Factors Influencing Performance of Suppliers: An Empirical Study in Jakarta
Dedie S. Martadisastra,
The aim of the study was to investigate the development of domestic supplier
performance as the result of modern retailer-supplier business relationships
which was controlled by the effect of combination of factors such as regulation,
competition and buyer power. The study presents the results of a survey of packaged
processed foods suppliers which was formed as part of a wider study of buyer-supplier
business relationships in modern retailer supply chains. The method used in
this study is quantitative research with questionnaires sent to 97 companies
which consist of large, medium, small and micro scale suppliers. Structural
equation modeling analysis was utilized by using partial least square. The findings
of this study indicate that the results demonstrate the heterogeneity relationships
between supplier and modern retailer. The extent to which modern retailer challenged
by competition, supply chain strategy and market share are likely to influence
the way inwhich modern retailer deal with suppliers. A part of the suppliers
indicated that they get benefited substantially from the presence of modern
retailers however, they also face several challenges brought about by buyer
power as imposition of several unfair relationship terms, price fixing and poorly
supervision as cause of the development and growth of suppliers limitedly. This
study is the first attempt to measure regulations, competition and buyer power
in the relationships between suppliers and modern retailers and the impact on
the performance of suppliers empirically. Further study needed to refine the
results of this initial study.
Received: March 01, 2014;
Accepted: May 20, 2014;
Published: June 10, 2014
Berasategi (2013) concluded that in anticipating unfair
trade practice, the paradigm of thinking of competition authorities in advanced
and developing nations is growing from the conventional to evolution and to
modern paradigm of thinking. Conventional paradigm of thinking puts forward
observations about sellers power that includes inter-brand competition
and intra-brand competition (Moraga, 2013). Inter-brand
competition is a competition between suppliers and/or between modern retailers
in promoting their products based on brands or labels with differentiation strategy
while intra-brand competition is a competition between modern retailers in selling
their products of the same brands and it concerns price and non price terms
(OECD, 2013). Under such conventional paradigm, modern
retailer having the strong buyer power could not only get lower buying price
but also determine a lower selling price (Chen, 2008).
At the evolution paradigm, modern retailers expands market share and market
concentration, resulting in an increase in buyer power that would bring about
imbalance in bargaining power in supply chain (Stichele and
Young, 2009). An increase in the buyer power of modern retailers results
in transfer of risks and reducing the competition among suppliers and would
influence consumers through reduction of innovation, long term losses, choices
and higher prices. The effect are often neglected that affects sustainability
on consumption and production (Nicholson and Young, 2012).
Modern paradigm stated that the platform on modern retailer is place having
constraint and potential to bring about unfair competition (competitive bottlenecks)
and have two-sided markets (Rochet and Tirole, 2003,
2005; Armstrong and Wright, 2005).
The majority of modern retailers, in a bid to slow rising bargaining power
of their suppliers, first increase their market share and market power of downstream.
Control of market and dominant position could be used as an effective instrument
in negotiating terms with suppliers in upstream market by setting more favorable
conditions such as price discount by modern retailers (Roller,
2004; Stichele and Young, 2009). An example of two-sided
market is credit card market, where banks would face two-sided markets, the
market of clients holding the credit card and merchant market (Berasategi,
In the competition among modern retailers, the interest of suppliers and consumers
is closely related. Losses suffered by suppliers would also causes losses to
consumers and vice versa. Supplier and consumer are in the same boat. The interest
of consumers in the competition among modern retailers could be seen by referring
to the concept of services, price, quality and range (Nicholson
and Young, 2012). Services include all that is experienced by consumers
when shopping at modern retail stores including in queuing cleanliness, orderliness,
readiness of the shopkeepers to offer help, convenience in parking lot and geographical
location. Prices and quality are directly controlled by modern retailers through
conditions. Range concerns control of modern retailers over consumers and suppliers
as the the goal keeper in the supply chain. Modern retailers are
producers of nothing but they create a situation inwhich suppliers will have
place to keep their products under condition set by modern retailers. Consumers
have difficulties in getting access to producers that they have to buy goods
selected by modern retailers (Nicholson and Young, 2012).
Competition among modern retailers and their suppliers in Indonesia is very
tight with the fast growing number of outlets of modern retailers and their
suppliers, following the liberalization in the regulation on retail industry.
Tight competition has led to concentration and strengthening of bargaining position
, growing buyer power of modern retailers that result in the emergence of anti-competition
move and caused an unbalanced condition in the supplier-modern retailer relationship
that hurts the suppliers (Chowdhury et al., 2007;
Muslimin and Nuryati, 2007; Pandin,
2009). Although, the government has sought to prevent such malpractice by
issuing a series of regulations and policies including (Peraturan
Presiden Republik Indonesia, 2007), Trade minister regulation (Permendag)
Number 53/2008, Law Number 5/1999, Law Number 8/1999, unfair competition continues.
In 2005, modern retailer Carrefour introduced business relations which was not
fair to its suppliers and in 2009, Carrefour increased market concentration
and exploited the surplus in its suppliers resulting in condition of being unbalanced
and negative impact on competition. Competition policy could be used to cope
with offences as a result of market concentration and buyer power (Dodd
and Asfaha, 2008). Competition authorities in Indonesia (KPPU), based on
the competition policy of the Law Number 5/1999 have punished and fined modern
retailer Carrefour on the two competition offences (KPPU,
The condition of being unbalanced in the supplier-modern retailer relationships
concerned complex factors but what is worth research is how far the regulation,
competition, bargaining power and buyer power could determine partnership or
relationships between suppliers and modern retailers and how much the; impact
on the performance of the suppliers. Therefore, this study is aimed to see the;
impact of regulations on competition, effect of regulations on supplier-modern
retailer relationships, effect of competition on supplier-modern retailer relationships,
impact buyer power on supplier-modern retailer relationships and impact of supplier-modern
retailer relationships on the performance of suppliers.
A number of researchers have identified the main characteristics of regulation.
Arifin (2010), Baldwin et al.
(1998) and Amod (2009) stated that regulation is;
imposition of rules by the government with mechanism in control and its upholding
normally applied through public agency, regulation is a direct intervention
in economy and the intervention could be in any forms, regulation is all mechanisms
of social control, consisting of all mechanisms of social control and have impact
on all aspects of characteristics of sources intentionally or unintentionally.
In addition, Stigler (2003) stated that regulation
is an act of the pressure group and produces law and policy supporting the business
sector and protecting consumers, workers and the environment. Udayasankar
et al. (2008) stated that regulation is a mandate, designed to protect
shareholders or investors. Regulation could also be interpreted as a restriction
on efficiency in business.
Nugroho (2012) stated that regulation is issued by the
government to serve the public, to control market competition, prevent monopoly
which could endanger the countrys economy.
Soekanto (1985) stated that effectiveness of regulation
or law is reflected by the condition having been created and how far the target
has been reached. From the point of views of culture, or law, a regulation is
effective if implementation of the regulation is backed up by commitment, no
conflict of interest, understanding of all concern, consistency, professional
integrity or honesty, without discrimination (Sosiawan, 2011).
Maloni and Benton (1999) stated that regulation would
have impact on relationships between suppliers and buyers that could seen in
the transactions they made.
OECD (2007) stated that regulation could hamper and
reduce the intensity of competition between business players in a market. This
is potential to trigger price hike and reduce the variety and quality of goods
and services. The factors hampering the effectiveness of regulation and implementation
in Indonesia are; contradiction between the law and implementation regulations,
difference between law regulations and government policies, difference between
law regulations and jurisprudence and circulars of the supreme court, conflicting
policies of government agencies, difference between the policy of the central
government and regional administrations, difference between law regulations
and interpretation, distribution of authority being not systematic and clear
Competition: Porter (1980, 1985)
and Hunt (2001) stated that competition is a continued
attempt by corporations to grab comparative advantage in resources that will
give leading position in market competition and most important to have a super
financial performance. Udayasankar et al. (2008)
stated that competition is a mechanism of market operation that allows a company
to operate naturally and has a tendency, if competition is tighter creating
greater market efficiency. Competition is a match between companies in selling
goods and service they produce (KPPU, 2009).
Competitive market structure can be divided into four categories that include
perfect competition, monopoly, monopolistic competition and oligopoly. In markets
characterized by perfect competition, there are many firms, each of which small
relative to the entire market. A monopoly is a firm that is the sole producer
of a certain type of goods or services in the relevant market. In a market characterized
by monopolistic competition, there are many firms and consumers, just as in
perfect competition. In an oligopolistic market, a few large firms tend to dominate
the market. Concentration ratio measure how much of the total output in an industry
is produced by the largest firms in that industry. The most common concentration
ratio is the four-firm concentration ratio. Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI)
is the sum of the squared market shares of firms in a given industry, multiplied
by 10,000 (Baye, 2009).
The model of Porters five forces explained that structure of an industry
determines the characteristics of competition between companies, bargaining
power of suppliers, bargaining power of buyers, threat of new entrants, threat
of substitute products or services and competition among existing firms and
would make industry more attractive and potential to gain profit. Therefore,
competition in an industry will depend on the five basic forces of competition
(Porter, 2004). In competition, suppliers could have
weak or strong bargaining power which will have its impact on the terms and
conditions of transactions made. Transactions between suppliers and buyers will
create value for both sides. However, if the buyers have better bargaining power,
the possibility of suppliers to earn a higher proportion of value would be smaller
and the profit would be lower. The bargaining power of buyers would determine
the amount of profit earned by suppliers. The bargaining power of buyers is
one of five forces that determine the intensity of competition in industry.
Buyers could reduce the bargaining power of suppliers by strengthening the loyalty
to them (buyers) through partnership or loyalty program, direct sales to consumers
or strengthening of intimacy or value of acceptance of products by increasing
features and brands (Porter, 2004; Ehmke
et al., 2009).
Threats of new entrants include testing barrier to entry and reaction of company
to new competitors. Hindrances faced by new entrants to enter a competition
in the market are; economic scale, differentiation of products, capital requirements,
cost of transition, access to channel of distribution, scale of independent
losses in cost and government policy (Porter, 1990, 2004).
The threats from new entrants could be reduced by: Improving the image of brands,
utilizing patent and joining product association. Competition among companies
in the market constitutes a fight for a position with various tactics such as
price competition, advertisement war, product introduction (Porter,
2004; Ehmke et al., 2009).
Companies are interdependent in the market. Normally, a competitors would react
to any action by other competitors. Competition between companies tend to be
more intense when a company is under competition pressure. The competition pressure
would be used as an opportunity to improve its position. Intensity of competition
is the level of market competition. The larger the number of suppliers of the
same products, the tighter the intensity of competition among suppliers would
be. Competition could also cause difficulty to enter the market. The characteristics
of high intensity of competition is short life cycle of products, consumers
are more critical of cost and quality and quick to launch of new product (Porter,
The intensity of competition among rivals often lead to strengthening of five
competing forces but widely varying in different markets. If the competition
is not too tight, companies would likely raise their prices, reducing supply
to push up prices to gain greater profit. If competition is tighter, companies
would increase offers to maintain market foothold by cutting prices (Porter,
2004; Ehmke et al., 2009).
Buyer power: Specifically a number of researchers describe the buyer
power as a bargaining power or a countervailing power. But a number of other
researchers define buyer power as a strength of demand for lower price that;
the buyer power is wider than the strength of monopsony; the buyer power is
more than just the ability to cut prices (Chen, 2008).
Dodd and Asfaha (2008) cited a number of definitions
of buyer power from three researchers: (1) There will be buyer power when a
company has dominant position as a buyer of goods or services or because the
company has a strategic advantage and leverage because of its economic scale
or other factors, that it would have more favorable conditions of trade transaction
with suppliers than other buyers from suppliers (OECD, 1981),
(2) There is buyer power when a company or group of companies have more favorable
conditions of trade transactions with suppliers than other buyers or are given
lower prices or more favorable non price conditions than under normal competition
(Dobson et al., 2001) and (3) Buyer power is
a bargaining power of buyers, facing suppliers in business negotiation. With
economic scale and the significance of purchases, the buyers have the ability
to change alternative suppliers (European Commission, 2003).
Buyer power is the ability of buyers to cut selling prices of suppliers to
below the normal price level that the buyers would earn larger profit or the
ability of buyers to demand more favorable trade terms. Normal selling prices
are prices that give maximum profit for suppliers under a situation when buyers
have no power. Under perfect competition market structure among suppliers, the
normal selling price of suppliers is a competitive price and buyer power is
a monopsony power. Under a imperfect competition market structure among suppliers,
the normal selling price is above the competitive price and buyer power is a
countervailing power (Chen, 2008).
Buyers will have the biggest power when making big purchases. If suppliers
sell to large scale buyers, the buyer will have a greater leverage to force
suppliers to lower the price and give more favorable conditions for the buyers
as the suppliers do not want to lose potential buyers. Buyers also have certain
level of power facing suppliers but the bargaining power is not always the same.
They are not the same in sensitivity to prices, quality and services. The presence
of powerful buyers would reduce the potential profit for suppliers. By demanding
price cut, negotiating improvement of quality, increasing the services and arranging
suppliers, the buyers would be able to increase their market competition and
reduce the profit of industry (Porter, 2004; Ehmke
et al., 2009).
Suppliers could be in the position of under pressure to accept with various
costs in trade terms including promotional costs demanded by modern retailers
and the costs have to be paid immediately. The condition could be considered
as a transfer of risks from modern retailers to suppliers. Buyer power comes
from a number of factors including business scale, competition being not very
tight in the market, dependence of suppliers that prompt buyers to act as the
goal keeper between suppliers and consumers. Buyer power could absorb
the surplus of suppliers through discount and costs being charged to the suppliers.
Such condition could weaken the competitiveness of the suppliers and distortion
in competition in the supplier market that suppliers would reduce investment,
development of new products and innovation. As a result, the quality of products
would be lower and there would be less choices for the consumers (Dodd
and Asfaha, 2008; Nicholson and Young, 2012). A competition
policy would be needed to prevent distortion of fair competition. Competition
policy could be; through regulation aimed at maintaining continuation of market
mechanism; by adoption of competition law to regulate procedure and activities
in competition or even to replace or support existing regulations (Lubis
et al., 2009).
Buyer-supllier relationships: Relationship marketing is a concept that
includes interaction between buyers and sellers at a point where relationships
or partnership is developed to provide room for future business deals. The goal
of marketing relationship marketing is to expand and serve the consumers through
partnership or relationships between suppliers and buyers. Buyer-seller relationships
is mutually beneficial relationships or partnership. It would expand through
exchange of mutual benefit. In order that the relationships could last, harmony,
interaction, lasting period of exchange would be needed. Relationships is developed
with interactions in a certain period. Relationships between two units (units
could be organizations, persons, communities even states), each unit has a role
to play and expected norms of characteristics (Fournier
et al., 1998; Bhattacharya and Bolton, 2000;
De Wulf et al., 2001; Ross
and Robertson, 2007; Walz, 2009).
The main definition of buyer-seller relationships is that there is at least
an economic interaction. Further interactions are expected to take place. The
parties involved must know the identities of each other, they must be convinced
that there are relationships, interdependence. Definitions of relationships
is that parties must share information, must trust each other, must be convinced
that there is relationships, at least there is one economic interaction, parties
must know the identities of each other (Walz, 2009).
There are a number of main factors determining relationships between suppliers
and modern retailers to be integrated. They are commitment, conflict, conflict
resolution, cooperation, trust (Maloni and Benton, 1999).
Business needs other companies as partners, to share cost, risks, increase core
competence and speed to reach the market (Reagan, 2002).
The minimum degree of cooperation needed in relationships and closer cooperation
reflects the degree of trust and mutual help. Interdependence is determined
by competition institution, market structure and resources of bargaining power
of prospective partner in the market (Scott, 2004). Relationships
between suppliers and buyers is relationships between two or more companies,
cooperating and involved in information sharing, harmonization of decisions
and incentives aimed at achieving super performance (Simatupang
and Sridharan, 2005).
Relationships between suppliers and modern retailers in supply chain is determined
by five external powers characteristics of consumers, competitors, social economic
environment, technology regulations and policy and internal factors. Suppliers
and modern retailers change operation and marketing activities backed up by
information technology, that interdependence tends to change (Dunne
and Lusch, 2005). A supply chain has to be created by taking into account
the cost of provision, facility. and process of developing the chain. An integrated
information system is needed to collect, process and disseminate information
to all stakeholders (Daryanto, 2007).
Modern retailers must develop closer partnership with suppliers and have to
develop infrastructure before applying the concept of management and encourage
vertical integration of supply chain (Hanf, 2008). Companies
improve their weaknesses by using partnership relationships management to maximize
the performance of supply chain. It has been proved by the results of surveys
that by sharing information resources and the use of e-process, a company could
strengthen its relationships with partners to increase competitiveness and maximize
the performance of its supply chain (Wu et al.,
In business context, power could be defined as the strength of the influence
of a company (sources) on the goals and activities of other companies (target)
(Maloni and Benton, 1999). The asymmetry of powers or
imbalance in powers is difference in power between one and other parties. Asymmetric
relationships of power is a relationships when one party has stronger power
than other parties and there is imbalance that potential to trigger conflict
and hamper business cooperation (Casciaro and Piskorski,
2005; Schepers, 2007).
There is hindrance in the relationships or partnership because a party strongly
insists realization but other parties may lose trust (Dwyer
et al., 1987; Mitrega, 2009).
Strategic partnership of modern retailers with suppliers could forestall restrictive
change. It is important to differentiate strategic partnership and operational
partnership in determining trust and commitment in collaboration and its influence
on the performance of supply chain. Developing trust and commitment in useful
work to be able to form strategic partnership of supply chain and useful for
the partners (Ryu et al., 2009). Conflicts would
hamper relationships between buyers and sellers such as delay in payment, poor
quality of products or services, problem in communications and problem with
maintaining relationships or partnership (Mitrega, 2009).
Performance: From the point of view of suppliers, performance depends
on elements of inter-relationships that is to expand closer trade cooperation
to direct suppliers to boost business by focusing on management category decision
related to consumer value, better understanding of the role of trade promotion,
controlling management technology aspect effectively, seeking to understand
concrete cost of supply chain and efficiently managing it, in line with respective
targets of modern retailers (Hamister, 2007).
The performance of suppliers is determined by a number of complex factors.
In connection with the aspect of performance of suppliers, performance of suppliers
constitutes results of the impact of factors, that is relationships between
suppliers and buyers, asymmetric powers of two parties and intensity of competition
(Chuah et al., 2010). Business relationships
between suppliers and modern retailers concerns transaction costs. Based on
the relation contracting theory, an effective contracts could strengthen relationships
between suppliers and buyers and create stronger competitiveness of buyers.
If the competitiveness is applied to management of suppliers, it would increase
the value of supply chain that will contribute to the better performance of
suppliers (Ramdas and Spekman, 2000; Chuah
et al., 2010).
Power is defined as a function, the opposite of relative dependence between buyers and suppliers. Power could and could not be mediated. Power asymmetry would result in variation in performance. Under a condition of power asymmetry, buyers would tend to maintain exploitation or integration (Maloni and Benton, 1999). Relationships between buyers and suppliers does not always without conflict. It is often that conflict would hurt the suppliers. Imbalance in power between modern retailers and suppliers would force both sides to maintain and rely on their respective powers. The power of mediation relationships tends to be bad for buyers and on the other hand the power that hurt suppliers does not always come to surface. Suppliers would look for ways of bringing balance to the asymmetric power (Maloni and Benton, 1999).
Power relationships mediates the influence of bargaining power of suppliers
and buyers on performance. Power asymmetry could be controlled by buyers to
improve the performance of suppliers (Maloni and Benton, 1999). Intensity of
market competition has positive impact on performance. When market competition
is tight, it is important to give emphasis on performance, quality, cost and
shipment. Buyers must responded to operation efficiently and effectively. Intensity
of competition tends to result in improvement in the performance of suppliers
(Ellitan, 2003; Chuah et al.,
Based on the theory and concept, industrial organization theory, particularly porter five forces model and market structure, conduct and performance as a grand theory closest to regulation influence model, competition and buyer power against relationships between suppliers and modern retailers and its impact on the performance of suppliers and regulation theory approach, concept of relationship marketing, particularly relationships between buyers and suppliers is used to approach variables of research.
|| Conceptual framework of study
Conceptual framework: Those Theories, concepts and earlier study if combined are expected to support and provide a comprehensive study on models of combination of influence of regulations, competition and buyer power over relationships between suppliers and modern retailers and their influence on the performance of suppliers.
Hypothesis of study: The hypothesis being presented is as follows:
||Regulation has its influence on competition
||Regulation has its influence on relationships between suppliers and modern
||Competition has its influence on relationships between suppliers and modern
||Buyer power has its influence on relationships between suppliers and modern
||Relationships between suppliers and modern retailers has its influence
on the performance of suppliers
Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework of study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study is a quantitative study which is descriptive and verifying in nature.
Population or units of analysis are 3555 supplier companies of foodstuff, mostly
based and operating in the Greater Jakarta area. Supplier companies are large
scale, medium, small and micro enterprises (Undang-Undang
Republik Indonesia, 2008). The 217 supplier companies are selected through
sampling non-proporsional strata.
Data collection: As part of quantitative research, 217 questionnaires were sent to each group of companies by scale and 101 of the questionnaires were returned but 4 of them were not complete. Therefore, there were 97 questionnaires which were fully and validly answered by suppliers of packaged food including 48 large scale companies, 18 medium scale companies, 10 small scale companies and 23 micro scale companies.
Questionnaires: Questionnaires served as an measurement instrument according
to conceptual framework and practical ways. All primary data were collected
from the answers to the questionnaires (Malhotra, 2006).
Questionnaires used five-point Likert scale and hybrid ordinally-interval scale
(Hermawan, 2009). This study used time coverage of one
shot with the type of cross-sectional, with surveys held in May-July, 2013.
Modeling: This study is verifying in nature to see the relationships
between variables through hypothesis and modeling as well as solution techniques
using the method of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis was utilized
using Partial Least Square (PLS). PLS is part of SEM but it gives an advantage
of providing sample of data being not too big, theory could be in the form of
government regulation, could analyze reflexively, formatively, etc. (Chin,
2000, 2001; Yamin and Kurniawan,
2011; Glachant and Perez, 2008; Mateos-Aparicio,
Table 1 shows the characteristics of suppliers including; comparison of the number and percentage of respondents holding position in the supplier companies, number and percentage of the production and trade, the scale of supplier companies among the respondents in this study.
Results of evaluation of measurement model: The results of processing
of all constructs of studies are descriptive and factor loading and cronbachs
alpha. Test of validity and test of reliability of instrument in the questionnaires
was made by using SPSS 18. The test of samples in 30 supplier respondents which
gave value of factor loading of all indicators that formed dimensions, factors
or constructs already had bigger value (0.553-0.960) than 0.55 (Hair
et al., 2006; Cooper and Schindler, 2008).
It is concluded that all indicators are valid where value at more than 0.55
means that there is internal consistency of statements in the questionnaires
that construct the entire dimensions, could be formed. Similarly, with coefficient
of cronbachs alpha all dimensions or construction with a number of questions,
all bigger (0.797-0.960) than 0.60 which means all constructs are reliable.
Evaluation of model of measuring: Selected statements of suppliers in answer to questionnaires by 97 respondents including 30 previous respondents are re-evaluated with PLS.
|| Characteristics of supplier companies
|Data processed using SPSS 18
|| Value of AVE and root of AVE of study construct
|Output smartPLS version 2.0
The validity and reliability test of the constructs of model mesurement through
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The validity test is done by assessing convergent
validity and discriminant validity which is derived from PLS output (Chin,
1998; Yamin and Kurniawan, 2011).
The constructs measurement model analysis of the reflective indicators attempt
to test the validity of each indicator and the reliability of the overall construct
while the constructs measurement model analysis of the formative indicators
measured by other criteria because the loading factor can not be used to assess
the validity and reliability of the formative indicators. Therefore, the constructs
of the formative indicators are evaluated on the basis of substantive content
and compare the statistical significance of the estimated weight (Chin,
1998; Glachant and Perez, 2008).
The discriminant test of the validity of first phase through cross loading value produced indicators which have good discriminant validity. Second phase test to evaluate the discriminant validity of construct by seeing the value of Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Based on the root value of AVE, all constructs have good discriminant validity. Output latent variable correlation is used to compare the maximum value of construct correlation with the root value of AVE. The result is dominated by construct which has higher root value of AVE than the correlation maximum value. Therefore, all constructs of dimension have good discriminant validity. Table 2 shows the value of AVE and root of AVE.
Evaluation concerning reliability of internal consistence could be examined
in the value of composite reliability and cronbachs alpha. The output
of composite reliability and cronbachs alpha shows that the value of composite
reliability for all constructs is more than 0.7, indicating that all constructs
in the model is estimated to meet the criteria of discriminant validity. The
lowest value of composite reliability is 0.859191 on MK dimension construct.
|| Value of composite reliability and cronbachs alpha
|Output smartPLS version 2.0
In the cronbachs alpha, the value recommended is more than 0.6 (Chin,
2000; Yamin and Kurniawan, 2011; Glachant
and Perez, 2008). The result showed that the value of cronbachs alpha
for all constructs is more than 0.6. The lowest value is 0.698987 (HR). Therefore,
it could be concluded that all constructs being tested have good reliability.
Table 3 shows the value of composite reliability and cronbachs
Result of evaluation of structural model: Hypothesis test of this study used PLS method. Figure 2 shows; first order constructs/dimensions, partnership (KM), trading terms (TT), nurturing (PM), competition between modern retailers (RT), competition between suppliers (PS), additional cost (BB), price fixing (HR), sanction (SS), commitment (KO), conflict (KF), conflict resolution (MK), cooperation (KJ), trust (KP), financial performance of suppliers (KE), non financial performance of suppliers (KN); second order constructs/factors: Regulation, competition, buyer power, third order constructs/factors: Relationships between suppliers and modern retailers (PS-RT) and fourth order construct/factor: Performance of suppliers.
Latent variables in this study constitute multidimensional construct. Each of the constructs, first order dimension is each measured with indicators of KM1 upto KN3 which are fit, second order factor of regulation is measured with dimensions of KM, TT and PM, competition factor is measured with dimensions of PS and RT, factor of buyer power is measured with dimensions of BB, HR and SS, third order factor of relationships between PS-RT is measured with dimensions of KO, KF, MK, KJ, KP, fourth order factor of performance of suppliers is measured with dimensions of KE and KN. In addition competition factor is also measured with regulation factor and factor of relationships between PS-RT measured with factors of regulation, competition and buyer power and factor of supplier performance is measured with factor of relationships between PS-RT.
|| Relationships between factors/constructs, dimensions and
indicators of study
Effect of factors, path coefficients, t-statistics and significances:
Based on evaluation of structural model coefficient, values of path coefficient,
values and t-statistics of all constructs could be determined that relationships
between variables and impact of variables on other variables (significance),
strength of relationships between variables, effect of independent variables
on dependent variables to test the hypothesis of the study, could be seen (Yamin
and Kurniawan, 2011; Glachant and Perez, 2008). Table
4 shows effect of factors, path coefficients, t-statistics and significances.
|| Effect of factors, path coefficients, t-statistics and significances
|Output smartPLS version 2.0
Effect of regulation on competition: The result of test of structural model confirms that factor of regulation has its effect on factor of competition, having positive direction and statistically significant. The path coefficient has quite high value, correlation is positive and quite strong. Result of hypothesis test in the evaluation of structural model confirms the answer to the question about the goals of study that the influence of regulation on competition is quite strong.
Effect of regulation on relationships between PS-RT: The result of tests of structural model confirms that the factor of regulation has its effect on factor of relationships between suppliers and modern retailers (PS-RT) having positive direction and statistically significant. The path coefficient has low value, correlation is positive and weak. The result of hypothesis test in the evaluation of structural model confirms the answer to the question about the goals of research that the effect of regulation on the relationships between PS-RT is weak.
Effect of competition on the relationships between PS-RT: The result of test of structural model confirms that the competition factor has its influence on factor of the relationships between PS-RT. The path coefficient has quite high value, correlation is positive and quite strong. The result of hypothesis test in the evaluation of structural model confirms the answer to question about the goals of the study that the effect of competition on the relationships between PS-RT is quite strong.
Effect of buyer power on the relationships between PS-RT: Result of test of structural model confirms that the factor of buyer power has its influence on factor of relationships between PS-RT. The path coefficient has low value, correlation is positive and weak. Result of hypothesis test in the evaluation of structural model confirms the answer to question about the goals of the study that the effect of buyer power on the relationships between PS-RT is weak.
Effect of dimensions of KO, KF, MK, KJ, KP on the relationships between PS-RT: Result of test of structural model confirms that the five dimensions (dimensions-formative form) namely, commitment-KO, conflict resolution-MK, cooperation-KJ, trust-KP have effect on factor of relationships between PS-RT. The effect of the five dimensions on the relationships between PS-RT range from weak to quite strong. Trust has the greatest effect.
Effect of relationships between PS-RT on suppliers performance: Result of test of structural model confirms that factor of relationships between PS-RT has effect on factor of the supplier performance. The path coefficient has very high value, correlation is positive and very strong. Result of hypothesis test in the evaluation of model structural confirms the answer to question about the goals of study that the effect of relationships between PS-RT on the performance of suppliers is very strong.
Evaluation of goodness of fit: Evaluation of goodness of fit with PLS
method using interpretation of R-square. Based on the result of analysis, together
factors of regulation, competition, buyer power, dimensions of KO, KF, MK, KJ,
KP could explain the variability of factor of relationships between PS-RT upto
98.92%, with 1.08% is explained by other variables, not studied in this model.
Factor of relationships between PS-RT could explain the variability of factor
of performance perception as much as 99.54%, with 0.46% explained by other variables
not studied in this model. Chin, (1998) in Yamin
and Kurniawan (2011) stated that the criteria of the value of R-square in
three classifications including value limit 0.67 (substantial), value limit
0.33 (moderate) and value limit 0.19 (weak). Therefore, the harmony of model
shows the difference between values being studied and values estimated by model
well and substantially carried out.
Based on studies, empirical factors have effect on the relationships between
suppliers-modern retailers and impact on the performance of suppliers in Jakarta
and its surrounding areas. Regulations including (Peraturan
Presiden Republik Indonesia, 2007 and Peraturan Menteri
Perdagangan Republik Indonesia, 2008) have greater details on partnership,
trading terms and nurturing while supervision of consumer welfare and protection
with the Law Number 5/1999, on prohibition of monopoly and unfair business competition
and the Law Number 8/1999, on protection of consumers. The regulations rule
that cooperate between suppliers-modern retailers, must be implemented under
the principle of mutual benefit, clear, reasonable, fair and transparent and
trading terms must be clear, reasonable, fair, mutually beneficial and agreed
upon by both sides without pressure. Regulations have effect on the relationships
between suppliers and buyers in interaction of exchange between the two sides.
Profit between the two sides could often be explained through bargaining power
where there is transactions (Maloni and Benton, 1999;
Den Hertog, 1999; Stigler, 2003;
In practice, modern retailers apply unilateral terms in determining partnership,
trading terms, imposition of cost or discount, promotional cost and change in
the form of sales contract on suppliers. The fact would have effect on partnership
and competitiveness of suppliers and would distort competition in market of
suppliers, on the other hand the supervision and development are not sufficiently
effective. In order that the regulation is effective, it is necessary to promote
the presidential regulation and the regulation of the trade minister into laws,
as law regulations are more binding for business players or policy makers in
retail industry. Sanctions, process of law enforcement and the law enforcers
must be determine in greater details in the law regulation. As for the law enforcers,
there must be an institution which functions specially to uphold the law. Through
the model, the position of controlling retail industry would be very strong
and would be very strong to bind all stakeholders in retail industry (KPPU,
Effect of competition on relationships between PS-RT: Result of survey
confirms that competition has its effect on the relationships between suppliers
and modern retailers and the impact is strong but not sufficiently effective.
The finding in the study on competition confirms the opinion that competition
tends to create the potential of collaboration of closer relationships between
suppliers-modern retailers in supply chain and encourage development of products
and improvement of quality, price reduction, flexibility, service and innovation
(Maloni and Benton, 1999; Reardon
and Berdegue 2006; Zhang et al., 2005; OECD,
2007; Hill and Llandro, 2012). Structure of industry
determines the characteristics of organization in competition which in the end,
determines the ability to chalk up profit. The model of five forces of Porter
including competition, bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of buyers,
threat from new entrants and threat of substitution products and services, make
the industry interesting and potential to earn profit to compete (Porter,
In practice, partnership often causes distortion of market mechanism because
of competition among modern retailers and among suppliers, resulting in violation
of regulations (Muslimin and Nuryati, 2007). Modern retail
industry in Indonesia has a structure of oligopoly with a fairly high concentration.
Normally, in facing tight competition, modern retailers in Indonesia would find
strategic location for their outlets, provide goods as complete as possible,
use high technology, offer cheaper prices, launch promotion through the mass
media and hold trade in program, offer shopping card, provide private labels
and trade conditions (Pandin, 2009).
Effect of buyer power on relationships between PS-RT: The result of
study confirms that buyer power has its effect on the relationships between
suppliers and modern retailers. However, the effect is not significant. The
finding from the study confirms opinion that buyer power in relationships between
suppliers and modern retailers could absorb suppliers surplus with discount
and cost to be paid by suppliers. Such condition could weaken the competitiveness
of the suppliers and cause distortion of competition in the market of suppliers.
Suppliers will reduce investment and spending on development of new products
or innovation, resulting in a decline in the quality of products and there would
be less choices for consumers (Dodd and Asfaha, 2008;
Chen, 2008; OECD, 2008; Ehmke
et al., 2009; Nicholson and Young, 2012).
Buyers have power especially big buyers as large purchases, concentration and
bargaining power are significant to force price cut and relaxation of terms
in their favor as the suppliers do not want to lose their potential customers.
The suppliers are in a weak position that the relationships becomes asymmetry
(UK Competition Commision, 2000; Dodd
and Asfaha, 2008; Chen, 2008; Ehmke
et al., 2009).
In practice, when buyers power is used, suppliers would accept unfair trade
conditions demanded by the buyers. The suppliers could not reject on fears of
sanction imposed by the buyers. That is a violation of competition policy (UK
Competition Commision, 2000; Dodd and Asfaha, 2008).
Competition policy, the law/5/1999 and protection of consumers Law/8/1999 in
Indonesia could be used to deal with such violation as it would have negative
effect on the welfare of the people and or consumers as the main objective of
competition policy. Protection of consumers and competition are two different
things which are interrelated and supporting each other. Cheap prices, high
quality and good services are three basic things for consumers and competition
constitutes the best way to guarantee creation of such condition them. Therefore,
competition law certainly must be in line with or support the law on consumer
protection (KPPU, 2009).
Effect of dimensions of KO, KF, MK, KJ, KP on relationships between PS-RT:
Result of study confirms that the five dimensions of formative forms-commitment,
conflicts, management of conflict, cooperation, trust have effect on the relationships
between suppliers and modern retailers. The effect could be weak or quite strong.
Results of research show that the most important dimension with greater effect
among the five formative factors is trust.
The finding from the study about the dimensions of KO, KF, MK, KJ, KP, corroborate
opinion that a number of main parameters that make relationships between buyers
and suppliers become integrated are commitment, conflict, conflict resolution,
cooperation, trust and information technology (Maloni and
Benton, 1999; Duffy and Fearne, 2006; Sheu
et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2011). Strategic
association between modern retailers and suppliers could be used to anticipate
changes and needs good management. Operational association and strategic association
are needed in placing trust and make commitment in collaboration and the effect
on supply chain. It is also necessary to foster trust and commitment in work
to be able to form strategic association in supply chain and that would benefit
the partners (Ryu et al., 2009).
Effect of relationships between PS-RT on the performance of suppliers:
Result of study confirms that relationships between suppliers and modern retailers
has effect on the performance of suppliers and the effect is very strong. The
finding from the study is related to the construct of financial performance
and non financial performance. Implementation of financial performance and non
financial performance could improve the performance of suppliers and modern
retailers. The most important factor with greater effect among the two factors
of performance is non financial performance. The higher the level of integration
of relationships of business players would result in better performance (Maloni
and Benton, 1999; Duffy and Fearne, 2006; Ou
et al., 2010).
In practice, asymmetry of powers or power imbalance is difference in powers
between one and other parties. Relationships of asymmetry of powers is a relationships
in which one has greater power than the other and conflict is potential hampering
cooperation between both sides. The power that hurts suppliers does not always
comes to surface. Suppliers would seek to correct the imbalance. Asymmetry of
powers could be controlled by buyers for better performance of suppliers (Maloni
and Benton, 1999; Casciaro and Piskorski, 2005;
Regulations have strong effect on competition showing the importance of regulations in determining whether competition is good or bad. However, the impact of regulations is not effective partly because the regional administrations have not succeeded in fully or effectively arranging zonation and distance between retail modern outlets and weak regulation on licensing procedure that competition is not conducive.
Regulations have weak effect on the relationships between suppliers and modern retailers as indicated by the domination of the bargaining power of modern retailers resulting in imbalance in the relationships between suppliers and modern retailers despite the regulation on competition. The weak impact is caused by regulation being not effective, not firm in slapping sanctions and implementation being not clear.
Competition has fairly strong impact on the relationships between suppliers and modern retailers. The tighter the competition the closer would be the relationships between suppliers and modern retailers. However, the effect of competition in its implementation is determined more by the characteristics of modern retailers in competition which are expansive in building up its bargaining power that the bargaining power of supplier is weak facing modern retailers.
Buyer power has weak effect on the relationships between suppliers and modern retailers. As shown by the study, not all aspects of the relationships between suppliers and modern retailers are influenced by the buyer power. The effect of buyer power is marked only by the big cost burden imposed on suppliers.
Relationships between suppliers and modern retailers has strong impact on the performance of suppliers. Asymmetry in power which is controlled by modern retailers causes strong effect of relationships between suppliers and modern retailers on the performance of suppliers in improving the performance of suppliers.
Further studies are recommended to analyze the effect of buyer power on small and medium scale suppliers and to see the variations of the relationships between suppliers and modern retailers. Other studies needed include factor making regulations not effective on zonation, operating time of stores and distance between outlets of modern retailers.
Big suppliers and those selected by modern retailers have showed an improvement
in performance but other suppliers such as micro and small suppliers have remained
in the doldrums. Therefore, improvement is necessary in (Peraturan
Presiden Republik Indonesia, 2007; Peraturan Menteri
Perdagangan Republik Indonesia, 2008) and in the implementation of the competition
policy UU/5/1999. The regulations have to be properly implemented and there
should be coordination between the central government and the regional administrations.
Socialization needs to be intensified and violations should be strictly dealt
1: Amod, A., 2009. The effects of regulation on competition an emerging economy from an energy sektor perspective. Master Thesis, Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
2: Arifin, B., 2010. Lingkungan ekonomi dan Bisnis: Kebijakan publik dan proses politik [Economic and business environment: Public policy and the political process]. Lectures Material, Management and Business, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia.
3: Armstrong, M. and J. Wright, 2005. Two-sided markets, competitive bottlenecks and exclusive contracts. ELSE Working Papers 124, ESRC Centre for Economic Learning and Social Evolution, London, UK. http://else.econ.ucl.ac.uk/papers/uploaded/124.pdf.
4: BAPPENAS, 2010. Pemetaan dan evaluasi efektivitas regulasi sektoral dan desentralisasi terhadap pelaksanaan otonomi daerah, direktorat otonomi daerah [Mapping and Evaluation of the effectiveness of sectoral regulation and decentralization of the implementation of regional autonomy, directorate of regional autonomy]. State Ministry of National Development Planning/BAPPENAS.
5: Berasategi, J., 2013. Supermarket power: Serving consumers or harming competition. European Commission Current Status: Directorate-General for Competition, February 12, 2013.
6: Casciaro, T. and M.J. Piskorski, 2005. Power imbalance, mutual dependence and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Admin. Sci. Q., 50: 167-199.
Direct Link |
7: Chen, Z., 2008. Defining buyer power. January 10, 2008. http://http-server.carleton.ca/~zchen/Defining%20Buyer%20Power%20Revised.pdf.
8: Chin, W.W., 2000. Partial least squares for is researchers: An overview and presentation of recent advances using the PLS approach. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems, December 10-13, 2000, Brisbane, Australia -.
9: Wu, M.Y., H.P. Chou, Y.Y. Shih and J.H. Wang, 2011. Supply chain performance improvement through partner relationship management in the high tech industry. Int. J. Manage. Sci. Eng. Manage., 6: 210-218.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
10: Chowdhury, S.K., A. Gulati and E. Gumbira-Sa'id, 2007. The rise of supermarkets and vertical relationships in the Indonesian food value Chain: Causes and consequences. Asian J. Agric. Dev., 2: 39-48.
Direct Link |
11: Chuah, P.L., W.P. Wong, T. Ramayah and M. Jantan, 2010. Organizational context, supplier management practices and supplier performance: A case study of a multinational company in Malaysia. J. Enterp. Inform. Manage., 23: 724-758.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
12: Cooper, D.R. and P.S. Schindler, 2008. Business Research Methods. 10th Edn., McGraw-Hill International, USA., ISBN: 9780071263337, pp: 510-539.
13: Dobson, P.W., R. Clarke, S. Davies and M. Waterson, 2001. Buyer power and its impact on competition in the food retail distribution sector of the European Union. J. Ind. Comp. Trade, 1: 247-281.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
14: Dodd, L. and S. Asfaha, 2008. Rebalancing the supply chain: Buyer power, commodities and competition policy. TRAIDCRAFT, South Centre. http://unctad.org/Sections/ditc_ccpb/docs/ditc_ccpb0009_en.pdf.
15: Duffy, R. and A. Fearne, 2006. Effective Partnerships for Agri-Food Chains: The Impact of Supply-Chain Partnerships on Supplier Performance in the UK Fresh-Produce Industry. In: Quantifying the Agri-Food supply Chain, Ondersteijn, C.J.M., J.H.M. Wijnands, R.B.M. Huirne and O. van Kooten (Eds.). Springer, USA., ISBN: 9781402046933, pp: 225-239.
16: Dunne, P.M. and R.F. Lusch, 2005. Retailing. Cengage Learning, USA., pp: 34-62.
17: Ehmke, C., J. Fulton, J. Akridge, K. Erickson, E. Communications and S. Linton, 2009. Industry analysis: The five forces. Purdue Extension EC-722, Agricultural Innovation and Commercialization Center (AICC), Purdue University. http://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ec/ec-722.pdf.
18: Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson and R.L. Tatham, 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th Edn., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ., USA., ISBN-13: 9780130329295, Pages: 928.
19: Hamister, J.W., 2007. Impact of category management practices on performance of FMCG supply chains. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Operation Management and Strategy, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY., USA.
20: 2008. Food retailers as drivers of supply chain integration: A review. Australasian Agribusiness Rev., Vol. 16.
21: Hermawan, A., 2009. Penelitian Bisnis: Paradigma Kuantitatif [Business Research: Quantitative Paradigm]. Grasindo, Jakarta, Indonesia.
22: Den Hertog, J.A., 1999. General Theories of Regulation. In: Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Bouckaert, B. and G. De Geest (Eds.). Edward Elgar Publishing, Gent, Belgium, pp: 223-270.
23: Hill, J.D. and P. Llandro, 2012. The effect of competition on supply chain decision making. Proceedings of the Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, May 19-23, 2012, Orlando, FL., USA -.
24: Hunt, S.D., 2001. Commentary-a general theory of competition: Issues, answers and an invitation. Eur. J. Market., 35: 524-548.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
25: KPPU, 2009. Evaluasi dan kajian dampak kebijakan persaingan usaha dalam industri ritel, biro kebijakan persaingan [Evaluation and impact assessment of competition policy in retail industry, bureau of competition policy]. Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU), Republic of Indonesia.
26: Lubis, A.F., A.M.T. Anggraini, K. Toha, L.B. Kagramanto and M. Hawin et al., 2009. Hukum Persaingan Usaha: Antara Teks Dan Konteks [Competition Law: Between Text and Context]. GTZ, Indonesia, pp: 14-40.
27: Malhotra, N.K., 2006. Questionnaire Design and Scale Development. In: The Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses and Future Advances, Grover, R. and M. Vriens (Eds.). Chapter 5, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA., USA., ISBN-13: 9781412909976, pp: 83-95.
28: Maloni, M. and W.C. Benton, 1999. Power influences in the supply chain. Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, June 10, 1999, pp: 1-49.
29: Mateos-Aparicio, G., 2011. Partial Least Squares (PLS) methods: Origins, evolution and application to social sciences. Commun. Stat.-Theory Methods, 40: 2305-2317.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
30: Mitrega, M., 2009. Barriers and conflicts in relationships of small firms: Insights from Central Europe. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol., 54: 632-635.
31: Moraga, J.L., 2013. Vertical relations. http://www.tinbergen.nl/~moraga/LawEconomics7.pdf.
32: Muslimin, L. and Y. Nuryati, 2007. Kajian kemitraan usaha perdagangan antara ritel modern dengan pemasok [Study on business partnership between modern retail and suppliers]. Buletin Ilmiah, Penelitian dan Pengembangan Perdagangan [Bulletin of Science, Research and Development of Trade], Jakarta, Indonesia, pp: 101-147.
33: Nicholson, C. and B. Young, 2012. The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers: What are the implications for consumers? Technical Report, Consumers International, Europe Economics, July 2012.
34: Nugroho, R., 2012. Types of public policy, understanding regulation as a policy. Clair Wilcox and William G. Shepperd, public Policies Toward Business, Indonesia Defence University.
35: OECD, 2013. Brand competition (inter and intra). Glossary of Statistical Terms, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/ detail.asp?ID=3153.
36: OECD, 2008. Monopsony and buyer power. DAF/COMP(2008)38, Policy Roundtables, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France, December 17, 2009. http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/44445750.pdf.
37: OECD, 2007. Competition assessment tool kit, version 1.0. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France, pp: 1-174. http://www.fas.gov.ru/ files/16769/Toolkit_Eng_16x23.pdf.
38: OECD, 1981. Buying power: The exercise of market power by dominant buyers. Report of the Committee of Experts on Restrictive Business Practices. http://www.econbiz.de/Record /buying-power-the-exercise-of-market-power-by-dominant-buyers-report/10000507171.
39: Ou, C.S., F.C. Liu, Y.C. Hung and D.C. Yen, 2010. A structural model of supply chain management on firm performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., 30: 526-545.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
40: Pandin, M.R.L., 2009. The portrait of retail business in Indonesia: Modern market. Economic Review, No. 215, March, 2009.
41: Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia, 2007. Nomor 112 tahun 2007 tentang penataan dan pembinaan pasar tradisional pusat perbelanjaan dan toko modern [Regulation of the president of the republic of Indonesia number 112 of 2007 concerning organization and directions of traditional markets, shopping centers and modern stores]. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4430611/Regulation-of-the-President-No-112-of-2007-Indonesia-Traditional-and-Modern-Markets-Wishnu-Basuki.
42: Peraturan Menteri Perdagangan Republik Indonesia, 2008. Nomor 53/M DAG/PER/12/2008 tentang pedoman penataan dan pembinaan pasar tradisional pusat perbelanjaan dan toko modern [Regulation of the ministry of trade of the republic of Indonesia Number 53/M DAG/PER/12/2008 concerning traditional markets, shopping centers and modern stores]. http://www.hukumonline.com/pusatdata/download/fl57541/node/28736.
43: Porter, M.E., 2004. The Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Simon and Schuster, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, ISBN: 9780743260886, pp: 3-33, 47-74, 108-382.
44: Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive Strategy. The Free Press, New York.
45: Porter, M.E., 1980. The Competitive Advantage. The Free Press, New York.
46: Ramdas, K. and R.E. Spekman, 2000. Chain or shackles: Understanding what drives supply-chain performance. Interfaces, 30: 3-21.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
47: Reardon, T. and J.A. Berdegue, 2006. The retail-led transformation of agrifood systems and its implications for development policies. November, 2006. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/9233/WDR2008_0033.pdf.
48: Reagan, W.R., 2002. Determining the factors most important in the stages of development in long-term marketing relationships between buyers and suppliers. Ph.D. Thesis, Nova Southeastern University.
49: Rochet, J.C. and J. Tirole, 2003. Platform competition in two-sided markets: A progress report. IDEI and GREMAQ (UMR 5604 CNRS), Institut of Economie Industrielle, Toulouse, France.
50: Rochet, J.C. and J. Tirole, 2005. Two-sided markets: A progress report. IDEI and GREMAQ (UMR 5604 CNRS), Institute of Economie Industrielle, Toulouse, France.
51: Roller, L.H., 2004. Buyer power in the EU. Proceedings of the American Antitrust Institute Conference on Buyer Power and Antitrust, June 22, 2004, Washington, USA -.
52: Ryu, I.I., S.H. So and C. Koo, 2009. The role of partnership in supply chain performance. Ind. Manage. Data Syst., 109: 496-514.
53: Schepers, W., 2007. The effect of power asymmetry on buyer-supplier collaboration and supply chain performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Economic and Business Administration, University of Maastrich.
54: Scott, W.R., 2004. Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. Stanford University, California, USA.
55: Sheu, C., H.R. Yen and B. Chae, 2006. Determinants of supplier-retailer collaboration: Evidence from an international study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., 26: 24-49.
56: Simatupang, T.M. and R. Sridharan, 2005. The collaboration index: A measure for supply chain collaboration. Int. J. Phys. Distribut. Logistics Manage., 35: 44-62.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
57: Soekanto, S., 1985. Efektifitas Hukum dan Penerapan Sanksi [Effectiveness Law and Implementation of Sanctions]. Remadja Karya, Bandung, Indonesia, pp: 1-2.
58: Sosiawan, U.M., 2011. Laporan akhir penelitian hukum, tentang efektifitas peraturan perundang-undangan kaitan dengan pembangunan daerah tertinggal. Kementerian hukum dan hak asasi manusia ri, badan pembinaan hukum nasional [Final report of legal research, concerning effectiveness regulation legislation linkages for rural development]. Ministry of Justice and Human Rights Affairs of Republic of Indonesia, National Law Development Agency, Jakarta.
59: Stichele, M.V. and B. Young, 2009. The abuse of supermarket buyer-power in the EU food retail sector. Preliminary Survey of Evidence, SOMO, Europe Economics, Agribusiness Accountability Initiative-AAI, Amsterdam. http://somo.nl/publications-en/Publication_3279.
60: Stigler, G.J., 2003. The theory of economics regulation. Bell J. Econ. Manage. Sci., 2: 3-21.
Direct Link |
61: Udayasankar, K., S.S. Das and C. Krishnamurti, 2008. When is two really company? The effects of competition and regulation on corporate. Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Business School, Singapore, March 18, 2008, Pages: 56.
62: Chin, W.W., 2001. PLS Graph User's Guide. Ver. 3.0, Soft Modeling Inc., Houston, TX.
63: Walz, A., 2009. The definition, creation and evolution of buyer-seller relationships. Ph.D. Thesis, Agricultural and Mechanical College, Louisiana State University.
64: Yamin, S. and H. Kurniawan, 2011. Generasi Baru Mengolah Data Penelitian Dengan Partial Least Square Path Modeling, Aplikasi dengan Software XLSTAT, SmartPLS dan Visual PLS [New Generation for Data Processing Research with Partial Least Square Path Modeling, Applications with XLSTAT Software, SmartPLS and PLS Visual]. Salemba Infotek, Jakarta.
65: Zhang, Y.F., D. Parker and C. Kirkpatrick, 2005. Assessing the effects of privatisation, competition and regulation on economic performance: The case of electricity sector reform. SCAPE Working Paper Series, Paper No. 2005/11, Department of Economics, East Asian Bureau.
66: Porter, M.E., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press, New York, pp: 33-130, 577-680.
67: Glachant, J.M. and Y. Perez, 2008. Regulation and Deregulation in Network Industry. In: New Institutional Economic: A Guidebook, Brousseau, E. and J.M. Glachant (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK., ISBN-13: 9780521700160, pp: 328-362.
68: Ross Jr., W.T. and D.C. Robertson, 2007. Compound relationships between firms. J. Market., 71: 108-123.
Direct Link |
69: Ellitan, L., 2003. Technology adoption and ﬁrm performance: Moderating impact of manufacturing strategy and environment. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
70: European Commission, 2003. DG competition glossary of terms. http://unctad.org/Sections/ditc_ccpb/docs/ditc_ccpb0009_en.pdf.
71: Dwyer, F.R., P.H. Schurr and S. Oh, 1987. Developing buyer-seller relationships. J. Market., 51: 11-27.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
72: Chin, W.W., 1998. The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Modeling. In: Modern Methods for Business Research, Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp: 295-336.
73: Fournier, S., S. Dobscha and D.G. Mick, 1998. Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing. Harvard Bus. Rev., 76: 42-50.
Direct Link |
74: Baldwin, R., C.D. Scott and C. Hood, 1998. A reader on regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, ISBN: 9780198765301, pp: 38-50.
75: Bhattacharya, C.B. and R.N. Bolton, 2000. Relationship Marketing in Mass Markets. In: Handbook of Relationship Marketing, Sheth, J.N. and A. Parvatiyar (Eds.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp: 327-354.
76: De Wulf, K., G. Odekerken-Schroder and D. Iacobucci, 2001. Investments in consumer relationships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration. J. Market., 65: 33-50.
Direct Link |
77: UK Competition Commision, 2000. Supermarket : A report on the supply of groceries from multiple stores in the United Kingdom. Volume 2: Background Chapters. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of Statefor Trade and Industry by Command of Her Majesty, October 2000.
78: Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia, 2008. Nomor 20 Tahun 2008 Tentang Usaha Mikro, Kecil dan Menengah (The law of republic of Indonesia, Number 20 of 2008 concerning micro, small and medium enterprises). http://www.bi.go.id/id/tentang-bi/uu-bi/Documents/UU20Tahun2008UMKM.pdf.
79: Baye, M.R., 2009. Managerial Economics and Business Strategy. 6th Edn., McGraw-Hill International, USA., ISBN: 9780071263207, pp: 238-239, 255-257.
80: Daryanto, A., 2007. Peningkatan nilai tambah industri perunggasan melalui supply chain management [An increase in value added of poultry industry through supply chain management]. Lectures Material, Management and Business, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia, September 23, 2007.