Behavioural Risks in Supply Networks

  • M. Seiter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 124)

Risks within supply networks are currently an intensively discussed topic (e.g., Brindley 2004; Gaudenzi and Borghesi 2006). A variety of different types of risk have been investigated, e.g., inventory risks, delay, quality risks and even terrorist attack. However, the dimension of behavioural risk has been largely neglected in previous studies. Yet, the relevance and significance of this type of risk has significant implications in all supply chain contexts. This chapter presents the results of an explorative study conducted by the author who demonstrates that behavioural risks occur frequently and cause high losses, e.g., resulting from supply networks interruptions. These findings are supported by other studies, (e.g., Hendricks and Singhal, 2005) who showed that supply networks interruptions not only cause short-term losses but long-term underperformance from a stock-market perspective. The exploratory study also facilitated the identification of different behavioural risk types, (e.g., opportunistic behaviour or conflicts between partners), which represent the main theme of the chapter and are explored in depth subsequently.

The remainder of this chapter is divided into four parts. Initially, the model is developed and explained. The details of the methodological approach employed are articulated followed by the presentation and analysis of the empirical results. The fourth section discusses the managerial and theoretical implications including the limitations of the present study.


Supply Chain Asymmetric Information Behavioural Risk Strategic Alliance Supply Network 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988), Structural Equation Modelling in Practice - A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach, in: Psychological Bulletin, 103 (1988) 3, pp. 411-423.Google Scholar
  2. Brindley, C. (ed.) (2004), Supply Chain Risk, Ashgate, Hampshire and Burlington 2004.Google Scholar
  3. Byrne, B. M. (2001), Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Churchill, G. A. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1979) 2, pp. 64-73.Google Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Union (2003), Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.Google Scholar
  6. Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986), Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design, in: Management Science, 32 (1986) 5, pp. 554-571.Google Scholar
  7. Das, T. K. and Rahman, N. (2001), Partner Misbehaviour in Strategic Alliances - Guidelines and Effective Deterrence, in: Journal of General Management, 27 (2001) 1, pp. 43-70.Google Scholar
  8. Das, T. K. and Teng, B.-S. (1999), Managing Risks in Strategic Alliances, in: Academy of Management Executive, 13 (1999) 4, pp. 50-62.Google Scholar
  9. Das, T. K. and Teng, B.-S. (2000), Instabilities of Strategic Alliances - An Internal Tension Perspective, in: Organizational Science, 11 (2000) 1, pp. 77-101.Google Scholar
  10. Das, T. K. and Teng, B.-S. (2003), Partner Analysis and Alliance Performance, in:Google Scholar
  11. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19 (2003) 3, pp. 279-308.Google Scholar
  12. Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J. A. (2006), Formative Versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development - A Comparison and Empirical Investigation, in: British Journal of Management, 17 (2006) 3, pp. 263-282.Google Scholar
  13. Dillman, D. A. (1978), Mail and Internet Surveys - The Tailored Design Method, 2nd edition, New York 1978.Google Scholar
  14. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), Agency Theory - An Assessment and Review, in: Academy of Management Review, 14 (1989) 1, pp. 57-74.Google Scholar
  15. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981), Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error - Algebra and Statistics, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1981) 3, pp. 39-50.Google Scholar
  16. Gaudenzi, B. and Borghesi, A. (2006), Managing Risks in the Supply Chain Using the AHP Method, in: The International Journal of Logistics Management, 17 (2006) 1, pp. 114-136.Google Scholar
  17. Hallikas, J. and Virolainen, V.-M. (2004), Risk Management in Supplier Relationships and Networks, in: Brindley, C. (ed.) (2004), Supply Chain Risk, Hampshire and Burlington 2004, pp. 43-65.Google Scholar
  18. Hendricks, K. B. and Singhal, V. R. (2005), An Empirical Analysis of the Effect of Supply Chain Disruptions on Long-Run Stock Price Performance and Equity Risk of the Firm, in: Production and Operations Managemement 14 (2005) 1, pp. 35-52.Google Scholar
  19. Homburg, C. and Giering, A. (1998), Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer Konstrukte - Ein Leitfaden für die Marketingforschung, in: Hildebrandt, L. and Homburg, C. (eds.) (1998), Die Kausalanalyse - Ein Instrument der empirischen betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung, Stuttgart 1998.Google Scholar
  20. Jap, S. D. and Anderson, E. (2003), Safeguarding Interorganizational Performance and Continuity Under Ex Post Opportunism, in: Management Science, 49 (2003) 12, pp. 227-245.Google Scholar
  21. Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976), Theory of the Firm - Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, in: Journal of Financial Economics, 3 (1976) 4, pp. 305-360.Google Scholar
  22. Joshi, A. W. and Stump, R. L. (1999), Determinant of Commitment and Opportunism Integrating and Extending Insights for Transaction Cost Analysis and Relational Exchange Theory, in: Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 16 (1999) 4, pp. 334-352.Google Scholar
  23. Kajüter, P. and Kulmala, H. I. (2005), Open-Book Accounting in Networks - Potential Achievements and Reasons for Failure, in: Management Accounting Research, 16 (2005) 2, pp. 179-204.Google Scholar
  24. Pratt, J. W. and Zeckhauser, R. J. (1985), Principals and Agents: An Overview, in: Pratt, J. W. and Zeckhauser, R. J. (eds.) (1985), Principals and Agents - The Structure of Business, Boston, pp. 1-35.Google Scholar
  25. Rokkan, A. I. and Buvik, A. (2003), Inter-firm Cooperation and the Problem of Free Riding Behaviour - An Empirical Study of Voluntary Retail Chains, in: Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9 (2003) 5/6, pp. 247-256.Google Scholar
  26. Rossiter, J. R. (2002), The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing, in: International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (2002) 12, pp. 305-335.Google Scholar
  27. Seiter, M. and Isensee, J. (2007), Partner Selection in R&D Cooperations - An Empirical Study in the Software Industry, Research Paper, International Performance Research Institute, Stuttgart 2007.Google Scholar
  28. Tirole, J. (1999), Incomplete Contracts - Where Do We Stand? in: Econometrica, 67 (1999) 4, pp. 741-781.Google Scholar
  29. Williamson, O. E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies - Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Williamson, O. E. (1991), Comparative Economic Organization - The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives, in: Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (1991) 2, pp. 269-296.Google Scholar
  31. Wuyts, S. and Geyskens, I. (2005), The Formation of Buyer-Supplier Relationships - Detailed Contract Drafting and Close Partner Selection, in: Journal of Marketing, 69 (2005) 10, pp. 103-117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Seiter
    • 1
  1. 1.International Performance Research InstituteStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations