The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2444-8494.htm

The role of competitive Role of

environment
environment and strategy in the and strategy on
SCM
supply chain’s agility, adaptability
and alignment capabilities 133
Pedro Garrido-Vega and Macarena Sacrist
an-D
ıaz Received 13 January 2021
Departamento de Econom
ıa Financiera y Direcci
on de Operaciones, Revised 23 June 2021
Accepted 2 October 2021
Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain
Jos
e Moyano-Fuentes
Departamento de Organizaci
on de Empresas, Marketing y Sociolog
ıa,
Universidad de Ja
en, Ja
en, Spain, and
Rafaela Alfalla-Luque
Departamento de Econom
ıa Financiera y Direcci
on de Operaciones,
Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – This paper analyses the way that the industry’s competitive environment and the company’s
strategy influence the implementation of the supply chain’s (SC’s) triple-A capabilities (agility, adaptability and
alignment). Two competitive environment variables are analysed: competitive intensity of the industry and
complexity of the SC. Two opposing competitive strategies are also considered: cost and differentiation.
Design/methodology/approach – The hypotheses have been tested using data gathered via a questionnaire
given to 277 Spanish manufacturing companies, and structural equation modelling has been used for the analysis.
Findings – The results show that competitive intensity is the most influential factor followed by business
strategy. SC complexity does not seem to affect agility. Moreover, although the competitive environment
variables affect the business strategy, the latter has no mediating effects between the competitive environment
and SC agility, adaptability and alignment capabilities.
Originality/value – This study presents new insights into the environmental and strategic drivers linked to
the implementation of SC agility, adaptability and alignment capabilities and offers guidelines to managers
involved in SC management.
Keywords Competitive environment, Business strategy, Triple-A supply chain, Supply chain agility, Supply
chain adaptability, Supply chain alignment
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The recently revitalised (Lee, 2021) triple-A supply chain (SC) conceptual framework developed
by Lee (2004) emphasises the importance of orchestrating the agility, adaptability and alignment

© Pedro Garrido-Vega, Macarena Sacrist
an-D
ıaz, Jos
e Moyano-Fuentes and Rafaela Alfalla-Luque.

Published in European Journal of Management and Business Economics. Published by Emerald Publishing
Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone
may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms
European Journal of Management
of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode and Business Economics
The authors acknowledge the financial support of Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Vol. 32 No. 2, 2023
pp. 133-148
Universities (Research Projects PID2019-106577GB-I00 by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and Emerald Publishing Limited
PID2019-105001GB-I00/AEI), UJA-FEDER Andalusian Operational Program (Research Project 1261128) e-ISSN: 2444-8494
p-ISSN: 2444-8451
and PAIDI 2020-Junta de Andaluc
ıa (Research Projects PY20_01209 and P20-00794). DOI 10.1108/EJMBE-01-2021-0018
EJMBE capabilities for SC effectiveness, which is essential for today’s SCs (Cohen and Kouvelis, 2020).
32,2 However, the contingency theory (CT) (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) states that contextual
variables can affect the level of achievement or implementation of tools and business practices.
Therefore, knowledge of the SC context is a key element for their adequate management.
Concerning contextual drivers, one of the most relevant aspects of the competitive
environment is the intensity of the competition faced by the company. Among the consequences
of intense competition are short product life cycles, product design sophistication, consistently
134 high quality, cost reductions and customisation (Fynes et al., 2005). All these create a more
volatile, turbulent, unpredictable and demanding market environment that seems to foment SC
agility, adaptability and alignment (Lee and Ra, 2016). Another important characteristic of a
competitive environment is the complexity of the SCs in which companies operate. Greater
complexity is usually associated with greater uncertainty, which heightens the requirement to
develop agility, adaptability and alignment capabilities when competing.
On the other hand, companies try to successfully address the competitive environment by
designing an appropriate strategy. Thus, firms seek to gain a competitive advantage by
developing their strategies in line with their respective environments. According to Fisher (1997),
certain/predictable products require efficient SCs, whereas, uncertain/unpredictable products
require the SCs to be responsive. According to the dynamic capabilities view (DCV) (Teece et al.,
1997), as a set of complex capabilities might be difficult to develop and therefore difficult to
replicate, the triple-A can generate a competitive advantage for the firm (Whitten et al., 2012;
Machuca et al., 2021). Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the type of competitive
strategy adopted by an organisation can shape the capabilities of the SC that it seeks to develop.
The triple-A SC framework has been mainly analysed with the focus on its impact on
performance (e.g. Machuca et al., 2021; Gligor et al., 2020; Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018; Attia,
2016). This study contributes to SC management (SCM) research by analysing new drivers
related to the competitive environment, in particular SC complexity and competitive
intensity, and strategies as antecedents of the triple-A SC capabilities and by identifying the
individual roles that these drivers have on each of the triple-A capabilities. Therefore, this
study addresses three relevant research questions: (1) How does a company’s competitive
environment influence its triple-A SC capabilities? (2) How does the type of competitive
strategy affect triple-A SC capabilities? (3) Does strategy play a mediating role between
competitive environment and triple-A SC capabilities?
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 reviews prior studies on triple-A SC and the
drivers analysed in this study. Section 3 describes the methodology used. Section 4 presents
the results. Section 5 discusses them. Section 6 states the main contributions and implications,
identifies some limitations and offers suggestions for further research.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Theoretical framework
This paper builds on two theories frequently applied in SCM and operations management
(MacCarthy et al., 2016; Defee et al., 2010) and, specifically, in the triple-A SC research (e.g.
Whitten et al., 2012; Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018; Dubey et al., 2018; Machuca et al., 2021): CT
(Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) and the DCV (Teece et al., 1997).
Lee (2004) established that SC efficiency is necessary, but only for companies that build
agile, adaptable and aligned SCs (triple-A SC) to outstrip the competition. Nevertheless, CT
suggests that firms align their performance priorities with their contextual factors. Hence, the
context should play a role (i.e. as a driver or barrier) in the triple-A SC capabilities. Although
many contextual factors might exist, Chi et al. (2009) highlight four key dimensions that
shape a firm’s environment: the degree of dynamism, complexity, diversity and munificence.
Roscoe et al. (2020), Gligor (2016) and Gligor et al. (2015) have analysed some of these
contextual factors, but only in relation to SC agility. This work will examine SC complexity Role of
and competitive intensity (inversely related to munificence) as antecedents of the triple-A environment
capabilities.
A further theoretical foundation of this study can be found in the DCV framework. The
and strategy on
traditional concept of dynamic capabilities, which were understood to be developed internally SCM
within the firm, has been extrapolated to the external level of the firm as “dynamic SC
capabilities” (Aslam et al., 2018; Dubey et al., 2018). However, due to the emerging application
of this concept to the SC context, the amount of research is limited and the literature on their 135
theoretical underpinnings, in particular their antecedents, is still in the nascent stages (Aslam
et al., 2020). Whitten et al. (2012) argued that agility, adaptability and alignment are
organisational dynamic capabilities that lead to competitive advantage and are developed
and updated to respond to changes in customer demand and the structures of markets and
economies. Consequently, the value of dynamic capabilities is dependent on the context. In
this line, Barreto (2010) concluded that research in the field of DCV should focus on the
internal and external factors that can enable firms to realise the potential of their dynamic
capabilities or prevent them from doing so. With respect to internal factors, the previous
research states that strategic orientation helps build dynamic capabilities (Zhou and Li, 2010;
Tuominen et al., 2004) since it guides a firm’s interactions with its SC partners and thus
influences the relative emphasis that companies put on achieving dynamic SC capabilities
(Zhou and Li, 2010).

Triple-A supply chain

Gaining a competitive advantage is a priority for firms to survive in the highly competitive
global context (Marin-Garcia et al., 2018), where competition is not company-based, but SC-
based. Therefore, SCs must be designed to achieve advantages over their competitors.
According to Lee (2004, 2021), achieving a sustainable competitive advantage requires a
triple-A SC. Agility, adaptability and alignment are capabilities that have been defined in a
variety of domains (marketing, manufacturing, organisational, strategic, etc.) and are
currently being developed in the SC domain.
SC agility has been defined as the capability to rapidly detect and respond to short-term
changes in real demand and supply to generate or maintain a competitive advantage
(Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018). An agile SC can adapt to market variations efficiently, respond
to final demand quickly, produce and deliver products on time and cost-efficiently and
generate an inventory reduction and external integration (Gligor and Holcomb, 2014;
Swafford et al., 2006). SC adaptability can be defined as the capability to adapt strategies,
products and/or technologies to structural market changes (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018).
Unlike agility, which is primarily related to decisions at the SC’s tactical and operational
levels, adaptability is a strategic-level attribute (Mak and Max Shen, 2020). A complex and
uncertain market environment (economic, political, and social changes, demographic
trends, changing consumer needs, global context and technological advances) requires an
adaptable SC to improve the chance of survival (Tuominen et al., 2004). Finally, SC
alignment is the capability to share information, responsibilities and incentives with SC
members to coordinate activities and processes (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018). This holistic
focus considers the SC as a single entity (Lee, 2004) and implies strategic collaboration
between the different members, with coherent objectives, strategies and processes (Flynn
et al., 2010).
Most of the previous research focuses on the impact of triple-A SC capabilities on
performance, but only a small number of articles are focused on triple-A SC drivers (e.g.
Dubey et al., 2018). Feizabadi et al. (2019) confirm the lack of a comprehensive triple-A SC
framework and stress the need for research focused on the drivers of triple-A SC. In this sense,
EJMBE the present study analyses the roles played by the industry’s competitive intensity, the SC’s
32,2 degree of complexity and the company’s competitive strategy.

Competitive intensity and the triple-A SC capabilities

The literature states that, far from being atomistic entities, firms are embedded in a network
of relationships that influence their competitive behaviour (Moyano-Fuentes and Mart
ınez-
136 Jurado, 2016; Ketchen et al., 2004). What stands out in this network is the struggle between
firms to obtain the limited resources and information required for survival, which is known as
competitive intensity (Carroll and Hannan, 2000). A higher degree of competitive intensity
involves highly competitive pressures, fast and unpredictable competitive moves and
monitoring competitors (Hallgren and Olhager, 2009). Collectively, these factors create a
volatile and demanding market environment in which customers find greater numbers of
potential choices available and are free to switch to other firms (Heirati et al., 2016).
Fynes et al. (2005) found that in contexts of high competitive intensity, companies need to
continuously monitor market changes and manage the SC accordingly. SCs operating in
highly competitive industries are likely to have a greater need to ensure a sustainable
competitive advantage at the SC level than those operating in stable industries. In other
words, competitive intensity should be positively related to all the triple-A SC capabilities.
In settings of high-competitive intensity, firms need to adapt to changes in demand and
modify their products (Fynes et al., 2005) and delivery times accordingly. The characteristic
turbulence of this business environment leads to an agile SC being an essential feature of
management, not only for the individual chain constituents but for the entire SC. Agile SCs
outperform less-agile SCs by “assisting firms in improving their capability of collaboration,
process integration and information integration” (McCullen et al., 2006). So, agile SCs provide
value by mitigating risks in the competitive landscape and through rapid response measures
(Braunscheidel and Suresh, 2009). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1a. Competitive intensity is positively related to SC agility.
On the other hand, competitive intensity is an external driver that can be used to act on
strategic positioning (Hallgren and Olhager, 2009) as it can influence SC adaptability, that is,
the ability to reshape the SC to add value for the customer (Ketchen et al., 2008). SC
adaptability emphasises the need to sense changes in the SC and to be flexible when
addressing them (Eckstein et al., 2015). Since SC adaptability prepares SC members to adjust
to the situation and gain the desired competitive advantage (Dubey et al., 2018), an adverse
environment of high competitive intensity would be expected to be positively related to SC
adaptability. Consequently, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1b. Competitive intensity is positively related to SC adaptability.
Lastly, competitive intensity determines inter-firm knowledge acquisition and has led
organisations to reassess the need for cooperative, mutually beneficial SC partnerships to
improve business performance (Flynn et al., 2010). An intense rivalry environment
encourages SC partners to seek an opportunity for collaboration to develop
competitiveness (Wu et al., 2017). The goal is to achieve effective and efficient flows of
information, products, services and money to provide maximum value to customers
(Moyano-Fuentes and Mart
ınez-Jurado, 2016). Furthermore, information flow integration
provides the basis for financial and physical flow integration (Sacrist
an-D
ıaz et al., 2018). A
context of high competitive intensity is what makes the benefits of collaboration with SC
partners more positive (Heirati et al., 2016), so the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1c. Competitive intensity is positively related to SC alignment.
Supply chain complexity and the triple-A SC capabilities Role of
Complexity is inherent in management, but the shift from managing an organisation environment
internally to managing the SC entails a major increase in the level of complexity that needs to
be addressed. Blecker et al. (2005) state that, in most cases, SCs operate in dynamic
and strategy on
environments with multiple connections between companies, so they are exposed to many SCM
sources of complexity. There is also a consensus that SCs have become more complex over
recent years (Bode and Wagner, 2015).
The term complexity is a multidimensional and multidisciplinary concept, so there is no 137
commonly accepted definition (Blecker et al., 2005). Following Manuj and Sahin (2011), SC
complexity can be defined as “the structure, type and volume of interdependent activities,
transactions, and processes in the supply chain that also includes constraints and
uncertainties under which these activities, transactions and processes take place” (p. 523).
According to Bode and Wagner (2015), two qualities of complexity (structure and behaviour)
are usually distinguished. The first is static complexity (also called structural or detail
complexity) and refers to the number and variety of elements that define the system. The
second is dynamic complexity (or operational complexity) and refers to the interactions
between the elements of the system.
Despite prior research on SC complexity being relatively scarce, Blome et al. (2014)
indicate that the predominant, overall conclusion on the SC’s upstream side is that greater
supply complexity negatively influences performance. Manuj and Sahin (2011) warn that a
lack of understanding of the drivers of complexity and poorly designed and executed
strategies to address complexity in SCs often lead to undesirable outcomes. Bode and Wagner
(2015) synthesise this in three outcomes: a decrease in operational performance, more
complicated decision-making and the triggering of disruptions. The present study argues
that the triple-A SC capabilities can also be affected by SC complexity.
Several authors claim that complexity and agility are inversely related. The main
argument is that a less complex firm is easier to change and consequently more agile, so
complexity has been used as a surrogate measure for agility (Sherehiy et al., 2007; Arteta and
Giachetti, 2004). This argument can be extended to the SC, where Christopher (2000) states
that complexity is argued to be a barrier to achieving SC agility. Likewise, Prater et al. (2001)
state that agility should decrease as the exposure of the SC to uncertainty and complexity
increases. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2a. SC complexity is negatively related to SC agility.
As for SC adaptability, some authors propose that SC complexity can lead organisations to
develop adaptability capabilities (Manuj and Sahin, 2011), and, as globalisation increases
the complexity that affects the SC, adaptability is increasingly crucial (Hoole, 2005).
Meanwhile, other authors state that complexity hinders the ability of a firm to react to
change by reconfiguring its products, processes or organisational structure (Sherehiy
et al., 2007). Given these contradictory antecedents, we tentatively propose the following
hypothesis:
H2b. SC complexity is positively related to SC adaptability.
Regarding SC alignment, Fawcett and Magnan (2001) consider network complexity to be a
barrier, and alignment mechanisms to be one of the most important bridges to effectively
achieving SC integration. Gimenez et al. (2012) consider SC integration is only effective in a
context characterised by high supply complexity. In the same line, Wong et al. (2015) find that
SC information integration is more useful when firms work with many partners to market a
wide variety of products, i.e. in the case of high market complexity. Hence, we
hypothesise that:
EJMBE H2c. SC complexity is positively related to SC alignment.
32,2
Competitive strategy and the triple-A SC capabilities
Sousa and Voss (2008) highlight the role of strategic context as one of the contingency factors
traditionally considered in operations management and state the relevance of the fit between
the production system and the organisation’s priorities. In contrast, as stated previously,
138 research in the DCV field suggests that both external and internal factors need to be focused
on to enable firms to realise the potential of their dynamic capabilities (Barreto, 2010). Among
these internal factors, the choice of competitive strategy, in the Porterian sense of orientation
towards cost leadership or differentiation, could benefit or hinder the development of the
triple-A capabilities. Three different types of SC strategy are usually identified: lean, agile and
leagile SCs, depending on whether the chain focuses on efficiency, differentiation or a
combination of both (Christopher et al., 2006).
The connection between the company’s competitive strategy and SC strategy has been
analysed by various authors, who highlight that a fit between competitive strategy and SCM
positively impacts firm performance (Hofmann, 2010). In this regard, a lean SC would be
appropriate for a cost-leadership competitive strategy, whereas an agile SC would be suitable
for a differentiation competitive strategy in which speed is the priority (Mason-Jones
et al., 2000).
Gligor et al. (2015) state that SC researchers (e.g. Sebastiao and Golicic, 2008; Christopher
et al., 2006) connect efficiency and waste minimisation strategies with lean management and
suggest that agility is not linked to efficiencies to the same extent. In this regard, Hallgren and
Olhager (2009) empirically find that, as suggested, agile manufacturing is negatively
associated with a cost-leadership strategy. Thus, when a company follows a cost-leadership
strategy, a lean SC strategy and lower levels of the triple-A SC capabilities should be
expected. However, SC research provides no definitive empirical evidence to indicate that
agile SCs cannot also be efficient, and arguments exist that suggest that the main difference
between lean and agility appears to be related to the flexibility performance dimension, not
cost (Gligor et al., 2015). Indeed, Qi et al. (2011) conclude that cost leaders tend to implement
both lean and agile SC strategies, although their emphasis on an agile strategy is significantly
greater in a volatile environment than in a stable environment. More recently, Qi et al. (2017)
found that a lean SC is appropriate for firms with higher priorities on cost, quality and
delivery strategies, but not flexibility. Therefore, the literature suggests that a cost strategy
could be negatively related to the triple-A SC capabilities.
In contrast, Hallgren and Olhager (2009) investigate internal and external factors that
drive the choice of lean (focused on efficiency) and agile (focused on flexibility) operations
capabilities and their findings point to agile manufacturing being directly affected by a
differentiation strategy. Indeed, empirical evidence exists that firms focusing on a
differentiation strategy emphasise the agile SC strategy (Qi et al., 2011) and that an agile
SC is appropriate for firms competing on the flexibility strategy (Qi et al., 2017). Thus, when a
company follows a differentiation strategy, an agile SC strategy should also be required and,
consequently, a higher level of the triple-A SC capabilities should be expected. So, the
literature leads us to propose the corresponding hypothesis:
H3. A more differentiation-oriented business strategy (vs. cost) is positively related to the
implementation of triple-A SC capabilities (H3a: agility, H3b: adaptability and H3c:
alignment).
On the other hand, according to Porter (1980), a company’s strategy is expected to respond to
its competitive environment, and therefore, competitive intensity and SC complexity are
expected to influence the competitive strategy’s orientation. So, the impact of both of the
environmental variables on triple-A capabilities may be mediated by the strategy adopted by Role of
the company. Consequently, we add two exploratory mediation hypotheses: environment
H4. Business strategy plays a mediating role in the influence of competitive intensity on and strategy on
the triple-A SC capabilities (H4a: agility, H4b: adaptability and H4c: alignment) SCM
H5. Business strategy plays a mediating role in the influence of SC complexity on the
triple-A SC capabilities (H5a: agility, H5b: adaptability and H5c: alignment)
139
Based on all the above, our research model is presented in Figure 1.

Methodology
Population, questionnaire and data gathering
The hypotheses were tested using data gathered via a questionnaire with items drawn from
the literature and measured on Likert scales. A draft version of the questionnaire was tested
by a panel of five internationally recognised experts, and a pilot study was then conducted
with five heads of SCM to ensure that the item definitions were meaningful and
comprehensive. This minimised response bias and ensured the quality and validity of the
survey instrument.
A population of 2,650 Spanish manufacturing companies with at least 50 employees (to
guarantee concern for SCM in the company (Sacrist
an-D
ıaz et al., 2018)) was established as
the object of the study. The population framework was obtained from the SABI (Iberian
Balance Sheet Analysis System) website. Companies were classified into sectors according to
the CNAE catalogue (Spanish Standard Industrial Classification).
The data gathering method consisted of a telephone survey using a computerised system
(computer-aided telephone interviewing, CATI) to contact all the companies in the sample. In
addition, a web questionnaire was designed by the mid-point of the expected fieldwork period
to make it easier for any remaining interviewees to respond. The fieldwork was carried out in
2018 during the January–July period. The final sample comprised 277 valid questionnaires
(10.5% response rate), with a sample error of 5.6%, for a confidence level of 95% for
p 5 q 5 0.5. This is an adequate sample for detecting small effect sizes (f2 5 0.02) with the
usual significance (α 5 0.05) and statistical power (1 β 5 80%) levels in business studies for
a model with 3 predictor variables (G*Power 3.1.9.7).

Figure 1.
Research model
EJMBE Table 1 shows the firm distribution in both the population and the sample according to the
32,2 CNAE sector classification and a similar distribution of companies across the various sectors.
No evidence of response bias was found in a comparison of respondents with non-
respondents. No specific characteristics were observed in firms that decided not to
participate and no pattern in the reasons that they gave to justify their refusal to take part.
The first 40 responses and the last 40 responses were also compared, and no late response
bias was found. Finally, the telephone survey responses and the web questionnaire
140 responses were compared, and no significant differences were found for any of the study
variables. With respect to common method variance, a full collinearity test (Kock, 2015) was
conducted using WarpPLS 7.0 (Kock, 2020), and the obtained variance inflation factors
(VIFs) ranged from 1.018 to 1.488, well under the level of 3.3 that would indicate problems.
In sum, the data and analysis prove that the sample used in the study was randomly
obtained and that it statistically represented the population.

Measures
The measures used in this study are all based on previous studies of similar topics to ensure
their content validity. All the variables were targeted at one of three different respondents: SC
or logistics manager, operations manager and CEO.
Competitive intensity. Competitive intensity was captured using the items adapted from
Hallgren and Olhager (2009). Respondents were asked to indicate their opinions on a set of
statements on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
SC structural complexity. Based on other studies (Roh et al., 2014; Bozarth et al., 2009), static
or structural external complexity was measured by the number of suppliers and customers.
As usual, these variables have been transformed with logarithms.
Competitive strategy. Following the Hallgren and Olhager (2009) study, cost leadership
and differentiation (flexibility-based) have been measured using two items for each
competitive strategy. Respondents were asked to indicate the relative importance of the four
items (market and manufacturing goals) as an order-winning factor on a five-point Likert
scale ranging from “absolutely crucial” to “least important”. The two cost items were reversed
to build this scale, so a low value indicates a cost strategy and a high value indicates a
differentiation strategy.

Population Sample
Sector Number % Number % Response rate%

Food products and tobacco 543 20.49 48 17.33 8.84

Chemicals and pharmaceutical products 422 15.92 48 17.33 11.37
Manufacture of metal products 322 12.15 43 15.52 13.35
Manufacture of machinery and equipment 275 10.38 34 12.27 12.36
Motor vehicles 273 10.30 23 8.30 8.42
Meat industry 158 5.96 6 2.17 3.80
Electrical machinery and materials 141 5.32 14 5.05 9.93
Manufacture of beverages 106 4.00 7 2.53 6.60
Furniture industry 82 3.09 8 2.89 9.76
Table 1. Informatics, electronics and optics products 81 3.06 13 4.69 16.05
Sample, population Manufacture of other transport material 77 2.91 12 4.33 15.58
distribution of Shoes and leather 63 2.38 5 1.81 7.94
companies and Other manufacturing industries 60 2.26 10 3.61 16.67
response rate by Fabrics and textile 47 1.77 6 2.17 12.77
industry Total 2,650 100 277 100 10.45
 Triple-A SC capabilities. SC agility items have been adapted from previous research on this Role of
topic (Qi et al., 2011; Tachizawa and Gimenez, 2010). SC adaptability and alignment scales environment
have been adapted from Marin-Garcia et al. (2018). All items have been measured using a five-
point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
and strategy on
SCM
Analysis
The research model was tested using PLS-SEM (partial least squares-structural equation 141
modelling) with WarpPLS 7.0 (Kock, 2020). PLS-SEM is a non-parametric, multivariate
approach based on iterative ordinary least squares (OLS) regression that seeks to maximise
the explained variance of endogenous latent constructs. PLS-SEM was chosen because, in
this study, we are more interested in maximising the predictability of the dependent variables
and understanding the variation in these explained by the dependent variables (i.e. PLS-SEM)
than in evaluating how well the model fits our data set (CB-SEM). WarpPLS also allows the
use of non-linear estimation algorithms, which are usually closer to reality.

Results
Measurement model
Evaluation of the goodness of the measurement model usually includes three criteria (Hair
et al., 2017): internal consistency or reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity.
Some items in the original questionnaire were removed in this evaluation process following
the Hair et al. (2017, pp. 112–115) criteria. Internal consistency has been evaluated by
composite reliability, which ranges between 0.75 and 0.90 and always exceeds the minimum
of 0.70 (see Table 2). Convergent validity at the construct level is measured by average
variance extracted (AVE), which is above 0.50 in all the constructs except for business
strategy, which is very close to this value (see Table 2).
Discriminant validity of the constructs has been verified with the Fornell-Larcker
criterion, according to which the square root of each construct’s AVE must be higher than its
correlation with the other constructs. Table 3 shows that this criterion has been met.
Additionally, discriminant validity is proven through the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT)
ratios (shown in the upper part of Table 3), and these are well below the most conservative
threshold of 0.85 (Hair et al., 2019).
In view of the above, the measurement model can be stated to be acceptable.

Structural model
Once the measurement model has been validated, the structural model is evaluated and the
research hypotheses are tested. The first measure used to validate the model as a whole is
standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR). In this case, the value is 0.095, which is
below 0.1 and can be considered acceptable in the context of PLS (Kock, 2020).
As for the relationships in the structural model (the hypotheses), it can be observed in
Table 4 that competitive intensity has a positive and significant impact (p < 0.001) on all the
triple-A SC capabilities (H1a, H1b and H1c). SC structural complexity, however, positively
affects SC adaptability and alignment – H2b and H2c (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01) – but not SC
agility – H2a – even though the sign of the coefficient is negative, as hypothesised. Regarding
business strategy, all three relationships are positive and significant, especially the
relationships with SC agility and alignment (p < 0.001), and also with adaptability (p < 0.01).
However, neither of the mediation relationships are significant (H4 and H5), despite the
strategy being significantly influenced by the two environmental variables.
Next, we evaluate the coefficients of determination of the endogenous constructs. The
capabilities that are best explained by the model are SC alignment (R2 5 0.18) and SC
EJMBE Latent variable Item Loadings VIF Composite reliability AVE
32,2
Competitive intensity A11a 0.784 1.562 0.812 0.525
A11b 0.854 1.795
A11c 0.589 1.157
A11d 0.640 1.219
SC complexity A2 0.777 1.046 0.753 0.604
142 A7 0.777 1.046
Business strategy A12ar 0.781 1.374 0.790 0.487
A12br 0.673 1.200
A12c 0.640 1.184
A12d 0.689 1.230
SC agility C2a 0.714 2.052 0.873 0.533
C2b 0.731 1.913
C2c 0.709 1.512
C2d 0.708 1.805
C2e 0.745 1.915
C2f 0.773 1.771
SC adaptability C3c 0.704 1.543 0.846 0.580
C3d 0.714 1.549
C3e 0.819 2.351
C3f 0.803 2.301
SC alignment C4c 0.779 1.847 0.897 0.594
C4d 0.789 2.080
C4e 0.833 2.420
Table 2. C4f 0.716 1.617
Reliability and C4g 0.712 1.586
convergent validity of C4j 0.787 1.899
latent variables Note(s): All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001

Table 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6
AVE square root
(diagonally), 1. Competitive intensity 0.725 0.281 0.214 0.272 0.461 0.451
correlations between 2. SC complexity 0.139 0.777 0.254 0.133 0.243 0.131
constructs (lower 3. Business strategy 0.079 0.044 0.698 0.133 0.099 0.125
triangular part) and 4. SC agility 0.195 0.026 0.072 0.730 0.389 0.514
HTMT (upper 5. SC adaptability 0.319 0.122 0.009 0.300 0.762 0.552
triangular part) 6. SC alignment 0.346 0.071 0.016 0.435 0.440 0.771

adaptability (R2 5 0.15). The value for SC agility (R2 5 0.08) is practically half that of the other
two capabilities.
The f2 has been used to analyse the size of the effects (Table 4, last column). This is related
to the practical significance of the coefficients rather than their statistical significance As can
be seen, the size of the effect of competitive intensity on SC adaptability (0.10) and SC
alignment (0.11) is small, and even smaller on SC agility (0.05). The effect of business strategy
is quite small on all three As (0.04, 0.02 and 0.4 on agility, adaptability and alignment,
respectively). The effect of SC structural complexity on SC adaptability and alignment is also
close to the minimum (0.02 and 0.3, respectively).
Finally, the Stone-Geisser Q2 values, which measure out-of-sample predictive power, are
above zero for all the endogenous constructs, which provides support for the predictive
relevance of the model (Table 4).
Direct effects Coeff Std. Dev p-value LCI 95% UCI 95% f2
Role of
environment
H1a: Competitive intensity → SC agility 0.208 0.058 <0.001 0.094 0.322 0.045 and strategy on
H1b: Competitive intensity → SC adaptability 0.309 0.057 <0.001 0.197 0.421 0.104
H1c: Competitive intensity → SC alignment 0.323 0.057 <0.001 0.212 0.435 0.113 SCM
H2a: SC complexity → SC agility 0.055 0.060 0.180 0.171 0.062 0.005
H2b: SC complexity → SC adaptability 0.121 0.059 0.021 0.005 0.236 0.021
H2c: SC complexity → SC alignment 0.159 0.059 0.003 0.045 0.274 0.033 143
H3a: Business strategy → SC agility 0.193 0.058 <0.001 0.079 0.307 0.038
H3b: Business strategy → SC adaptability 0.162 0.059 0.003 0.047 0.277 0.024
H3c: Business strategy → SC alignment 0.189 0.058 <0.001 0.075 0.303 0.036
Competitive intensity → business strategy 0.116 0.059 0.025 0.232 -0.001 0.012
SC complexity → business strategy 0.131 0.059 0.013 0.016 0.246 0.016

Indirect effects Coeff Std. Dev p-value LCI 95% UCI 95% f2

H4a: CI → strategy → SC agility 0.022 0.023 0.163 0.067 0.023 0.005

H4b: CI → strategy → SC adaptability 0.019 0.028 0.255 0.074 0.036 0.006
H4c: CI → strategy → SC alignment 0.022 0.028 0.218 0.077 0.033 0.008
H5a: SC-C → strategy → SC agility 0.025 0.029 0.191 0.032 0.082 0.002
H5b: SC-C → strategy → SC adaptability 0.021 0.032 0.253 0.042 0.084 0.004
H5c: SC-C → strategy → SC alignment 0.025 0.032 0.223 0.038 0.088 0.005

Model estimation R2 R2 adjusted Stone-geisser’s Q2

Competitive strategy 0.027 0.020 0.031

SC agility 0.078 0.068 0.087
SC adaptability 0.148 0.139 0.143
SC alignment 0.182 0.173 0.177
Note(s): CI: competitive intensity; SC-C: supply chain complexity; LCI: lower confidence interval; UCI: ppper Table 4.
confidence interval. Values of f2 higher than 0.020, 0.150 and 0.350 can be interpreted as small, medium and Structural model
large size effects, respectively results

Discussion
This research shows that the contextual variable with the strongest influence on the triple-A
SC capabilities is competitive intensity (H1), which affects all three capabilities and has effects
on SC adaptability and SC alignment that are approaching medium size. Thus, companies
respond to higher competitive intensity with higher levels of SC agility, adaptability and
alignment to add greater value for customers. A high level of competitive intensity
encourages what Ketchen et al. (2008) call “best value SC”.
As for the other analysed competitive environment variable – SC structural complexity
(H2) – it can be seen that the higher the numbers of suppliers and customers in the SC, the
more the companies seek to increase their SC adaptability and alignment capabilities, but SC
agility is not affected. These results are in line with some previous studies. For example,
Gimenez et al. (2012) found that SC integration (related to alignment) is only effective in
buyer–supplier relationships characterised by high supply complexity. As for agility,
Roscoe et al. (2020) found that SC complexity seems to have a limited impact on the
effectiveness of internal process connectivity to enable SC agility. However, our results
partially contradict Blome et al. (2014) as supply complexity negatively affects SC flexibility,
which is related to SC agility. Some theoretical models (Serdarasan, 2013; Manuj and Sahin,
2011) show that other strategic and tactical variables can be used to manage complexity,
and, perhaps because of this, the relationship between SC complexity and the triple-A SC
capabilities is weaker.
EJMBE The obtained results also support our hypothesis (H3) regarding the expected influence of
32,2 the company’s business competitive strategy on the levels of the triple-A SC capabilities; the
more differentiation-oriented the business strategy, the higher the implementation of the
triple-A SC capabilities. These results build on those of other authors (Sebastiao and Golicic,
2008; Christopher et al., 2006) by highlighting the fact that cost strategy is much more rigid
than differentiation strategy. Regarding the relationship between differentiation strategy
and the triple-A SC capabilities, these results are also in line with the findings of other
144 research (Qi et al., 2011, 2017; Hallgren and Olhager, 2009). However, these works focus on a
single dimension (agility), while our work takes a more holistic approach and considers the
effect of strategy on all three As.
Companies that seek competitiveness through triple-A SC capabilities need to be aware
that the competitive environment and a differentiation-oriented strategy are drivers of these
capabilities.
One interesting finding of our study is that company strategy does not seem to play any
mediation role between the environmental variables and the triple-A capabilities (H4 and H5
are rejected). This means that the competitive environment directly affects the triple-A,
irrespective of the company strategy adopted and even though the environment influences
the strategy in a differentiated way. Greater competitive intensity seems to be associated with
a more cost-oriented strategy. However, greater SC structural complexity is positively related
to a more differentiation-oriented strategy.

Conclusions and further research

Triple-A is essential for SC success (Cohen and Kouvelis, 2020), and it has become even
more relevant (Erhun et al., 2020) due to the increasing turbulence and uncertainty in
today’s markets and economies. The major contribution of the present research is to
empirically analyse the drivers that achieve triple-A SC capabilities through the lens of the
CT and the DCV. This study, therefore, responds to the calls for further research focused on
the drivers of the triple-A SC (Feizabadi et al., 2019); more contingency-based research to
evaluate the fit between the environment, strategies and practices in the SCM context
(Sousa and Voss, 2008); and, from the DCV, to analyse both the external and internal
contextual factors on which the validity and effectiveness of the organisational capabilities
might depend (Barreto, 2010). This work goes further by identifying how some contingent
factors and competitive strategy are linked to the triple-A SC capabilities. The study results
not only confirm the CT-based hypotheses that the context affects the triple-A capabilities
but are also in line with the DCV in stating that these capabilities are dependent on the
context.
Our findings have some interesting implications for managers. They show that when
competitive intensity and SC structural complexity are high, triple-A SC capabilities may
be necessary. They also show that the competitive strategy that the company pursues can
determine the development of the triple-A capabilities. If the company focuses its
competitive strategy on cost leadership, it will find it more difficult to develop agility,
adaptability and alignment. It is also important to note that the influence of the competitive
environment does not depend on the chosen strategy. So, SC managers should develop and
manage SC agility, adaptability and alignment in light of external circumstances (i.e.
competitive intensity and SC complexity) and the competitive strategic orientation of the
company.
Individual analyses of the triple-A SC capabilities have determined the influence that the
different drivers have on each of these. This will allow managers to take the most appropriate
approach to improve of any of these capabilities. As the previous literature concludes, each of
the triple-A SC capabilities has a specific effect on the different performance measures
(Alfalla-Luque et al., 2018), which may lead managers to prioritise one over the others Role of
according to their business objectives. environment
This research has several limitations that can be viewed as directions for future research.
The first is related to the use of a focal firm and its perceptions of SC relationships. A more
and strategy on
general view of the SC involving informants from different companies would enable fuller SCM
and more accurate results to be obtained. Another limitation may be the way that some
variables have been measured, especially SC complexity, which is a multifaceted concept, and
competitive strategy, which is a construct that is difficult to approximate. Furthermore, the 145
data that are used from Spanish industrial sectors, so it might be interesting to conduct a
cross-country analysis to test this model for other countries.

References
Alfalla-Luque, R., Machuca, J.A.D. and Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2018), “Triple-A and competitive advantage
in supply chains: empirical research in developed countries”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 203, pp. 48-61.
Arteta, B.M. and Giachetti, R.E. (2004), “A measure of agility as the complexity of the enterprise
system”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 495-503.
Aslam, H., Blome, C., Roscoe, S. and Azhar, T.M. (2018), “Dynamic supply chain capabilities”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 2266-2285.
Aslam, H., Blome, C., Roscoe, S. and Azhar, T.M. (2020), “Determining the antecedents of dynamic
supply chain capabilities”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 427-442.
Attia, A.M. (2016), “The effect of triple-A supply chain on performance applied to the Egyptian textile
industry”, International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 225-245.
Barreto, I. (2010), “Dynamic capabilities: a review of past research and an agenda for the future”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 256-280.
Blecker, T., Kersten, W. and Meyer, C.M. (2005), “Development of an approach for analyzing supply
chain complexity”, in Blecker, T. and Friedrich, G. (Eds), Mass Customization. Concepts – Tools
– Realization, Gito Verlag, Klagenfurt, pp. 47-59.
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T. and Eckstein, D. (2014), “The impact of knowledge transfer and complexity
on supply chain flexibility: a knowledge-based view”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 147, pp. 307-316.
Bode, C. and Wagner, S.M. (2015), “Structural drivers of upstream supply chain complexity and the
frequency of supply chain disruptions”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 215-228.
Bozarth, C.C., Warsing, D.P., Flynn, B.B. and Flynn, E.J. (2009), “The impact of supply chain
complexity on manufacturing plant performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 78-93.
Braunscheidel, M.J. and Suresh, N.C. (2009), “The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain
agility for risk mitigation and response”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 119-140.
Carroll, G.R. and Hannan, M.T. (2000), The Demography of Corporations and Industries, Princeton
University Press, Princenton.
Chi, T., Kilduff, P.P.D. and Gargeya, V.B. (2009), “Alignment between business environment
characteristics, competitive priorities, supply chain structures, and firm business performance”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58 No. 7, pp. 645-669.
Christopher, M. (2000), “The agile supply chain”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 37-44.
Christopher, M., Peck, H. and Towill, D. (2006), “A taxonomy for selecting global supply chain
strategies”, International Journal of Logistic Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 277-287.
EJMBE Cohen, M.A. and Kouvelis, P. (2020), “Revisit of AAA excellence of global value chains: robustness,
resilience, and realignment”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 633-643,
32,2 doi: 10.1111/poms.13305.
Defee, C.C., Williams, B., Randall, W.S. and Thomas, R. (2010), “An inventory of theory in logistics and
SCM research”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 404-489.
Dubey, R., Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Blome, C., Papadopoulos, T. and Childe, S.J. (2018), “Supply
chain agility, adaptability and alignment: empirical evidence from the Indian auto components
146 industry”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 129-148.
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. and Henke, M. (2015), “The performance impact of supply chain
agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 3028-3046.
Erhun, F., Kraft, T. and Wijnsma, S. (2020), “Sustainable triple-A supply chains”, Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 644-655, doi: 10.1111/poms.13306.
Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2001), Achieving World-Class Supply Chain Alignment: Benefits,
Barriers, and Bridges, Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies, Tempe.
Feizabadi, J., Maloni, M. and Gligor, D. (2019), “Benchmarking the triple-A supply chain: orchestrating
agility, adaptability, and alignment”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 271-295.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), “What is the right supply chain for your product”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 105-116.
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B. and Zhao, X. (2010), “The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a
contingency and configuration approach”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 58-71.
Fynes, B., de Burca, S. and Voss, C. (2005), “Supply chain relationship quality, the competitive
environment and performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 16,
pp. 3303-3320.
Gimenez, C., van der Vaart, T. and van Donk, D.P. (2012), “Supply chain integration and performance:
the moderating effect of supply complexity”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 583-610.
Gligor, D.M. (2016), “The role of supply chain agility in achieving supply chain fit”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 524-553.
Gligor, D.M. and Holcomb, M.C. (2014), “The road to supply chain agility: an RBV perspective on the
role of logistics capabilities”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 160-179.
Gligor, D.M., Esmark, C.L. and Holcomb, M.C. (2015), “Performance outcomes of supply chain agility:
when should you be agile?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vols 33/34 No. 1, pp. 71-82.
Gligor, D., Russo, I., Maloni, M.J. and Goldsby, T.J. (2020), “The triple-a supply chain and strategic
resources: developing competitive advantage”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 159-190.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE Publications, Los Angeles.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009), “Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers and
performance outcomes”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 976-999.
Heirati, N., O’Cass, A., Schoefer, K. and Siahtiri, V. (2016), “Do professional service firms benefit from
customer and supplier collaborations in competitive, turbulent environments?”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 55, pp. 50-58.
Hofmann, E. (2010), “Linking corporate strategy and supply chain management”, International Journal Role of
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 4256-4276.
environment
Hoole, R. (2005), “Five ways to simplify your supply chain”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-6.
and strategy on
Ketchen, D.J., Snow, C. and Hoover, V.L. (2004), “Research on competitive dynamics: recent
SCM
accomplishments and future challenges”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 779-804.
Ketchen, D.J., Rebarick, W., Hult, G.T. and Meyer, D. (2008), “Best value supply chains: a key 147
competitive weapon for the 21stcentury”, Business Horizons, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 235-243.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of E-Collaboration, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Kock, N. (2020), WarpPLS User Manual: Version 7.0, ScriptWarp Systems, Laredo.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), Organization and Environment, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
Lee, H.L. (2004), “The triple-A supply chain”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, pp. 102-112.
Lee, H.L. (2021), “The new AAA supply chain”, Management and Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 173-176.
Lee, S.M. and Rha, J.S. (2016), “Ambidextrous supply chain as a dynamic capability: building a
resilient supply chain”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 2-23.
MacCarthy, B.L., Blome, C., Olhager, J., Srai, J.S. and Zhao, X. (2016), “Supply chain evolution–theory,
concepts and science”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 36
No. 12, pp. 1696-1718.
Machuca, J.A.D., Marin-Garcia, J.A. and Alfalla-Luque, R. (2021), “The country context in Triple-A
supply chains: an advanced PLS-SEM research in emerging vs developed countries”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 121 No. 2, pp. 228-267.
Mak, H.Y. and Max Shen, Z.J. (2020), “When triple-A supply chains meet digitalization: the case
of JD.com’sC2M model”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 656-665,
doi: 10.1111/poms.13307.
Manuj, I. and Sahin, F. (2011), “A model of supply chain and supply chain decision making
complexity”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 41
No. 5, pp. 511-549.
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Alfalla-Luque, R. and Machuca, J.A.D. (2018), “A Triple-A supply chain
measurement model: validation and analysis”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 976-994.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D. (2000), “Engineering the leagile supply chain”, International
Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 54-61.
McCullen, P., Saw, R., Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2006), “The F1 supply chain: adapting the car to
the circuit—the supply chain to the market”, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-23.
Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Mart
ınez-Jurado, P. (2016), “The influence of competitive pressure on
manufacturer internal information integration”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 54 No. 22, pp. 6683-6692.
Porter, M.E. (1980), “Industry structure and competitive strategy: keys to profitability”, Financial
Analysts Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 30-41.
Prater, E., Biehl, M. and Smith, M.A. (2001), “International supply chain agility - Tradeoffs between
flexibility and uncertainty”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 21 Nos 5/6, pp. 823-839.
Qi, Y., Zhao, X. and Sheu, C. (2011), “The impact of competitive strategy and supply chain strategy on
business performance: the role of environmental uncertainty”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 371-389.
EJMBE Qi, Y., Huo, B., Wang, Z. and Yeung, H.Y.J. (2017), “The impact of operations and supply chain
strategies on integration and performance”, International Journal of Production Economics,
32,2 Vol. 185, pp. 162-174.
Roh, J.P., Hong, P. and Min, H. (2014), “Implementation of a responsible supply chain strategy in
global complexity: the case of manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 147 No. Part B, pp. 198-210.
Roscoe, S., Eckstein, D., Blome, C. and Goellner, M. (2020), “Determining how internal and external
148 process connectivity affect supply chain agility: a life-cycle theory perspective”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 78-91.
Sacrist
an-D
ıaz, M., Garrido-Vega, P. and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2018), “Mediating and non-linear
relationships among supply chain integration dimensions”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 698-723.
Sebastiao, H.J. and Golicic, S. (2008), “Supply chain strategy for nascent firms in emerging technology
markets”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 75-91.
Serdarasan, S. (2013), “A review of supply chain complexity drivers”, Computers and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 533-540.
Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W. and Layer, J.K. (2007), “A review of enterprise agility: concepts, frameworks,
and attributes”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 445-460.
Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A. (2008), “Contingency research in operations management practices”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 697-713.
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2006), “The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm: scale
development and model testing”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 170-188.
Tachizawa, E.M. and Gimenez, C. (2010), “Supply flexibility strategies in Spanish firms: results from a
survey”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 214-224.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Tuominen, M., Rajala, A. and M€oller, K. (2004), “How does adaptability drive firm innovativeness?”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 495-506.
Whitten, G.D., Green, K.W. and Zelbst, P.J. (2012), “Triple-A supply chain performance”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 28-48.
Wong, C.W.Y., Lai, K. and Bernroider, E.W.N. (2015), “The performance of contingencies of supply
chain information integration: the roles of product and market complexity”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 165, pp. 1-11.
Wu, K., Tseng, M., Chiu, A.S.F. and Lim, M.K. (2017), “Achieving competitive advantage through
supply chain agility under uncertainty: a novel multi-criteria decision-making structure”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 190, pp. 96-107.
Zhou, K.Z. and Li, C.B. (2010), “How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability
in emerging economies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 224-231.

Appendix
Appendix is avaialble at https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EJMBE-01-2021-0018/
full/html

Corresponding author
Pedro Garrido-Vega can be contacted at: pgarrido@us.es

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com