Supply-Chain Transparency and Governance Systems: Market Penetration of the I-Choose System

  • Weijia RanEmail author
  • Holly Jarman
  • Luis F. Luna-Reyes
  • Jing Zhang
  • Deborah Andersen
  • Giri Tayi
  • Djoko S. Sayogo
  • Joanne Luciano
  • Theresa A. Pardo
  • David Andersen
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 20)


In this chapter, we explore the impacts of key characteristics of Supply Chain Governance Systems in the development and diffusion of technology innovations that promote supply chain transparency and sustainable consumption and production. The model presented in this chapter was developed following group model building methods. Our simulation experiments reveal that the market resists “take-off” unless external financial support can be found. Additionally, “take-off” dynamics of the system are dominated by marketing budgets and external support for infrastructure. Marketing budgets drive how fast users adopt the system, and without external sponsorship of system, the final market collapses. Finally, the quality of governance—reflected in information completeness, openness, relevance and reliability, and the resultant trustworthiness of information determines final sustainable market share.


Supply Chain Governance System Technology Acceptance Model Market Penetration Sustainable Consumption 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abbott K, Snidal D (2009) The governance triangle: regulatory standards, institutions, and the shadow of the state. In: Mattli W, Woods N (eds) The politics of global regulation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 44–88Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1991) The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50:179–211Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen I (2002) Constructing a TPB questionnaire: conceptual and methodological considerations.
  4. Andersen DF, Richardson GP (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 13(2):107–129 (Wiley)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen DL, Luna-Reyes LF, Diker VG, Black L, Rich E, Andersen DF (2012) The disconfirmatory interview as a strategy for the assessment of system dynamics models. Syst Dyn Rev 28(3):255–275. doi: 10.1002/sdr.1479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amstel M v, Driessen P, Glasbergen P (2008) Eco-labeling and information asymmetry: a comparison of five eco-labels in the Netherlands. J Clean Prod 16(3):14Google Scholar
  7. Attewell P (1992) Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing. Organ Sci 3:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basiago AD (1995) Methods of defining ‘sustainability’. Sustain Dev 3:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bass FM (1969) A new product growth model for consumer durables. Manag Sci 15:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bass FM, Krishnan TV, Jain DC (1994) Why the bass model fits without decision variables. Mark Sci 13:203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bayat A, Sundararajan S, Gustafson HR, Zimmers EW (2011) Sustainability driven supply chains. Ind Eng 43(8):26–31Google Scholar
  12. Beales H, Craswell R, Salop SC (1981) The efficient regulation of consumer information. J Law Econ 24(3):491–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Black LJ, Andersen DF (2012) Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflict in collaborative model-building approaches. Syst Res Behav Sci 29(2):194–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Black LJ, Carlile PR, Repenning NP (2004) A dynamic theory of expertise and occupational boundaries in new technology implementation: building on barley’s study of CT scanning. Adm Sci Q 49(4):572–607Google Scholar
  15. Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1985) Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Bray J, Johns N, Kilburn D (2011) An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. J Bus Ethics 98(4):597–608. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0640-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Búrca G, Scott J (eds) (2006) Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Hart, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Carrington M, Neville B, Whitwell G (2010) Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. J Bus Ethics 97(1):139–158. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0501-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Caswell JA, Padberg DI (1992) Toward a more comprehensive theory of food labels. Am J Agric Econ 74(2):460–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2001) European governance: a white paper. COM (2001) 428 final, 25 July, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  21. Dattee B, FitzPatrick D, Weil HB (2007) The dynamics of technological substitutions. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference of the system dynamics societyGoogle Scholar
  22. Dattee B, Weil HB (2005) Dynamics of social factors in technological substitutions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management (Working Paper 4599-05)Google Scholar
  23. Davis C, Nikolic I, Dijkema GPJ (2010) Industrial ecology 2.0. J Ind Ecol 14(5):707–726. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00281.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35(8):982–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davis JP, Eisenhardt K, Bingham CB (2007) Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad Manage Rev 32(2):480–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Graaff V (1995) Private certification in a governance context, an assessment towards communicative governance. Eburon, DelftGoogle Scholar
  27. Doney PM, Cannon JP (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J Mark 61:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elofson G, Robinson WN (2007) Collective customer collaboration impacts on supply-chain performance. Int J Prod Res 45(11):2567–2594. doi: 10.1080/00207540601020528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ghaffarzadegan N, Andersen DF (2012) Modeling behavioral complexities of warning issuance for domestic security: a simulation approach to develop public management theories. Int Public Manag J 15(3):337–363. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2012.725566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q 27(1):51–90Google Scholar
  31. Goleman D (2009) Ecological intelligence: how knowing the hidden impacts of what we buy can change everything. Broadway Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Greer SL, Wismar M, Figueras J (2015) Strengthening governance for health systems. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanneman RA (1987) Computer-assisted theory-building. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  34. Hanneman RA (1995) Simulation modeling and theoretical analysis in sociology. Sociol Perspect 38(4):457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Henrich J (2001) Cultural transmission and the diffusion of innovations: adoption dynamics indicate that biased cultural transmission is the predominant force in behavioral change. Am Anthropol 103:992–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Héritier A, Lehmkuhl D (2008) The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance. J Public Policy 28(1):1–17Google Scholar
  37. Homer J (1987) A diffusion model with application to evolving medical technologies. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 31(3):197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Karl H, Orwat C (2000) Economic aspects of environmental labeling. In: Folmer H, Tietenberg T (eds) The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaufmann D, Kraay A (2002) Growth without governance. Policy Research Working Paper 2928, World BankGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim G-S, Lee G, Park K (2010) A cross-national investigation on how ethical consumers build loyalty toward fair trade brands. J Bus Ethics 96(4):589–611. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0486-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim H, Andersen DF (2012) Building confidence in causal maps generated from purposive text data: mapping transcripts of the Federal Reserve. Syst Dyn Rev 28(4):311–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kirchhoff S (2000) Green business and blue angel, a model of voluntary overcompliance with asymmetric information. Environ Resour Econ 15:403–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Komiak SYX, Benbasat I (2006) The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Q 30(4):941–960Google Scholar
  44. Komiak SYX, Benbasat I (2008) A two-process view of trust and distrust building in recommendation agents: a process-tracing study. J Assoc Inf Syst 9(12):727–747Google Scholar
  45. Kooiman J (1993) Social-political governance. In: Kooiman J (ed) Modern governance. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Kopainsky B, Luna-Reyes LF (2008) Closing the loop: promoting synergies with other theory building approaches to improve system dynamics practice. Syst Res Behav Sci 25(4):471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Krishnan TV, Bass FM, Jain DC (1999) Optimal pricing strategy for new products. Manag Sci 45:1650–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krishnan TV, Bass FM, Kumar V (2000) Impact of a late entrant on the diffusion of a new product. J Mark Res 37:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kumar N, Scheer LK, Steenkamp J-BEM (1995) The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes. J Mark Res 32:348–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ladd S (2010) Corporate “greening”: Good for the soul, but is it good for the bottom line? Financial Executive, 26(2):36–41Google Scholar
  51. Larzelere RE, Huston TL (1980) The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. J Marriage Fam 42(3):595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Luna-Reyes LF, Andersen DF, Andersen DL, Derrick D, Jarman H (2012a) Full information product pricing (FIPP) regimes: policy implications for US-Mexico sustainable commerce. Center for Technology in Government, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  53. Luna-Reyes LF, Gil-Garcia JR (2011) Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-Government phenomena. Gov Inf Q 28(3):329–345. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Luna-Reyes LF, Martinez-Moyano IJ, Pardo TA, Cresswell AM, Andersen DF, Richardson GP (2006) Anatomy of a group model-building intervention: building dynamic theory from case study research. Syst Dyn Rev 22(4):291–320. doi: 10.1002/sdr.349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Luna-Reyes LF, Andersen DL (2003) Collecting and analyzing qualitative data for system dynamics: methods and models. Syst Dyn Rev 19(4):271–296. doi: 10.1002/sdr.280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Luna-Reyes LF, Ran W, Jarman H, Zhang J, Andersen DL, Tayi GK, Sayogo DS, Luciano J, Andersen DF (2013) Group model building to support interdisciplinary theory building. Center for Technology in Government, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  57. Luna-Reyes L, Sayogo DS, Zhang J, Pardo T, Tayi GK, Hrdinova J et al (2012) Beyond open government: ontologies and data architectures to support ethical consumption. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (ICEGOV), AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  58. Luna-Reyes LF, Zhang J, Whitmore A et al (2011) Full information product pricing: an information strategy for harnessing consumer choice to create a more sustainable world. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 34(1):637–654Google Scholar
  59. Malhotra A, Gosain S, El Sawy OA (2005) Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. MIS Q 29(1):145–187Google Scholar
  60. Markus ML (1987) Toward a ‘critical mass’ theory of interactive media: universal access, interdependence and diffusion. Commun Res 14:491–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev 20(3):709–734Google Scholar
  62. McKnight DH, Choudhury V, Kacmar C (2002) Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf Syst Res 13(3):334–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Miller D, Garnsey E (2000) Entrepreneurs and technology diffusion: how diffusion research can benefit from a greater understanding of entrepreneurship. Technol Soc 22:445–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Milne GR, Boza M-E (1999) Trust and concern in consumers’ perceptions of marketing information management practices. J Int Mark 13(1):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mossialos E, Permanand G, Baeten R, Hervey TK (2010) Health systems governance in Europe: the role of EU law and policy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nadai A (1999) Conditions for the development of a product ecolabel. Eur Environ 9:202–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nissen ME, Sengupta K (2006) Incorporating software agents into supply chains: experimental investigation with a procurement task. MIS Q 30(1):145–166Google Scholar
  68. Nyborg K (1999) Informational aspect of environment policy deserves more attention: comment on the paper by Frey. J Consum Policy 22:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. OECD (2002) Foreign direct investment for development- maximising benefits, minimising costs. OECD SecretariatGoogle Scholar
  70. OECD (2003) Public sector transparency and international investment policy. Directorate for Financial, Fiscal and Enterprise AffairsGoogle Scholar
  71. Oliver RL (1993) Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. J Consum Res 20:418–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pavlou PA, Fygenson M (2006) Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q 30(1):115–143Google Scholar
  73. Pouloudi A (1999) Aspects of the stakeholder concept and their implications for information systems development. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual Hawaii international conference, IEEE Computer Society, Hawaii, p 17Google Scholar
  74. Punj GN, Moore R (2007) Smart versus knowledgeable online recommendation agents. J Interact Mark 21(4):46–60. doi: 10.1002/dir.20089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Richardson GP, Andersen DF (1995) Teamwork in group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 11(2):113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Richardson GP, Pugh AL (1981) Introduction to system dynamics modelling with dynamo. Productivity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  77. Robey D, Farrow D (1982) User involvement in information system development: a conflict model and empirical test. Manag Sci 28:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edn. Free, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  79. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. Free, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. Rosenau J (1995) Global governance in the twenty-first century. Glob Gov 1(1):13–43Google Scholar
  81. Rosenau PV (ed) (2000) Public-private policy partnerships. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  82. Ruyter K d, Wetzels M, Kleijnen M (2001) Customer adoption of e-service: an experimental study. Int J Serv Ind Manag 12(2):184–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sabel CF, Zeitlin J (eds) (2010) Experimentalist governance in the European Union: towards a new architecture. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  84. Sathiyamoorthy E, Iyenger N, Ramachandran V (2010) Agent based trust management framework in distributed e-business environment. Int J Comput Sci Inf Technol 2:14–28Google Scholar
  85. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  86. Urban GL, Sultan F, Qualls WJ (2000) Placing trust at the center of your internet strategy. Sloan Manage Rev 42(1):39–48Google Scholar
  87. Van Schooten-Van der Meer H (1997) Formation rule in the rule of law. A study to the legitimization and the operation of the right and the modern alternative forms of regulation. University Press, TwenteGoogle Scholar
  88. Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics, 1st edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  89. Vermeulen WJV, Uitenboogaart Y, Pesqueira LDL, Metselaar J, Kok MTJ (2012) Roles of governments in multi-actor sustainable supply chain governance systems and the effectiveness of their interventions: an exploratory study. Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  90. Wang ETG, Tai JCF, Wei H-L (2006) A virtual integration theory of improved supply-chain performance. J Manag Inf Syst 23(2):41–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wang W, Benbasat I (2005) Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. J Assoc Inf Syst 6(3):72–101Google Scholar
  92. Wang W, Benbasat I (2007) Recommendation agents for electronic commerce: effects of explanation facilities on trusting beliefs. J Manag Inf Syst 23(4):217–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Watts S, Wyner G (2011) Designing and theorizing the adoption of mobile technology-mediated ethical consumption tools. Inf Technol People 24(3):257–280. doi: 10.1108/09593841111158374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Weil HB, Utterback JM (2005) The Dynamics of Innovative Industries. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  95. Woods N (1999) Good governance in international organizations. Glob Gov 5:39–61Google Scholar
  96. Xiao B, Benbasat I (2007) E-commerce product recommendation agents: use, characteristics and impact. MIS Q 31(1):137–209Google Scholar
  97. Zagonel AA, Rohrbaugh J, Richardson GP, Andersen DF (2004) Using simulation models to address “what if” questions about welfare reform. J Policy Anal Manage 23(4):890–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zhang J, Sayogo DS, Luna-Reyes LF, Jarman H, Tan X, Andersen DL, Andersen DF (2012) Issues and requirements for developing data architecture supporting integration of sustainable consumption and sustainable supply chains. Center for Technology in Government, AlbanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weijia Ran
    • 1
    Email author
  • Holly Jarman
    • 2
  • Luis F. Luna-Reyes
    • 1
  • Jing Zhang
    • 3
  • Deborah Andersen
    • 1
  • Giri Tayi
    • 1
  • Djoko S. Sayogo
    • 4
  • Joanne Luciano
    • 5
  • Theresa A. Pardo
    • 4
  • David Andersen
    • 1
  1. 1.University at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Clark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  4. 4.Center for Technology in GovernmentUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  5. 5.Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations