“How would you rate your business unit’s sales growth in your target markets relative
to your primary competitors over the last three years?” with a scale rating from (1) far
worse to (5) much better (Rosenzweig et al., 2003). Another is “What benefits have you
had from your web-based integration?” – Fast delivery time, reduced transaction cost,
greater profitability, enhanced inventory turnover with a scale from (1) none to (5)
extensive (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2002).

Performance included Firm performance Others’ performance

Logistics/supply Gimenez and Ventura (2005) and Cousins and Menguc (2006):
chain performance Mollenkopf and Dapiran (2005a) suppliers performance;
Sahin and Robinson (2005):
estimates of costs and
savings include system,
channel member and component;
Trent and Monczka (2003):
supplier quality
Financial performance Narasimhan and Kim (2002),
Rosenzweig et al. (2003) and
Vickery et al. (2003)
Table VI. Mixed performance Kim (2006),
Type of performance Frohlich and Westbrook (2001, 2002)
measures included and Stock et al. (2000)
in the studies Other (e.g. marketing) Swink et al. (2007)
 SCI and performance – what is the evidence? Supply chain
Based on the underlying proposition in many papers on supply chain (or logistics) integration
management and integration, we posed a question in the beginning of our paper which can
be read as does SCI always gives better performance compared to non-integration? As
stated in the beginning of the paper, mainstream logistics and SCM considers that the more
integrated a supply chain, the higher will the performance be. In line with this “common
knowledge” the majority of the papers we have analysed (87.5 percent) explicitly or 845
implicitly considers that the higher the degree of SCI, the better. However, only 57.1 percent
of them (eight papers among 14) clearly argue and provide evidence concerning this
positive impact. An overview of these results is provided in Table VII, in which we see that
of the 16 papers giving empirical evidence on the link merely 50 percent confirm that more
is the better, while the other 50 percent conclude with more ambivalent results.
Of the eight papers that “prove” more is better and conclude that integration must
be achieved:
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

.
Five measure SCI and explain how (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001, 2002;
Mollenkopf and Dapiran, 2005a; Narasimhan and Kim, 2002; Kim, 2006), 1
measures without explaining (Trent and Monczka, 2003), one measure with one
simple question (Rosenzweig et al., 2003) and one give qualitative arguments
(Loi, 2004).
.
Five of the six that explicitly measure SCI, performance and test the link use a
mono measure of degree, and four of these include only a limited scope. With
regards to performance measures, three of these are based on a mixed measure,
two on financial and one on supply chain performance.

Relation SCI and Proof: the more Proof: discussion – Number of papers
performance is the better pros and cons (percent)

Implicit – Narasimhan and Kim (2002), Sahin and Robinson 7 (43.7)

discussion: Kim (2006) and Loi (2004) (2005),
the more is the Stock et al. (2000),
better McMichael et al. (2000)
and
Gimenez and Ventura,
2005
Explicit – Rosenzweig et al. (2003), Cousins and Menguc 7 (43.7)
discussion: Frohlich and Westbrook (2001, (2006)
the more is the 2002), and Vickery et al.
better Trent and Monczka (2003) and (2003)
Mollenkopf and Dapiran
(2005a)
Discussion: the Swink et al. (2007) 2 (12.5)
more and Hertz (2001)
is not always the
better
Number of papers 8 (50) 8 (50) 16 (100)
Table VII.
(percent)
Relations between SCI
Source: Forza et al. (2000), Mollenkopf and Dapiran (2001b) and Vachon and Klassen (2006) are and performance
excluded from this table since they do not really test the relationship between SCI and performance identified in the studies
 IJPDLM Looking at the eight papers that give ambivalent results, we see that:
37,10 .
Five measure SCI and explain how, one is based on experimentation (Sahin and
Robinson, 2005) and two are qualitative (McMichael et al., 2000; Hertz, 2001).
.
Among the five that explicitly measure SCI, performance and test the link, all
consider a limited scope, three use a mono measure and two use a multi measure
of degree. With regards to performance, one uses a mixed measure, one uses
846 financial, one uses marketing and two use supply chain performance.

Even if they give ambivalent results, most of these papers support the idea that the
more is the best. Some (Cousins and Menguc, 2006) argue that if the evidence turns out
to be poor it is because “the process of integration is not a simple one” (p. 617) and that
companies probably are at an early stage of integration. In the same vein, Vickery et al.
(2003, p. 533) provide evidence that “the direct relationship of supply chain integration
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

to financial performance is non-significant”. They conclude that (p. 535):

The results showed the following positive direct relationships:
. from integrated information technologies to supply chain integration;
.
from supply chain integration to customer service performance; and
.
from customer service performance to financial performance.
Thus, for them “any management actions must first have an impact on key customer
service dimensions, and it is this enhanced customer service that then engenders
financial performance”. In line with Stevens’ (1989) idea of evolution stages and
considering the time and efforts required to reach a high degree of integration, these
authors call for more research for the purpose of obtaining more understanding of how
to achieve SCI.
In the papers based on a multi-measure of SCI, results support the idea that it is
worth having a differentiated approach of SCM. Gimenez and Ventura (2005, p. 23)
confirm: “we cannot assign a global level of external integration to a firm; there is a
need to consider the level of integration in each particular supply chain relationship”.
They also conclude that external integration is more powerful than internal and thus in
contrast to Stevens’ (1989, p. 32) model, they view that “external integration [. . .] has to
be understood as an incentive to internal integration”. In the same vein, Sahin and
Robinson (2005, p. 592) give evidence that integration at different layers does not
contribute to performance in the same way: “the major benefit of supply chain
collaboration comes from improved coordination, while information sharing unlocks
only a small portion of the potential benefits associated with channel integration” and
that “the benefits of system integration are not shared equally among participants”
(p. 588). In the study by Cousins and Menguc (2006, p. 615) SCI does not prove to have
much impact on performance except for integration at the actor layer. Stock et al. (2000,
p. 544) also conclude that “enterprise logistics [integration] does not necessarily
provide a benefit for performance in all cases” and that its benefit arises in combination
with other dimensions of a firm’s supply chain structure.

Discussion
Of a total number of 1,235 papers in the four journals within the time period we have
chosen, only 71 papers (less than 6 percent) on supply chain integration were identified
 in our search. Only 19 papers discuss and report on empirical studies of relations Supply chain
between supply chain integration and performance. Hence, our first point is that integration
contrary to what could be assumed, there are very few papers on the relation between
performance and integration. We find this surprising given that the concept of
integration is essential in logistics, operations and supply chain management to such
an extent that “In its essence the entire concept of supply chain management is really
predicated on integration” (Pagell, 2004, p. 460). It has, however, for a few exceptions 847
(Kahn and Mentzer, 1996; Harland, 1996; Bask and Juga, 2001) just recently started
to be problematised (Pagell, 2004; Håkansson and Persson, 2004; Jahre and
Fabbe-Costes, 2005). This is the reason why we started developing a framework for
supply chain integration and continued with this paper based on an analysis of SCI and
performance.
Our second point is that there might be a problem with regards to the evidence that
supply chain integration gives better performance. Even more than ten years ago, Kahn
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

and Mentzer (1996) stated that the concept was unclear – a statement confirmed by
Pagell (2004) almost a decade later. Our analysis indeed supports this statement. First,
we have seen that studies are testing models and hypotheses with basis in quantitative
measures and operational measures developed from imprecise definitions. Studies
define integration in different ways and base their questions in the surveys on a limited
number of indicators and operational measures. In line with Stuart et al. (2002) and
Wacker (2004), we see that this creates problems as it makes it hard to believe the
“evidence” that comes out of the studies. Most studies suffer from weak measures either
of SCI or of performance or of both. Moreover, the number of papers that are used as
evidence for the assumption that supply chain integration gives higher performance is
very limited. A check with regards to the references used in the papers identifies that
there are some used by many papers and which can be considered as fundamental
(Stevens, 1989; Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Narasimhan and Kim, 2002; Vickery et al.,
2003). Scrutinizing these papers, we find that some are based on primary data and
empirical studies whereas some rely on prior research. Hence, going into these papers,
then what evidence can they provide? Being in the provocative mood, we could perhaps
use another “fairy-talish” anecdote her – the one about Peer Gynt who is peeling the
onion to see what is inside. . . and when he gets to the core. . . there is none!
Our most important point in this paper is that results cannot be taken for granted –
and that more research is needed. However, we do not want to end our study just with
being critical. We have also found surprising results that encourage the undertaking of
more research. Our research supports the idea of a multi-dimensional SCI framework. It
also confirms the importance of clearly defined system boundaries: depending on the
scope results can be different. With regards to extended SCI, we must conclude that
prior empirical studies still have not provided the evidence. Our research also supports
the following idea: a differentiated approach of SCI is interesting and can help
company to identify and then to focus on a limited number of key integration factors.
Finally, it adds to the debate with regards to what kind of performance can be
improved due to SCI.

Conclusions, limitations and further research

Our main contribution of this paper is to ask a “nasty” question, i.e. being the little boy
who (literally) undress the Emperor: “But he has no clothes on . . . ” and, due to
 IJPDLM a systematic analysis, to show that there is still much to do. . . Our point is not to
37,10 conclude that supply chain integration is not good for performance. What our analysis
shows is that, regarding the (lack of) present evidence our starting proposition about
supply chain integration as the Emperor’s New Suit of Business might hold, at least for
now. Hence, at this point in time it seems that we can confirm that integration is more
rhetoric than reality (Fawcett and Magnan, 2002), that it might be more difficult in
848 practice than in theory (Christopher and Jüttner, 2000; Harvard Business Review, 2003;
Power, 2005), and that the solution maybe is a more differentiated approach (Bask and
Juga, 2001; Jahre and Fabbe-Costes, 2005).
Numerous questions for further research can be drawn from this study. We have
chosen to focus on two. First, the two papers that are not in line with the others on “the
more is the better” (Hertz, 2001; Swink et al., 2007) have a more complex approach in
that they include a more extended scope and base their discussion on case studies and
not the survey methodology. Hence, one could ask whether a more complex approach
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

to SCI gives a more complex answer in that “it depends” and that SCI should be
differentiated. In other words, does a more complex approach of integration lead to a
more critical discussion of its benefits? Second, if it is difficult to measure the concepts
in which we are interested and thus difficult to use a quantitative methodology, what
should we then do? It is not our point that we should stop using a quantitative
approach with measurements of independent and dependent variables. On the contrary
our study provides a basis for improvement in this domain and we encourage more
quantitative research giving relevant evidence, but care should be taken (Näslund,
2002, p. 324) with regards to indicators, measures, questions, items. Even if they are
few, our study has identified more than ten papers that make serious efforts of
measuring SCI and performance. However, they do not build much on each other.
Perhaps, further research could take the prior papers and use them as a basis for
improved measures of SCI and performance.
We are aware of the fact that we pose a provoking question, but we think that we
maybe provide an even more provoking answer. Hence, we know that our approach
will be scrutinized. We are sure there are limitations in our study, of which we offer a
few here. Regarding our sample, we have limited our analysis to four journals. Of
course, there are many other journals that could have been included, such as Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, International Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, International Journal of Logistics Management, Journal of
Business Logistics, International Journal of Production Research and European Journal
of Operational Research. We admit that basing our analysis on four journals only is a
limitation. On the other hand, the first step of our analysis was very broad and we
included articles from a number of journals in order to develop the framework. The
most interesting of these articles have been used as references in the discussion in this
paper. Further, the sample on which we have based our paper does not seem very
different from the total population of journals. We have included journals from
operations management as well as more business logistics oriented. Interestingly, there
is not much cross-referencing, i.e. cross-fertilization, between JOM and IJOPM on the
one hand and IJPDLM and IJL-RA on the other. This is definitely something for further
research, both in empirical papers and literature reviews. Regarding our methodology
of identifying papers, we limited our search to those that use the keywords integration
and logistics/supply chain in their title, keywords or abstract. Of course, there are
 papers that discuss the subject without explicitly stating it in these three parts of the Supply chain
paper. On the other hand, we were interested in scrutinizing how concepts and integration
measures are used, more than rhetoric and management recipes concerning how to
manage supply chains. Hence, those papers explicitly discussing and reporting on
supply chain integration and performance were the ones of interest.

Note 849
1. There is one paper, Rosenzweig et al. (2003, p. 452) which measures integration, but authors
only include one question: “How integrated is your business unit’s supply chain?” Hence, it
was not possible to classify regarding layers and we have thus excluded it from this part of
the analysis. Another paper (Trent and Monczka, 2003) measures integration but does not
describe the way it is measured. Hence, it is not included here.
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

References
Bask, A.H. and Juga, J. (2001), “Semi-integrated supply chains: towards the new era of supply
chain management”, International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Cagliano, R., Caniato, F. and Spina, G. (2006), “The linkage between supply chain integration and
manufacturing improvement programmes”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 283-99.
Chow, G., Heaver, T.D. and Henriksson, L.E. (1994), “Logistics performance: definition and
measurement”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Christopher, M. and Jüttner, U. (2000), “Supply chain relationships: making the transition to
closer integration”, International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 5-23.
Cousins, P.D. and Menguc, B. (2006), “The implications of socialization and integration in supply
chain management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 604-20.
Cranfield School of Management (2004), Journal Recommendations for Academic Publication,
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield.
Droge, C., Jayaram, J. and Vickery, S.K. (2004), “The effect of internal versus external integration
practices on time-based performance and overall firm performance”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 557-73.
Fabbe-Costes, N. and Jahre, M. (2006), “Logistics integration and disintegration – in search of a
framework”, International Conference on Information Systems, Logistics and Supply Chain
(ILS’06), May 14-17, Proceedings, Vol. 2, FUCAM edition, Mons, pp. 841-50.
Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2002), “The rhetoric and reality of supply chain integration”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 339-61.
Forza, C., Romano, P. and Vinelli, A. (2000), “Information technology for managing the textile
apparel chain: current use, shortcomings and development directions”, International
Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 227-43.
Frohlich, M.T. and Westbrook, R. (2001), “Arcs of integration: an international study of supply
chain strategies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 185-200.
Frohlich, M.T. and Westbrook, R. (2002), “Demand chain management in manufacturing and
services: web-based integration, drivers and performance”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 729-45.
 IJPDLM Gibson, J.G., Hanna, J.B. and Menachof, D.A. (2004), “Periodical usefulness: an international
perspective”, International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 7 No. 3,
37,10 pp. 297-311.
Gimenez, C. and Ventura, E. (2005), “Logistics-production, logistics-marketing and external
integration – their impact on performance”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 20-38.
850 Håkansson, H. and Persson, G. (2004), “Supply chain management: the logic of supply chains and
networks”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 11-26.
Harland, C.M. (1996), “Supply chain management: relationships, chains and networks”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 7, Special Issue, pp. 63-80.
Harvard Business Review (2003), “Supply chain challenges: building relationships”, HBR, July.
Harzing, A-W. (2007), Journal Quality List, 36th ed., available at: www.harzing.com
Hertz, S. (2001), “Dynamics of alliances in highly integrated supply chain networks”,
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 237-56.
Jahre, M. and Fabbe-Costes, N. (2005), “Adaptation and adaptability in logistics networks”,
International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 143-57.
Kahn, K.B. and Mentzer, J.T. (1996), “Logistics and interdepartmental integration”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 6-14.
Kim, S.W. (2006), “The effect of supply chain integration on the alignment between corporate
competitive capability and supply chain operational capability”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1084-107.
Loi, T.H. (2004), “Business timeliness: the intersections of strategy and operations management”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 605-24.
Lynch, D.F., Keller, S.B. and Ozment, J. (2000), “The effect of logistics capabilities and strategy on
firm performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 47-67.
McMichael, H., Mackay, D. and Altmann, G. (2000), “Quick response in the Australian TCF
industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30
Nos 7/8, pp. 611-26.
Mentzer, J.T. and Kahn, K.B. (1995), “A framework for logistics research”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 231-50.
Mentzer, J.T., Dewitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Mollenkopf, D. and Dapiran, G.P. (2005a), “The importance of developing logistics competencies:
a study of Australian and New Zealand firms”, International Journal of Logistics: Research
& Applications, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Mollenkopf, D. and Dapiran, G.P. (2005b), “World-class logistics: Australia and New Zealand”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 63-74.
Narasimhan, R. and 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, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 303-23.
Näslund, D. (2002), “Logistics needs qualitative research – especially action research”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 321-38.
Pagell, M. (2004), “Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations,
purchasing and logistics”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 459-87.
 Power, D. (2005), “Supply chain management integration and implementation: a literature Supply chain
review”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 252-63.
Rosenzweig, E.D., Roth, A.V. and Dean, J.W. Jr (2003), “The influence of an integration strategy
integration
on competitive capabilities and business performance: an exploratory study of consumer
products manufacturers”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 437-56.
Sachan, A. and Datta, S. (2005), “Review of supply chain management and logistics research”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 9, 851
pp. 664-705.
Sahin, F. and Robinson, E.P. Jr (2005), “Information sharing and coordination in make-to-order
supply chains”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 579-98.
Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B. and Closs, D.J. (2001), “Performance benefits of supply chain logistical
integration”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 2/3, pp. 32-46.
Stevens, G.C. (1989), “Integrating the supply chain”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Material Management, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 3-8.
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

Stock, G.N., Greis, N.P. and Kasarda, J.D. (2000), “Enterprise logistics and supply chain structure:
the role of fit”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 531-47.
Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R. and Samson, D. (2002), “Effective case
research in operations management: a process perspective”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 419-33.
Swink, M., Narasimhan, R. and Wang, C. (2007), “Managing beyond the factory walls: effects of
four types of strategic integration on manufacturing plant performance”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 148-64.
Trent, R.J. and Monczka, R.M. (2003), “Understanding integrated global sourcing”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 607-29.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D. (2006), “Extending green practices across the supply chain: the
impact of upstream and downstream integration”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 795-821.
Vickery, S.K., Jayaram, J., Droge, C. and Calantone, R. (2003), “The effects of an integrative
supply chain strategy on customer service and financial performance: an analysis of direct
versus indirect relationships”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 523-39.
Wacker, J.G. (2004), “A theory of formal conceptual definitions: developing theory-building
measurement instruments”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 629-50.

Appendix. Overview of analysis and classification

See Table AI-AIII overleaf.
 Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

852
37,10

Table AI.
IJPDLM

Layers of integration
(discussed and measured)
Article reference Year Journal Flows Process System Actors M. flows M. process M. system M. actors

Cousins and Menguc 2006 JOM Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No
Forza et al. 2000 IJL-RA Yes Yes Yes Yes
Frohlich and Westbrook 2001 JOM Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
Frohlich and Westbrook 2002 JOM Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No
Gimenez and Ventura 2005 IJOPM Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Hertz 2001 IJL-RA Yes Yes Yes Yes
Kim 2006 IJOPM No No No Yes No No No Yes
Loi 2004 IJOPM Yes Yes No Yes
McMichael et al. 2000 IJPDLM Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mollenkopf and Dapiran 2005a IJL-RA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mollenkopf and Dapiran 2005b IJPDLM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Narasimhan and Kim 2002 JOM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rosenzweig et al. 2003 JOM Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sahin and Robinson 2005 JOM Yes Yes No No
Stock et al. 2000 JOM Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Swink et al. 2006 JOM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Trent and Monczka 2003 IJPDLM Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vachon and Klassen 2006 IJOPM Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vickery et al. 2003 JOM Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes
 Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

Article reference Year Journal Scope M. scope Scope2 M.scope2

Cousins and Menguc 2006 JOM Limited dyadic with C and S Limited dyadic with suppliers External þ internal External alone
Forza et al. 2000 IJL-RA Extended External þ internal
Frohlich and Westbrook 2001 JOM Limited triadic Limited triadic External alone External alone
Frohlich and Westbrook 2002 JOM Limited triadic Limited triadic External alone External alone
Gimenez and Ventura 2005 IJOPM Extended Limited dyadic with customers External þ internal External þ internal
Hertz 2001 IJL-RA Extended External alone
Kim 2006 IJOPM Limited triadic Limited triadic External þ internal External þ internal
Loi 2004 IJOPM Extended External þ internal
McMichael et al. 2000 IJPDLM Extended External alone
Mollenkopf and Dapiran 2005a IJL-RA Limited triadic Limited triadic External þ internal External þ internal
Mollenkopf and Dapiran 2005b IJPDLM Limited triadic Limited dyadic with C and S External þ internal External þ internal
Narasimhan and Kim 2002 JOM Limited dyadic with C and S Limited dyadic with C and S External þ internal External þ internal
Rosenzweig et al. 2003 JOM Extended Extended External þ internal External þ internal
Sahin and Robinson 2005 JOM Limited dyadic with customers External alone
Stock et al. 2000 JOM Limited triadic Limited triadic External þ internal External þ internal
Swink et al. 2006 JOM Limited dyadic with C and S Limited dyadic with C and S External þ internal External þ internal
Trent and Monczka 2003 IJPDLM Limited dyadic with suppliers External þ internal
Vachon and Klassen 2006 IJOPM Limited dyadic with C and S Limited dyadic with C and S External alone External alone
Vickery et al. 2003 JOM Limited triadic Limited triadic External þ internal External þ internal
integration
Supply chain

Scopes of integration
(discussed and measured)
Table AII.
853
 Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

854
37,10
IJPDLM

Table AIII.
Degree of SCI,

and measured)
between SCI and
performance, link

performance (discussed
Article reference Year Journal Degree M. degree About degree M. performance M. link SCI perf

Cousins and Menguc 2006 JOM Multi Mono The more is the better Supply chain performance Discuss relation SCI-perf
Forza et al. 2000 IJL-RA Implicitly multi Implicitly the more is the better
Frohlich and Westbrook 2001 JOM Mono Mono The more is the better Mixed performance Prove þ SCI ¼ . þ perf
Frohlich and Westbrook 2002 JOM Mono Mono The more is the better Mixed performance Prove þ SCI ¼ . þ perf
Gimenez and Ventura 2005 IJOPM Multi Multi Implicitly the more is the better Logistics performance Discuss relation SCI-perf
Hertz 2001 IJL-RA Implicitly multi The more is not always the better Discuss relation SCI-perf
Kim 2006 IJOPM Mono Mono Implicitly the more is the better Mixed performance Prove þ SCI ¼ . þ perf
Loi 2004 IJOPM Implicitly multi Implicitly the more is the better Prove þ SCI ¼ . þ perf
McMichael et al. 2000 IJPDLM Not considered Implicitly the more is the better Discuss relation SCI-perf
Mollenkopf and Dapiran 2005a IJL-RA Implicitly mono Mono The more is the better Supply chain performance Prove þ SCI ¼ . þ perf
Mollenkopf and Dapiran 2005b IJPDLM Multi Multi The more is the better Do not prove but say that þ SCI
Narasimhan and Kim 2002 JOM Multi Multi Implicitly the more is the better Financial performance Prove þ SCI ¼ . þ perf
Rosenzweig et al. 2003 JOM Mono Mono The more is the better Financial performance Prove þ SCI ¼ . þ perf
Sahin and Robinson 2005 JOM Multi Implicitly the more is the better Supply chain performance Discuss relation SCI-perf
Stock et al. 2000 JOM Mono Mono Implicitly the more is the better Mixed performance Discuss relation SCI-perf
Swink et al. 2006 JOM Multi Multi The more is not always the better Marketing performance Discuss relation SCI-perf
Trent and Monczka 2003 IJPDLM Mono The more is the better Supply chain performance Prove þ SCI ¼ . þ perf
Vachon and Klassen 2006 IJOPM Multi Multi Implicitly the more is the better No clear relation between SCI
Vickery et al. 2003 JOM Multi Mono The more is the better Financial performance discuss relation SCI-perf
 About the authors Supply chain
Nathalie Fabbe-Costes is a Professor of Management Science at the “Université de la
Méditerranée” (Aix-Marseille II, France) and senior researcher at the CRET-LOG Research
integration
Center. She is also a Director of the Master program “Logistics Management and Strategy” in the
Business and Economics Faculty of Aix-Marseille II University. She received her PhD in
Transport Economics and Logistics in 1989 and became Full Professor in 1993. She teaches
logistics, supply chain management, management information systems and strategy. Her major
fields of interest include logistics and supply chain management as inter-organizational 855
management concepts and practices. She also focuses on logistics information and
communication systems as part of supply chain management and company strategy. She
published more than 20 articles in academic journals, has been Co-author or Coordinator of more
than 15 books and has supervised ten defended PhD. Nathalie Fabbe-Costes is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: nathalie.fabbe-costes@univmed.fr
Marianne Jahre is a Research Professor at the Norwegian School of Management (NSM) and
head of The Centre for the Construction Industry at NSM. At present she also heads a research
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

project on humanitarian logistics. She received her PhD in logistics in 1995 at Chalmers
University of Technology and is now docent there. Her current research interests include disaster
relief logistics, supply chain management and relationship approaches in construction, design
and development of logistics resource networks and reverse logistics. She has published in
journals including International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
International Journal of Logistics: Research & Applications and Journal of Chain and Network
Science.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Young-Joon Seo, John Dinwoodie, Dong-Wook Kwak, Beverly Wagner. 2014. The impact of
innovativeness on supply chain performance: Is supply chain integration a missing link?. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 19:5/6. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Florian Kache, Stefan Seuring, Beverly Wagner, Beverly Wagner. 2014. LINKING COLLABORATION
AND INTEGRATION TO RISK AND PERFORMANCE IN SUPPLY CHAINS VIA A REVIEW
OF LITERATURE REVIEWS. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:5/6. . [Abstract]
[PDF]
3. Muhammad M Kamal, Zahir Irani, Beverly Wagner, Beverly Wagner. 2014. Analysing Supply Chain
Integration through a Systematic Literature Review: A Normative Perspective. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal 19:5/6. . [Abstract] [PDF]
4. Joakim Hans Kembro, Kostas Selviaridis, Dag Näslund, Beverly Wagner, Beverly Wagner. 2014.
Theoretical perspectives on information sharing in supply chains: A systematic literature review and
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

conceptual framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:5/6. . [Abstract] [PDF]
5. Per Erik Eriksson. 2014. Partnering in engineering projects: Four dimensions of supply chain integration.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management . [CrossRef]
6. Ali İhsan Özdemir, Biagio Simonetti, Roberto Jannelli. 2014. Determining critical success factors related
to the effect of supply chain integration and competition capabilities on business performance. Quality
& Quantity . [CrossRef]
7. Philipp Horn, Paul Scheffler, Holger Schiele. 2014. Internal integration as a pre-condition for external
integration in global sourcing: A social capital perspective. International Journal of Production Economics
153, 54-65. [CrossRef]
8. Joakim Kembro, Dag Näslund. 2014. Information sharing in supply chains, myth or reality? A critical
analysis of empirical literature. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44:3,
179-200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Marco Sartor, Guido Orzes, Guido Nassimbeni, Fu Jia, Richard Lamming. 2014. International purchasing
offices: Literature review and research directions. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 20, 1-17.
[CrossRef]
10. Nikhat Afshan. 2013. The Performance Outcomes of Dimensions of Supply Chain Integration: a
Conceptual Framework. Verslas: teorija ir praktika 14, 323-331. [CrossRef]
11. Edward Sweeney. 2013. Towards a Unified Definition of Supply Chain Management. International Journal
of Applied Logistics 2:10.4018/jal.20110701, 30-48. [CrossRef]
12. Pietro Evangelista, Alan McKinnon, Edward Sweeney. 2013. Technology adoption in small and medium‐
sized logistics providers. Industrial Management & Data Systems 113:7, 967-989. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
13. Min Zhang, Baofeng Huo. 2013. The impact of dependence and trust on supply chain integration.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:7, 544-563. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
14. Payman Ahi, Cory Searcy. 2013. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable
supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 52, 329-341. [CrossRef]
 15. Juuso Töyli, Harri Lorentz, Lauri Ojala, Andreas Wieland, Carl Marcus Wallenburg. 2013. The influence
of relational competencies on supply chain resilience: a relational view. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 43:4, 300-320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Teresa Vallet‐Bellmunt, Pilar Rivera‐Torres. 2013. Integration: attitudes, patterns and practices. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 18:3, 308-323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Yao “Henry” Jin, Amydee M. Fawcett, Stanley E. Fawcett. 2013. Awareness is not enough. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:3, 205-230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Rudolf Leuschner, Dale S. Rogers, François F. Charvet. 2013. A Meta-Analysis of Supply
Chain Integration and Firm Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management 49:10.1111/
jscm.2013.49.issue-2, 34-57. [CrossRef]
19. Targeting “Sustainable Scanning” 185-212. [CrossRef]
20. Baofeng Huo. 2012. The impact of supply chain integration on company performance: an organizational
capability perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:6, 596-610. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

21. Hongyi Sun, Wenbin Ni. 2012. The impact of upstream supply and downstream demand integration on
quality management and quality performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
29:8, 872-890. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Dan Flint, Britta Gammelgaard, Benedikte Borgström. 2012. Towards a methodology for studying supply
chain practice. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 42:8/9, 843-862.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Richard Wilding, Beverly Wagner, Stefan Seuring, Stefan Gold. 2012. Conducting content‐analysis based
literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:5,
544-555. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Paul Hong, David Dobrzykowski, Young Won Park, Dag Näslund, Hana Hulthen. 2012. Supply chain
management integration: a critical analysis. Benchmarking: An International Journal 19:4/5, 481-501.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Cornelia Droge, Shawnee K. Vickery, Mark A. Jacobs. 2012. Does supply chain integration mediate the
relationships between product/process strategy and service performance? An empirical study. International
Journal of Production Economics 137, 250-262. [CrossRef]
26. Xenophon Koufteros, Shawnee K. Vickery, Cornelia Dröge. 2012. The Effects of Strategic Supplier
Selection on Buyer Competitive Performance in Matched Domains: Does Supplier Integration Mediate
the Relationships?. Journal of Supply Chain Management 48:10.1111/jscm.2012.48.issue-2, 93-115.
[CrossRef]
27. Yuanqiong He, Kin Keung Lai. 2012. Supply chain integration and service oriented transformation:
Evidence from Chinese equipment manufacturers. International Journal of Production Economics 135,
791-799. [CrossRef]
28. Herbert Kotzab, Christoph Teller, David B. Grant, Leigh Sparks. 2011. Antecedents for the adoption
and execution of supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:4,
231-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Ron McLachlin, Paul D. Larson. 2011. Building humanitarian supply chain relationships: lessons
from leading practitioners. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 1:1, 32-49.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 30. Teresa M. McCarthy‐Byrne, John T. Mentzer. 2011. Integrating supply chain infrastructure and process
to create joint value. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 41:2, 135-161.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. C. Clifford Defee, Theodore P. (Ted) Stank, Terry Esper. 2010. Performance implications of
transformational supply chain leadership and followership. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 40:10, 763-791. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Jouni Kauremaa, Juha-Miikka Nurmilaakso, Kari Tanskanen. 2010. E-business enabled operational
linkages: The role of RosettaNet in integrating the telecommunications supply chain. International
Journal of Production Economics 127, 343-357. [CrossRef]
33. Ali Hussein Zolait, Abdul Razak Ibrahim, V.G.R. Chandran, Veera Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram. 2010.
Supply chain integration: an empirical study on manufacturing industry in Malaysia. Journal of Systems
and Information Technology 12:3, 210-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. C. Clifford Defee, Brent Williams, Wesley S. Randall, Rodney Thomas. 2010. An inventory of theory in
logistics and SCM research. The International Journal of Logistics Management 21:3, 404-489. [Abstract]
Downloaded by New York University At 02:49 22 October 2014 (PT)

[Full Text] [PDF]

35. Susanne Hertz, Jens Hultman, Joakim Wikner, Frederik Zachariassen, Dennis van Liempd. 2010.
Implementation of SCM in inter‐organizational relationships: a symbolic perspective. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 40:4, 315-331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Soo W. Kim. 2009. Quality Management Strategy in Supply Chain for Performance Improvement. Asian
Journal on Quality 10:3, 43-64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Andreas Otto, Robert Obermaier. 2009. How can supply networks increase firm value? A causal framework
to structure the answer. Logistics Research 1, 131-148. [CrossRef]
38. Gyongyi Kovacs, Karen Spens (both already on GEMS), Henrik Pålsson, Ola Johansson. 2009. Supply
chain integration obtained through uniquely labelled goods. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 39:1, 28-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Anu Bask, Karen Spens, Nathalie Fabbe‐Costes, Marianne Jahre, Christine Roussat. 2008. Supply chain
integration: the role of logistics service providers. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 58:1, 71-91. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Matthew Waller ‐ one of the usual editors, Nathalie Fabbe‐Costes, Marianne Jahre. 2008. Supply chain
integration and performance: a review of the evidence. The International Journal of Logistics Management
19:2, 130-154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Edward SweeneySupply Chain Integration 1-26. [CrossRef]
42. Edward SweeneyTowards a Unified Definition of Supply Chain Management 32-50. [CrossRef]
43. Shawnee Vickery, Cornelia DrogeIntegration in Global Supply Chains 135-154. [CrossRef]
44. Edward SweeneySupply Chain Integration 221-246. [CrossRef]