Validation of Instrument Measuring the Impact of SCM Practices and SCM Agility on Competitive Advantage and Organization Performance in Indian Pharmaceutical Firms

Abstract

Over the years, rival companies have appropriately turned their attention towards effectively monitoring their supply chains. There is an emphasis on implementing supply chain management practices (SCMP) and promoting supply chain agility, which will lead to increased performance and competitive edge. The researchers covered SCM practices and competitive advantage under five sub-constructs while SCM agility and performance were represented by two sub-constructs. The study aimed to provide a questionnaire that is both reliable and valid, designed to measure the impact of supply chain management (SCM) practices and SCM agility on competitive advantage and firm performance within the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Data collection was done using a simple random sampling technique which gave 227 complete responses obtained from listed as well as unlisted pharmaceutical companies. The data was then statistically analysed using IBM SPSS 26 and SmartPLS 4. The resultant questionnaire instrument can be used by supply chain professionals in the pharmaceutical industry in order to conduct primary research and to derive insights that would help in crucial decision-making regarding pharmaceutical SCM with the aim of improving organizational performance.

Keywords

Supply chain management practices supply chain management agility organizational performance competitive advantage

Introduction

Over the last 20 years, the global trade value of pharmaceutical products has increased more than sixfold, and supply chains have become more interconnected and complex globally (Sahoo et al., 2022). As a major player in the global pharmaceutical sector, India is passing through a compelling phase. The companies in the country are boldly moving forward on the growth path with the ambition to establish themselves as a hub of cost-effective manufacturing and research and development. In response to competition from both domestic and multinational counterparts, Indian pharmaceutical companies are taking a proactive approach to diversify and strengthen their portfolio. This includes taking decisive steps such as enhancing capabilities to produce more sophisticated and differentiated generics, investing in innovative ventures and expanding the capacity to manufacture biosimilars(Chattopadhyay & Bercovitz, 2020). The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most regulated sectors in the economy, with stringent compliance requirements throughout its entire lifecycle, from drug development to post-marketing surveillance(Chakraborty & Venkatraman, 2023).

India has the distinction of being the world’s third-largest producer of pharmaceutical products and has earned the nickname ‘Pharmacy for the World’, and to live up to this designation and expand its global reach, it is imperative to establish and maintain a strong supply chain management (SCM) (Jha & Sharma, 2020). The pharmaceutical supply chain serves as a vital medium through which medicines are made available to end consumers, ensuring efficient and reliable distribution of pharmaceutical products around the world (Panda & Satapathy, 2021). Therefore, there is an urgent need to streamline the supply chain and ensure its resilience, making it shock-proof or minimally affected during situations of uncertainties (Ciger et al., 2022). According to Shah (2004), time-to-market is the prime driver in the pharmaceutical supply chain. As per the existing literature, only a few of the recent studies have delved into the consideration of upstream as well as downstream aspects of the pharmaceutical supply chain. These studies collectively contribute to addressing various diverse and interesting aspects of SCM practices—customer relationship practices and organizational performance; effects of supplier-customer integration on performance; impact of customer–supplier integration on organization performance and the orientation of supply chain and SCM.

Effective SCM involves several activities that are collectively known as supply chain management practices (SCMP). These include strategic supplier partnerships (SSP), customer relationships (CR), information sharing levels (IS), information sharing quality (IQ), postponement (POS), goal congruence (GC) and just-in-time (Gandhi et al., 2017; Li et al., 2006). Supply chain agility (SCA) refers to the organization’s ability to respond rapidly to changing circumstances with minimal time delay (Gerwin, 2005). Several empirical studies have indicated that both SCMP and SCA have a positive effect on performance and competitive advantage (Abdallah et al., 2021; Chen, 2019; Manzoor et al., 2022; Thongrawd et al., 2020; Waqas et al., 2022). It is also reported in the literature that competitive advantage has a positive influence on the organization performance (Flynn et al., 1995; Li et al., 2006; Luthans & Youssef, 2004). Organization performance is defined as the degree to which an organization is able to achieve its pre-defined financial and market objectives (Li et al., 2006).

The absence of a thorough understanding of SCM practices hampers the studies’ capacity to provide comprehensive and broadly applicable suggestions on SCM practices and further research. The present study focuses on instrument validation and reliability of the construct developed to study the influence of SCM practices and agility on the performance and competitive advantage of pharmaceutical firms. SCM practices have been represented by five sub-constructs that is, strategic supplier partnership (SSP), customer relationship (CR), quality of information sharing (IQ), level of information sharing (IS) and postponement (POS). Competitive advantage is also represented by five sub-constructs namely price, product quality (PQ), delivery dependability (DD), product innovation (PI) and time-to-market (TTM). Organization performance has two sub-constructs that is, financial performance (FP) and market performance (MP). SCM agility is represented by organizational agility (OA) and SCA. An instrument questionnaire was designed and developed using a Likert scale (five-pointer) to test the proposed framework and hypothesis. Responses were collected from pharmaceutical industry professionals involved in supply chain management. A total of 227 usable responses were obtained which were statistically analysed using IBM SPSS 26 and SmartPLS 4 to check for reliability, validity and to draw conclusions. The findings of the study will benefit pharmaceutical supply chain professionals by providing strategic insights and aid in decision-making. This article aims to provide supply chain professionals with a reliable and valid instrument questionnaire to measure SCMP, SCMA, CA and OP in pharmaceutical supply chains.

Literature Review

SCM Practices

SCMP refer to the set of initiatives and strategies that an organization adopts to promote and enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and overall performance of its supply chain processes (Li et al., 2006). SSP is a long-term association of the firm with its suppliers that is established with an intent to leverage the operational as well as strategic capabilities of both firms for overall benefit (Faruquee et al., 2021; Qrunfleh & Tarafdar, 2013). This type of collaboration goes beyond the traditional buyer-supplier relationship and involves a long-term, mutually beneficial collaboration between a firm and its suppliers, for example, such participation at early stages in the process of designing the product presents multiple options on effective cost-saving, product designs and technology(Alshurideh et al., 2023; Siagian et al., 2021). Establishing and nurturing lasting relationships with customers is a fundamental aspect of customer relationship management (CRM) (Aripin et al., 2024). Customer Relationship includes a set of practices that are used to build lasting customer relationships, manage customer queries and those that improve the overall customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Gil-Gomez et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2022). The level of information sharing (IS) can be explained as the level to which an organization shares exclusive and critical data with its partners (Alzoubi & Yanamandra, 2020; Pan et al., 2023). The currency of information is often important, especially in rapidly changing environments (Dwivedi et al., 2020). Shared information is said to have high quality depending on the level of how timely, accurate, adequate, reliable and credible the information passed is (Htay et al., 2022; Moberg et al., 2002; Monczka et al., 1998). Postponement refers to the intentional delay of certain activities, operations or processes until a further juncture (Prataviera et al., 2020). This strategy adds flexibility and responsiveness to the entire supply chain (Beamon, 1998; Johnson & Davis, 1998; Rau et al., 2021; Van Hoek et al., 1999). Organizations that actively deploy supply chain management practices are reported to have a competitive edge as well as enhanced market, financial and overall organizational performance (Al-Madi et al., 2021; Cahyono et al., 2023; Jawabreh et al., 2023; Li et al., 2006).

Competitive Advantage

Competitive advantage refers to the distinct superiority and competencies which equip an organization to outnumber its competition and attain impeccable results through differentiation and critical decisions (Lakhal, 2009; Nu’man et al., 2020). The effectiveness and efficiency of a supply chain can impact various aspects of a business, including cost, speed, flexibility and customer satisfaction and drive competitive advantage for the firms (Asamoah et al., 2021; Davis & Spekman, 2004; Maaz & Ahmad, 2022; Madhani, 2020). Organizations are able to achieve competitive advantage by focusing their efforts on SCM which acts as a quintessential factor (Afraz et al., 2021; Schneller & Smeltzer, 2006). Competitive advantage can be measured by indicators that reveal past performance as well as potential competitiveness(Sachitra, 2017). Supply chain personnel can also create a competitive advantage by means of the capabilities and competencies they bring into the team (Salgado et al., 2022). Permitting the involvement as well as accepting and acting on the inputs of suppliers and other stakeholders brings in key insights and hence an edge over its competition (Wang & Yang, 2021). Organizations that have competitive advantage have a substantial positive impact on the overall financial as well as market performance (Azeem et al., 2021; Chatterjee et al., 2022; Ferreira et al., 2020; Lestari et al., 2020; Nu’man et al., 2020).

Organizational Performance

The improvement in organizational performance (OP) is attributed to the financial and market-related initiatives implemented by the organization (Akintokunbo, 2018; Kiu & Chan, 2024). Simply put, OP arises from the combined impact of both non-financial and financial factors that assess the achievement of results relative to predetermined targets in line with objectives and organizational goals (O’Boyle & Hassan, 2013; Raval et al., 2020). Indicators such as investment returns (ROI), profitability percentage, overall share of the market, sales and ROI growth, increased market share and overall position of the firm are employed to measure organizational performance (Bilan et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2016; Utomo et al., 2023). Effective SCM enhances financial performance and, as a result, generates value for shareholders by leveraging control over key performance indicators such as working capital, revenues and cost of capital (Del Giudice et al., 2021; Ellinger et al., 2011; Ivanov, 2021; Khanfar et al., 2021). Organizational effectiveness, as a broader concept, extends beyond financial indicators and includes assessment of factors such as degree of customer satisfaction, operational efficiency and corporate social responsibility (Richard et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2020). Studies have found that SCM practices have shown to exert a positive influence on organizational performance (Kumar et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2022; Saragih et al., 2020; Shahzad et al., 2020; Younis & Sundarakani, 2020).

Supply Chain Management Agility

SCA relates to a firm’s ability to rapidly modify its approach to address rapidly evolving supply chain demands, particularly in purchasing, inventory management and distribution (Shukor et al., 2021). Organizations with a high level of SCA can efficiently navigate changes, keep pace with changing market conditions and take advantage of emerging business opportunities (Miceli et al., 2021; Patel, 2023). The extent of SCM agility is closely linked to the effectiveness of the overall SCM (Abdallah et al., 2021). SCA is an integral function that acts as a mediator between the demand and supply side and operational performance (van Hoek et al., 2022). Agility in a supply chain can be ensured by incorporating factors like quickness, competency, responsibility, flexibility and cost efficacy (Al-Zabidi et al., 2021; Patel, 2023; Shukor et al., 2021). Continuous changes that occur in market situations have created a need for supply chains to become more responsive by leveraging new-age technologies and operation strategies (Aitken et al., 2002). The capacity of organizations to maintain innovativeness is influenced by the agility throughout its supply chain (Al-Zabidi et al., 2021; Chen, 2019). SCA boosts financial, non-financial, operational and overall organizational performance (Al-Zabidi et al., 2021; Chan et al., 2017; Chen, 2019; Gligor et al., 2015; Miceli et al., 2021; Shukor et al., 2021; Swafford et al., 2006; Yang, 2014).

Research Framework of the Study

Figure 1.

Research Framework.

Research Methodology

Conducting a thorough literature review served as the basis for developing an instrument questionnaire, conceptualized on a Likert scale (five-point) with values ranging from five (strongly agree) to one (strongly disagree). The questionnaire covers four key domains: supply chain management practices (SCMP), supply chain management agility (SCMA), organizational performance (OP) and competitive advantage (CA) (Figure 1).

The aim of the research was to include participants who should have extensive knowledge about the functioning of supply chains within their organizations only managers with higher designations were considered to fill out the questionnaire. The instrument containing the questions and a cover letter that mentioned the importance and purpose of this study were sent via email to 750 pharmaceutical companies in India. The data of listed pharmaceutical companies in India was obtained through the official websites of the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange.

The questionnaire consisted of a total of 63 items that were subjected to pre-testing to ensure content validity (Forza, 2002). The constructs and sub-constructs thereof for SCMP, OP and CA were taken from (Li et al., 2006) while for that for SCMA were given by the author’s understanding on the subject through the literature review. The instrument was analysed for its content validation through a panel of four academic professionals and as per their suggestions, the necessary changes were incorporated. A pilot survey was then conducted with 10 responses collected from pharmaceutical companies in Goa by means of personal visits, to test the appropriateness of the instrument (Green, 2020). Owing to limited access to supply chain professionals at managerial levels, a simple random sampling method was used for data collection (Amaya et al., 2015). A total of 227 complete useful responses were received and used for the analysis. The rate of response was found to be 30.26%. This low rate of response is because the respondents considered in this study at managerial levels have time as well as availability constraints. Rigorous statistical analysis was conducted by using the software IBM SPSS 26 and SmartPLS 4 to determine the reliability as well as validation of the instrument questionnaire.

Table 1.

Constructs and the Sub-constructs Included in the Study.

I. Supply Chain Management Practices (SCMP)
1. Strategic Supplier Partnership (SSP)		2. Customer Relationship (CR)
SSP1*	Quality in supplier selection	CR1	Include customers in planning
SSP2	Resolve queries with suppliers	CR2	Customers help set certain standards
SSP3	Support suppliers to improve product quality	CR3	Measure customer satisfaction
SSP4	Improvement programs for suppliers	CR4	Customer feedback on quality improvement
SSP5*	Supplier participation in decision-making	CR5	Encourage customers to seek assistance
SSP6	Involve suppliers in new product decisions	CR6*	System for customer complaints
3. Level of Information Sharing (IS)		CR7*	Long-term relationships with customers
IS1	Discuss changing needs with trading partners	4. Level of Information Quality (IQ)
IS2	Partners provide crucial business information	IQ1	Timely
IS3	Information helps develop business processes	IQ2*	Accurate
IS4	Information helps in business planning	IQ3*	Complete
IS5	Information on events that may affect business	IQ4*	Adequate
IS6	Integration of internal processes with partners	IQ5*	Reliable
5. Postponement (POS)
POS1	Utilization of modular assembly Final production on customer order Delay final production as far as possible Supply chain helps product customization
POS2*
POS3*
POS4
II. Competitive Advantage (CA)
1. Price		2. Delivery Dependability (DD)
Price1	Products at competitive prices	DD1	Manufacture and deliver products as needed
Price2	Products at prices lower than competitors	DD2	Order delivery in time
3. Quality (QL)		DD3	Accept and deliver ad-hoc orders
QL1	Compete based on quality	4. Product Innovation (PI)
QL2	Products are highly reliable	PI1	Customization of products
QL3	Highly durable products	PI2	Alter products as per customer needs
QL4	High-quality products	PI3	Positive response to new potential features
5. Time-to-market (TTM)		PI4	Key suppliers to maintain innovativeness
TTM1	Quickly deliver products to the market First to deliver novel products Low time-to-market than competitors Faster in product development
TTM2
TTM3
TTM4
III. Organizational Performance
1. Financial Performance (FP)		2. Organizational Performance (OP)
FP1	Return on investment (ROI)	MP1	Able to achieve defined market share every time
FP2	Return on investment growth	MP2	Market share growth as per expectations
FP3	Improvement in profit margin	MP3	Quarterly sales growth
		MP4	Market domination in competition
IV. Supply Chain Management Agility
1. Organizational Agility (OA)		2. Supply Chain Agility (SCA)
OA1	Timely capture market information	SCA1	Enhancement of operational capabilities
OA2	Embrace change and learning	SCA2	Use of technology to reduce time
OA3	Quick decision making	SCA3	Highly integrated processes
OA4	Quick implementation of decisions	SCA4	Supply chain uses rapid response initiatives
OA5	Detect and seize opportunities	SCA5	Supply chain response to real market demand
OA6	Ability to quickly respond to customer needs

Note: *Marked questions were deleted from the final questionnaire

Table 1 depicts the constructs along with its sub-constructs that have been included in the study.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Assessing the Measurement Model

Content Validity

Content validity relates to the suitability of measurement items employed to assess the domains covered in a study through a data collection instrument (Lynn, 1986). Extensive examination of the literature, along with feedback from academic experts and industry professionals in relevant fields, constitutes the most commonly employed approach to ensuring the content validity of the instrument (Polit & Beck, 2006). Content validation of the instrument questionnaire was conducted through a thorough review of the literature on SCMP, SCMA, OP and CA in the supply chain. Content validation of the instrument was ensured by a panel of four academic experts whose suggestions were incorporated. A pilot survey was carried out over 10 respondents to ensure content validity in the questionnaire. The industry professionals working in supply chain management and allied areas who responded to the questionnaire did not face any practical difficulties in understanding and responding to the questions nor did they suggest any major changes. Thus, content validity was established in the instrument questionnaire.

Uni-dimensionality

It refers to a condition wherein an entire set of items/sub-constructs are explained by one and only one major construct (Hair et al., 2014). It ensures that every item has a significant association with its own construct and that is related to only a single construct (Chen & Paulraj, 2004). Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed to check for uni-dimensionality. According to (Hair et al., 2017) the threshold value of factor loadings for significant consideration is 0.5 and those items that either demonstrate values below 0.5 or show cross-loadings with more than one construct are deemed fit for deletion.

Factor Analysis

Table 2.

Factor Analysis for SCMP, SCMA, OP and CA.

SCMP		CA		SCMA		OP
SSP2	0.597	Price1	0.799	SCA1	0.814	Fp1	0.819
SSP3	0.652	Price2	0.246	SCA2	0.678	Fp2	0.803
SSP4	0.639	QL1	0.630	SCA3	0.735	Fp3	0.825
SSP6	0.803	QL2	0.665	SCA4	0.691	Mp1	0.788
CR1	0.649	QL3	0.771	SCA5	0.692	Mp2	0.816
CR2	0.590	QL4	0.815	OA1	0.694	Mp3	0.811
CR3	0.513	PI1	0.688	OA2	0.728	Mp4	0.748
CR4	0.405	PI2	0.723	OA3	0.731
CR5	0.647	PI3	0.720	OA4	0.839
IQ1	0.328	P14	0.808	OA5	0.762
IS1	0.608	DD1	0.719	OA6	0.799
IS2	0.711	DD2	0.748
IS3	0.451	DD3	0.560
IS4	0.723	TTM1	0.804
IS5	0.781	TTM2	0.551
IS6	0.734	TTM3	0.775
POS1	0.467	TTM4	0.743
POS4	0.384

Table 2 is related to analysis of the sub-constructs belonging to SCMP, SCMA, OP and CA and the output is shown.

SCMP construct consisting of 28 items intended to measure five dimensions were factor analysed. It was observed that SSP1, SSP5, CR6, CR7, IQ2, IQ3, IQ4, IQ5, POS2 and POS3 either exhibited cross-loadings or values below 0.50 and hence had to be excluded. The CA construct contained 17 items intended to measure five dimensions while OP and SCMA had 7 and 11 items, respectively to be measured over two dimensions. Considering the literature, the importance of the items for measurement and their loadings well above the threshold, no items were deleted from CA, OP and SCMA. Though IQ1 and Price2 failed to meet the criteria, they were not deleted since literature suggested that information quality and price play an important role in competitive advantage (Baqleh & Alateeq, 2023). CR4 is an important measure as customer feedback is essential in order to understand and cater to the existing market demand and in quality improvement (Alzoubi & Yanamandra, 2020). IS4 was not deleted as certain proprietary information helps in crucial business planning and decision-making (Mc Loughlin et al., 2023). POS1 and POS4 were not deleted as they had the highest loading among the postponement sub-constructs and to understand the relevance of modular assembly and product customization in the Indian pharmaceutical sector. All the other values were found to be well above the threshold. Hence, according to Wang et al. (2006) convergent validity and uni-dimensionality is confirmed.

Multicollinearity Statistics (VIF) for Indicators

Variance inflation factor (VIF) helps recognize the extent of collinearity issues in the dataset. A dataset is said to not have any multicollinearity problems when the VIF values are above 0.1 and below 10 (García et al., 2015). As evident from Table 3, all the VIF values are below 10 hence confirming the absence of multicollinearity issues.

Table 3.

Variance Inflation Factor (VIF).

	SSP	CR	IS	IQ	POS	Price	QL	PI	DD	TTM	FP	MP	SCA	OA
VIF	3.7	2.6	2.05	1.12	1.13	2.41	2.28	3.42	2.66	2.62	2.67	2.67	2.94	2.94

Construct Reliability and Convergent Validity

Reliability is important because it measures the quality of research. Reliability analysis, specifically internal consistency, was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha on each dimension—SCMP, CA, OP and SCMA (Cronbach, 1951).

According to (Cronbach, 1951), reliability values of 0.60 and above lie in the acceptable range. As evident in Table 4, the alpha value for every construct is above 0.70, which is considered acceptable. Since Cronbach’s alpha explains the internal consistency, it can be inferred that the level of internal consistency in the questionnaire instrument is acceptable. Construct validity can also be confirmed using Average Variance Extracted, wherein outcomes exceeding 0.50 exhibit above 50% of variance (Shahbaz et al., 2019). Therefore, it can be concluded from Table 4 that construct reliability and convergent validity exist in the questionnaire instrument.

Table 4.

Composite (Construct) Reliability and Convergent Validity.

	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability (rho_c)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
CA	0.914	0.935	0.743
OP	0.883	0.945	0.895
SCMA	0.897	0.951	0.906
SCMP	0.705	0.812	0.483

Discriminant Validity

Fornell–Larcker Criterion

As per the criterion, the diagonal elements should have the highest values within its own construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In the Table 5, the diagonal values are above 0.5 and are the highest among its own construct.

Table 5.

Fornell–Larcker Criterion.

	CA	OP	SCMA	SCMP
CA	0.862
OP	0.795	0.946
SCMA	0.809	0.778	0.952
SCMP	0.712	0.652	0.676	0.695

Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) Ratio

All the HTMT values in Table 6 were found to be below or near to 0.85 which is acceptable (Yusoff et al., 2020). We can hence conclude the absence of discriminant validity issues.

Table 6.

HTMT Ratio.

	CA	OP	SCMA	SCMP
CA
OP	0.878
SCMA	0.812	0.867
SCMP	0.801	0.775	0.816

Figure 2.

Measurement Model.

There exists a good degree of interactions and inter-relations between the constructs in the second-order model, thus confirming the validity, reliability and effectiveness of the questionnaire, its responses as well as the data analysis.

Assessing the Structural Model

Covariance-based structural equation modelling was conducted on SmartPLS 4 for determining the model fit.

Figure 3.

Structural Model.

The results exhibit significant loadings that correspond to its construct (second-order). As can be confirmed from Table 7, the overall model has shown a satisfactory fit (Hair et al., 2017).

Table 7.

Results of the Structural Model

	Estimated Model
Chi-square	342.422
P value	.000
ChiSqr/df	4.823
RMSEA	0.13
GFI	0.827
AGFI	0.743
SRMR	0.07
NFI	0.865
TLI	0.858
CFI	0.889

Figure 2 is the output related to SEM analysis using SmartPLS4 explaining the impact of independent constructs on the dependent constructs.

Figure 3 is the result of SEM analysis which explains structural model of covariance-based structural equation modelling analysis (CB-SEM).

Managerial Implications

The study provides a reliable and valid questionnaire instrument to test the impact of supply chain management practices and supply chain management agility on competitive advantage and organizational performance of Indian pharmaceutical firms. Professionals working in the field of supply chain can make use of this questionnaire to conduct primary market research in order to evaluate the impact of the constructs and its sub-constructs on CA, OP and SCMA. The insights gained in terms of identifying positive and negative points will help in making informed decisions, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the pharmaceutical supply chain.

Conclusions

The purpose of this article was to conduct validity and reliability tests of the instrument questionnaire that measures SCMP, SCMA, CA and OP among Indian pharmaceutical firms. The scale development was carried out as per the standards set by (King & Sethi, 1999; Rao et al., 1999). The study has managed to develop an authentic questionnaire instrument that can be used empirically by supply chain managers and professionals linked to logistics in order to evaluate the impact of SCMP, SCMA on CA and OP. The resultant questionnaire is reliable, valid and unidimensional in nature. The scale has been tested through the measurement model assessment as well as the structural model assessment and has been found to be satisfactory (Hair et al., 2017). The extension of this scale can be utilized to measure the indirect and direct effects of SCMP and SCMA on CA and OP. Future studies can incorporate other dimensions of SCMP, SCMA, CA and OP for the development and validation of a similar construct. The scale developed through this study can be also subjected to similar studies in different geographical locations.

Appendix A. Questionnaire Instrument for SCMP, SCMA, CA and OP.

Please tick the option that most precisely reflects your organization’s present conditions concerning supply chain management wherein ‘1= Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree’.		(I). Supply Chain Management Practices	1. Strategic Supplier Partnership (SSP)
SCMP_SSP1*	We value quality as an essential criterion in supplier selection
SCMP_SSP2	We resolve queries/issues with suppliers regularly
SCMP_SSP3	We support our suppliers to improve product quality
SCMP_SSP4	We organize continuous improvement programs to help our key suppliers
SCMP_SSP5*	We allow our key suppliers to participate in organizational planning and goal-setting activities
SCMP _SSP6	We encourage involvement of key suppliers in new product development process/decisions
2. Customer Relationship (CR)
SCMP_CR1	We include our customers in our planning
SCMP_CR2	We regularly interact with customers to set reliability, responsiveness and other organizational standards
SCMP_CR3	We frequently measure and evaluate customer satisfaction on repeated intervals
SCMP_CR4	We take feedback from our customers to improve the quality of our products
SCMP_CR5	We encourage customers to seek assistance from the organization
SCMP_CR6*	We have a dedicated system for handling customer complaints
SCMP_CR7*	We try to build long-term relationships with our customers
3. Level of Information Sharing (IS)
SCMP_IS1	Our trading partners and we discuss any changing needs in advance
SCMP_IS2	Our trading partners provide all types of information which affect our business
SCMP_IS3	Our trading partners ensure that shared information helps in developing business processes
SCMP_IS4	We exchange information with trading partners that helps in business planning
SCMP_IS5	We share information about events or changes that may affect our business (trading) partners
SCMP_IS6	Our internal processes are integrated with our partners to ensure smoother operations
4. Level of Information Quality (IQ)
SCMP_IQ1	Timely
SCMP_IQ2*	Accurate
SCMP_IQ3*	Complete
SCMP_IQ4*	Adequate
SCMP_IQ5*	Reliable
5. Postponement (POS)
SCMP_POS1	We go for utilization of modular assembly as far as possible
SCMP_POS2*	We go for final product assembly/manufacturing only on receipt of customer order
SCMP_POS3*	We delay final product manufacturing until nearest customer position in the supply chain
SCMP_POS4	‘Our supply chain postponement strategies enable customization of products’
(II). Competitive Advantage		1. Price
CA_Price1	We offer products at competitive prices
CA_Price2	We offer products at prices that are lower than our competitors
2. Quality
CA_QL1	We are able to compete based on quality
CA_QL2	We offer highly reliable products
CA_QL3	The products we offer are highly durable
CA_QL4	We offer high-quality products
3. Delivery Dependability
CA_DD1	We manufacture and deliver the kind of products as needed by our customers
CA_DD2	We are dependable as we ensure order delivery within specified time
CA_DD3	We accept and deliver ad-hoc orders
4. Product Innovation
CA_PI1	We provide customized products depending on customer needs
CA_PI2	We alter our products according to customer requirements
CA_PI3	We respond well to customer demand for new potential features
CA_PI4	We select and involve key suppliers to maintain innovativeness
5. Time to Market
CA_TTM1	We quickly deliver products to market
CA_TTM2	We are first to introduce new products in the market
CA_TTM3	We offer lower time-to-market than our competitors
CA_TTM4	We are faster in product development than our competitors
(III) Organizational Performance
OP_Fp1	We fetch a decent return on investment
OP_Fp2	We manage a decent return on investment growth
OP_Fp3	We ensure improvement in our profit margin
OP_Mp1	We are able to achieve a defined market share every time
OP_Mp2	Our market share growth is in accordance with our expectations
OP_Mp3	We ensure our sales growth every quarter
OP_Mp4	We dominate the market in terms of overall competitive position
(IV). Supply Chain Agility
SCMA_OA1	We timely capture market information
SCMA_OA2	We embrace change and learning through continuous improvement, top management support and staff empowerment
SCMA_OA3	We take decisions quickly using the available information
SCMA_OA4	We implement decisions quickly
SCMA_OA5	We quickly detect changes, opportunities, threats and seize competitive market opportunities
SCMA_OA6	We are flexible in responding rapidly and cost-effectively to customer needs by information sharing
SCMA_SCA1	We enhance our operational capabilities through production planning, process integration, inventory management and postponement
SCMA_SCA2	We make use of technology that reduces overall time required
SCMA_SCA3	Our processes are highly integrated
SCMA_SCA4	Our supply chain uses rapid response initiatives
SCMA_SCA5	Our supply chain is capable of responding to real market demand

Note: *Marked questions were deleted from the final questionnaire

Appendix A is related to questionnaire that was used to collect responses from supply chain professionals from the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Anand Sharma

Pooja Arora

References

Abdallah

A. B.

, Alfar

N. A.

, & Alhyari

(2021). The effect of supply chain quality management on supply chain performance: The indirect roles of supply chain agility and innovation. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 51, 785–812.

Afraz

M. F.

, Bhatti

S. H.

, Ferraris

, & Couturier

(2021). The impact of supply chain innovation on competitive advantage in the construction industry: Evidence from a moderated multi-mediation model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 162, 120370.

Aitken

, Christopher

, & Towill

(2002). Understanding, implementing and exploiting agility and leanness. International Journal of Logistics , 5, 59–74.

Akintokunbo

O. O.

(2018). Market focus strategy and organizational performance of telecommunication companies in Port Harcourt. International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies , 5, 258–263.

Al-Madi

, Alfalah

, Shraah

, & Abu-Rumman

(2021). Supply chain practices and organizational performance: Evidence from Jordanian medical devices firms. Uncertain Supply Chain Management , 9, 831–840.

Alshurideh

M. T.

, Al Kurdi

, Alzoubi

H. M.

, Akour

I. A.

, Hamadneh

, Alhamad

, & Joghee

(2023). Factors affecting customer-supplier electronic relationship (ER): A customers’ perspective. International Journal of Engineering Business Management , 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790231188242

Al-Zabidi

, Rehman

A. U.

, & Alkahtani

(2021). An approach to assess sustainable supply chain agility for a manufacturing organization. Sustainability , 13(4), 1752. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041752

Alzoubi

H. M.

, & Yanamandra

(2020). Investigating the mediating role of information sharing strategy on agile supply chain. Uncertain Supply Chain Management , 8(2020), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2019.12.004

Amaya

, Leclere

, Carris

, & Liao

(2015). Where to start: An evaluation of primary data-collection modes in an address-based sampling design. Public Opinion Quarterly , 79(2), 420–442.

10.

Aripin

, Pynatih

N. M. N.

, & Aristanto

(2024). Nurturing marketing relationships: The role of loyalty tendencies beyond relationship dynamics. Journal of Economics, Accounting, Business, >Management, Engineering and Society , 1, 67–81.

11.

Asamoah

, Nuertey

, Agyei-Owusu

, & Akyeh

(2021). The effect of supply chain responsiveness on customer development. The International Journal of Logistics Management , 32, 1190–1213.

12.

Azeem

, Ahmed

, Haider

, & Sajjad

(2021). Expanding competitive advantage through organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Technology in Society , 66, 101635.

13.

Baqleh

L. A.

, & Alateeq

M. M.

(2023). The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage: The moderating role of big data analytics. International Journal of Professional Business Review , 8(3), e0679.

14.

Beamon

B. M.

(1998). Supply chain design and analysis:: Models and methods. International Journal of Production Economics , 55, 281–294.

15.

Bilan

, Hussain

H. I.

, Haseeb

, & Kot

(2020). Sustainability and economic performance: Role of organizational learning and innovation. Engineering Economics , 31(1), 93–103.

16.

Cahyono

, Purwoko

, Koho

, Setiani

, Supendi

, Setyoko

, Sosiady

, & Wijoyo

(2023). The role of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and performance of halal agroindustry SMEs. Uncertain Supply Chain Management , 11, 153–160.

17.

Chakraborty

, & Venkatraman

J. V.

(2023). Pharmacovigilance through phased clinical trials, post-marketing surveillance and ongoing life cycle safety. In Jagadeesh

, Balakumar

, & Senatore

(Eds), The quintessence of basic and clinical research and scientific publishing (pp. 427–442). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1284-1_27

18.

Chan

A. T.

, Ngai

E. W.

, & Moon

K. K.

(2017). The effects of strategic and manufacturing flexibilities and supply chain agility on firm performance in the fashion industry. European Journal of Operational Research , 259, 486–499.

19.

Chatterjee

, Chaudhuri

, & Vrontis

(2022). Does remote work flexibility enhance organization performance? Moderating role of organization policy and top management support. Journal of Business Research , 139, 1501–1512.

20.

Chattopadhyay

, & Bercovitz

(2020). When one door closes, another door opens … for some: Evidence from the post-TRIPS Indian pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal , 41(6), 988–1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3140

21.

Chen

C. -J

. (2019). Developing a model for supply chain agility and innovativeness to enhance firms’ competitive advantage. Management Decision , 57(7), 1511–1534.

22.

Chen

I. J.

, & Paulraj

(2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: The constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management , 22, 119–150.

23.

Ciger

, Ess

, Hart

, Hürtgen

, & Goldrick

(2022). Navigating the market headwinds: The state of grocery retail . https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/state-of-grocery-europe-2022-navigating-the-market-headwinds

24.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika , 16, 297–334.

25.

Davis

E. W.

, & Spekman

R. E.

(2004). The extended enterprise: Gaining competitive advantage through collaborative supply chains (p. 262). FT Press.

26.

Del Giudice

, Chierici

, Mazzucchelli

, & Fiano

(2021). Supply chain management in the era of circular economy: The moderating effect of big data. The International Journal of Logistics Management , 32, 337–356.

27.

Dwivedi

S. K.

, Amin

, & Vollala

(2020). Blockchain based secured information sharing protocol in supply chain management system with key distribution mechanism. Journal of Information Security and Applications , 54, 102554

28.

Ellinger

A. E.

, Natarajarathinam

, Adams

F. G.

, Gray

J. B.

, Hofman

, & O’Marah

(2011). Supply chain management competency and firm financial success. Journal of Business Logistics , 32, 214–226.

29.

Faruquee

, Paulraj

, & Irawan

C. A.

(2021). Strategic supplier relationships and supply chain resilience: Is digital transformation that precludes trust beneficial? International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 41, 1192–1219. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2020-0702

30.

Ferreira

, Coelho

, & Moutinho

(2020). Dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their impact on competitive advantage and firm performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Technovation , 92, 102061.

31.

Flynn

B. B.

, Schroeder

R. G.

, & Sakakibara

(1995). The impact of quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences , 26(5), 659–691.

32.

Fornell

, & Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research , 18(3), 382–388.

33.

Forza

(2002). Survey research in operations management: A process-based perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 22, 152–194.

34.

Gandhi

A. V.

, Shaikh

, & Sheorey

P. A.

(2017). Impact of supply chain management practices on firm performance: Empirical evidence from a developing country. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , 45(4), 366–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-06-2015-0076

35.

García

C. B.

, García

, López Martín

M. M.

, & Salmerón

(2015). Collinearity: Revisiting the variance inflation factor in ridge regression. Journal of Applied Statistics , 42, 648–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2014.980789

36.

Gerwin

(2005). An agenda for research on the flexibility of manufacturing processes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 25, 1171–1182.

37.

Gil-Gomez

, Guerola-Navarro

, Oltra-Badenes

, & Lozano-Quilis

J. A.

(2020). Customer relationship management: digital transformation and sustainable business model innovation. Economic Research , 33, 2733–2750. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1676283

38.

Gligor

D. M.

, Esmark

C. L.

, & Holcomb

M. C.

(2015). Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: when should you be agile? Journal of Operations Management , 33, 71–82.

39.

Green

(2020). Pilot testing The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (p. 542). Routledge.

40.

Hair

, Hollingsworth

C. L.

, Randolph

A. B.

, & Chong

A. Y. L.

(2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & data Systems , 117(3), 442–458.

41.

Hair

J. F.

, Gabriel

, & Patel

2014. AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Brazilian Journal of Marketing 13(2), 44–55.

42.

Htay

M. N. N.

, Parial

L. L.

, Tolabing

M. C.

, Dadaczynski

, Okan

, Leung

A. Y. M.

, & Su

T. T.

(2022). Digital health literacy, online information-seeking behaviour, and satisfaction of Covid-19 information among the university students of East and South-East Asia. PLoS One , 17(4), e0266276.

43.

Ivanov

(2021). Digital supply chain management and technology to enhance resilience by building and using end-to-end visibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3095193

44.

Jawabreh

, Baadhem

A. M.

, Ali

B. J.

, Atta

A. A. B.

, Ali

, Al-Hosaini

F. F.

, & Allahham

(2023). The influence of supply chain management strategies on organizational performance in hospitality industry. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences , 17(5), 851–858.

45.

Jha

, & Sharma

(2020). India’s pharmaceutical industry: Global supply chain and governance in the post-COVID-19 world . https://ssrn.com/abstract=3622794or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3622794

46.

Johnson

M. E.

, & Davis

(1998). Improuing supply chain performance by using order fulfillment metrics. National Productivity Review , 17, 3–16.

47.

Khan

R. U.

, Salamzadeh

, Iqbal

, & Yang

(2022). The impact of customer relationship management and company reputation on customer loyalty: The mediating role of customer satisfaction. Journal of Relationship Marketing , 21, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2020.1840904

48.

Khanfar

A. A.

, Iranmanesh

, Ghobakhloo

, Senali

M. G.

, & Fathi

(2021). Applications of blockchain technology in sustainable manufacturing and supply chain management: A systematic review. Sustainability , 13(14), 7870.

49.

King

W. R.

, & Sethi

(1999). An empirical assessment of the organization of transnational information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems , 15, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1999.11518220

50.

Kiu

C. T. T.

, & Chan

J. H.

(2024). Firm characteristics and the adoption of data analytics in performance management: A critical analysis of EU enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 124(2), 820–858.

51.

Kumar

, Singh

, & Modgil

(2020). Exploring the relationship between ICT, SCM practices and organizational performance in agri-food supply chain. Benchmarking: An International Journal , 27(3) 1003–1041. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2019-0500

52.

Lakhal

(2009). Impact of quality on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Journal of the Operational Research Society , 60, 637–645.

53.

Lee

, Azmi

, Hanaysha

, Alzoubi

, & Alshurideh

(2022). The effect of digital supply chain on organizational performance: An empirical study in Malaysia manufacturing industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Management , 10(2), 495–510.

54.

Lestari

S. D.

, Leon

F. M.

, Widyastuti

, Brabo

N. A.

, & Putra

A. H. P. K.

(2020). Antecedents and consequences of innovation and business strategy on performance and competitive advantage of SMEs. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business , 7, 365–378.

55.

, Ragu-Nathan

T. S.

, & Rao

S. S.

(2006). The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega , 34(2), 107–124.

56.

Luthans

, & Youssef

C. M.

(2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics , 33(2), 143–160

57.

Lynn

M. R.

(1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research , 35(6), 382–385.

58.

Maaz

M. A. M.

, & Ahmad

(2022). Impact of supply chain performance on organizational performance mediated by customer satisfaction: A study of dairy industry. Business Process Management Journal , 28, 1–22.

59.

Madhani

P. M.

(2020). Customer-focused supply chain strategy: Developing 4Rs framework for enhancing competitive advantages. International Journal of Services and Operations Management , 36(4), 505. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2020.109018

60.

Manzoor

, Baig

S. A.

, Hashim

, Sami

, Rehman

H. -U.

, & Sajjad

(2022). The effect of supply chain agility and lean practices on operational performance: A resource-based view and dynamic capabilities perspective. The TQM Journal , 34, 1273–1297.

61.

Mc Loughlin

, Lewis

, Lascelles

, & Nudurupati

(2023). Sustainability in supply chains: Reappraising business process management. Production Planning & Control , 34(1), 19–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1884764

62.

Miceli

, Hagen

, Riccardi

M. P.

, Sotti

, & Settembre-Blundo

(2021). Thriving, not just surviving in changing times: How sustainability, agility and digitalization intertwine with organizational resilience. Sustainability , 13(4), 2052.

63.

Moberg

C. R.

, Cutler

B. D.

, Gross

, & Speh

T. W.

(2002). Identifying antecedents of information exchange within supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 32, 755–770.

64.

Monczka

R. M.

, Petersen

K. J.

, Handfield

R. B.

, & Ragatz

G. L.

(1998). Success factors in strategic supplier alliances: The buying company perspective. Decision Sciences , 29(3), 553–577.

65.

Nu’man

A. H.

, Nurwandi

, Bachtiar

, Aspiranti

, & Pratama

(2020). Social networking, and firm performance: Mediating role of comparative advantage and sustainable supply chain. International Journal of Supply Chain Management , 9(3), 664–673.

66.

O’Boyle

, & Hassan

(2013). Organizational performance management: Examining the practical utility of the performance prism. Organization Development Journal , 31, 51.

67.

Pan

, Ng

C. T.

, Dong

, & Cheng

T. C. E.

(2023). Information sharing and coordination in a vaccine supply chain. Annals of Operations Research , 329, 1197–1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04562-1

68.

Panda

S. K.

, & Satapathy

S. C.

(2021). Drug traceability and transparency in medical supply chain using blockchain for easing the process and creating trust between stakeholders and consumers. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing , 28, 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-021-01588-3

69.

Patel

K. R.

(2023). Enhancing global supply chain resilience: Effective strategies for mitigating disruptions in an interconnected world. BULLET: Journal Multidisiplin Ilmu , 2, 257–264.

70.

Polit

D. F.

, & Beck

C. T.

(2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health , 29, 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147

71.

Prataviera

L. B.

, Perotti

, Melacini

, & Moretti

(2020). Postponement strategies for global downstream supply chains: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Logistics , 41, 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12250

72.

Qrunfleh

, & Tarafdar

(2013). Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply chain responsiveness: The role of strategic supplier partnership and postponement. Supply Chain Management , 1, 571–582.

73.

Rao

S. S.

, Solis

L. E.

, & Raghunathan

T. S.

(1999). A framework for international quality management research: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Total Quality Management , 10, 1047–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412997226

74.

Rau

, Budiman

S. D.

, & Monteiro

C. N.

(2021). Improving the sustainability of a reverse supply chain system under demand uncertainty by using postponement strategies. Waste Management , 131, 72–87.

75.

Raval

S. J.

, Kant

, & Shankar

(2020). Analyzing the lean six sigma enabled organizational performance to enhance operational efficiency. Benchmarking: An International Journal , 27, 2401–2434.

76.

Richard

P. J.

, Devinney

T. M.

, Yip

G. S.

, & Johnson

(2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management , 35, 718–804.

77.

Sachitra

K. M. V.

(2017). Review of competitive advantage measurements: Reference on agribusiness sector. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports 12(6), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.9734/JSRR/2016/30850

78.

Sahoo

, Kumar

, Sivarajah

, Lim

W. M.

, Westland

J. C.

, & Kumar

(2022). Blockchain for sustainable supply chain management: Trends and ways forward. Electronic Commerce Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09569-1

79.

Salgado

C. C. R.

, Aires

R. F. D. F.

, & De Araújo

A. G.

(2022). Transient competitive advantage model (TCAM) to analyze companies in the context of transience. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management , 23, 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00296-4

80.

Saragih

, Tarigan

, Pratama

, Wardati

, & Silalahi

E. F.

(2020). The impact of total quality management, supply chain management practices and operations capability on firm performance. Polish Journal of Management Studies , 21(2), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2020.21.2.27

81.

Schneller

E. S.

, & Smeltzer

L. R.

(2006). Strategic management of the health care supply chain . Jossey-bass.

82.

Shah

(2004). Pharmaceutical supply chains: Key issues and strategies for optimisation. Computers & Chemical Engineering , 28, 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2003.09.022

83.

Shahbaz

M. S.

, Rasi

R. Z. R.

, & Ahmad

M. F. B.

(2019). A novel classification of supply chain risks: Scale development and validation. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management , 12, 201–218.

84.

Shahzad

, Du

, Khan

, Shahbaz

, Murad

, & Khan

M. A. S.

(2020). Untangling the influence of organizational compatibility on green supply chain management efforts to boost organizational performance through information technology capabilities. Journal of Cleaner Production , 266, 122029.

85.

Shukor

A. A. A.

, Newaz

Md. S.

, Rahman

M. K.

, & Taha

A. Z.

(2021). Supply chain integration and its impact on supply chain agility and organizational flexibility in manufacturing firms. International Journal of Emerging Markets , 16(8), 1721–1744. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-04-2020-0418

86.

Siagian

, Setiabudi

K. J.

, & Tarigan

Z. J. H.

(2021). The role of affective leadership in improving firm performance through the integrated internal system and external integration FMCG Industry (PhD Thesis). Petra Christian University.

87.

Singh

, Darwish

T. K.

, & Potočnik

(2016). Measuring organizational performance: A case for subjective measures. British Journal of Management , 27, 214–224.

88.

Swafford

P. M.

, Ghosh

, & Murthy

(2006). The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm: Scale development and model testing. Journal of Operations Management , 24, 170–188.

89.

Thongrawd

, Ramanust

, Narakorn

, & Seesupan

(2020). Exploring the mediating role of supply chain flexibility and supply chain agility between supplier partnership, customer relationship management and competitive advantage. International Journal of Supply Chain Management , 9, 435–443.

90.

Utomo

H. J. N.

, Irwantoro

, Wasesa

, Purwati

, Sembiring

, & Purwanto

(2023). Investigating the role of innovative work behavior, organizational trust, perceived organizational support: An empirical study on SMEs performance. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development , 11, e417–e417.

91.

van Hoek

, Lacity

, & Willcocks

(2022). Influencing supply chain practice: the action principles approach applied to pandemic risk management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 52, 456–478.

92.

Van Hoek

R. I.

, Vos

, & Commandeur

H.R.

(1999). Restructuring European supply chains by implementing postponement strategies. Long Range Planning , 32, 505–518.

93.

Wang

E. T. G.

, Tai

J. C. F.

, & Wei

H. -L

. (2006). A virtual integration theory of improved supply-chain performance. Journal of Management Information Systems , 23, 41–64. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230203

94.

Wang

, & Yang

(2021). Role of supplier involvement and project leader in SNPD: A conceptual model and exploratory case study. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , 14, 960–981.

95.

Waqas

, Honggang

, Ahmad

, Khan

S. A. R.

, Ullah

, & Iqbal

(2022). Triggering sustainable firm performance, supply chain competitive advantage, and green innovation through lean, green, and agile supply chain practices. Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 29, 17832–17853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16707-z

96.

Yang

(2014). Supply chain agility: Securing performance for Chinese manufacturers. International Journal of Production Economics , 150, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.018

97.

Younis

, & Sundarakani

(2020). The impact of firm size, firm age and environmental management certification on the relationship between green supply chain practices and corporate performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal , 27, 319–346.

98.

Yusoff

A. S. M.

, Peng

F. S.

, Abd Razak

F. Z.

, & Mustafa

W. A.

(2020). Discriminant validity assessment of religious teacher acceptance: The use of HTMT criterion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , IOP Publishing, p. 042045.

99.

Zhang

, Cao

, Zhang

, Liu

, & Li

(2020). Effects of corporate social responsibility on customer satisfaction and organizational attractiveness: A signaling perspective. Business Ethics: A European Review , 29, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12243