Carlos Alberto
da Rocha
Uninove - Nine
of July University, Brazil
E-mail: carlosar.ops@terra.com.br
Orlando Roque da
Silva
FMU
- Laureate International Universities, Brazil
E-mail: orlandoroque@uol.com.br
Alessandro Marco
Rosini
FMU - Laureate
International Universities, Brazil
E-mail: alessandro.rossini@yahoo.com
Submission: 07/09/2016
Revision: 28/06/2017
Accept: 13/07/2017
ABSTRACT
This theoretical research on a case study in American Company identified
the possibility of Governance factors contributing as evidence of value in the
relationships of commercial partnerships between Logistic Operator and service
providers. The analysis of data allowed to conclude and identify three possible
levels of grouping of partnerships due to variables of facilitators that showed
it possible to have this relationship with transparency between client and
suppliers. Most of the analyzed groups of suppliers were characterized by the
interest of sharing operating profits with the client company in short-term
contracts and little tolerance to financial risks of joint investments in
future contracts. Transparency, ethics and corporate responsibility, pillars of
Corporate Governance, contributed to the definition of these groupings of
partnerships, besides consolidating the aspects of mutual and evolutionary
trust between companies.
Keywords: Corporate
Governance Aspects, Partnership Agreement, Logistics Operators, Providers
1. INTRODUCTION
The
requirement of companies to integrate into international trade and the
expansions of financial and commercial transactions on a global scale have made
Corporate Governance studies relevant to organizations that, when followed by
companies, result in benefits and return on investments to shareholders and
investors who is it them, to looking for to maximize profits and monitor the
management position (IBGC, 2009).
These
actions on aspects of governance are important for logistics sectors it such as
services, which operates in logistics because can be sure that the transparent
has followed it all commercial process from the beginning without fraud because
misconduct of its agents in negotiations with the provider that approval these
partnerships. Thus, and however this the aspects of Corporate Governance help
to make these processes transparent and to assure the Stakeholders and
Shareholders that the agents that represent them in the decision making for
acted in accordance with the legal principles of transparency and ethics.
So,
the aim of this investigation is to establish that as long as Corporate
Governance principles are followed, contracts will be signed with transparency,
ethics and corporate responsibility between logistical operators and service
providers in which the representatives of these companies now have a safeguard
against fraud misconduct and conflicts of interest of agents to formalize
high-value investment partnership agreements where it is certainly the main
contribution of these studies.
In
this way then these relationships are business-to-business and come together to
make it to easier for contracts for business prospecting and business
partnerships to be made transparent and ethical between companies.
With
this understanding the research investigates whether the perception of the
value of corporate governance positively influences the companies so that they
can validate contracts of commercial partnerships and validate contracts with
mutual investments to share joint profits in the short and long term with the
logistics provider besides verifying aspects of trainers and drivers to
contribute to this relationship being consolidated in which these are the main
problem of this study.
2. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FUNDAMENTALS
As
instructed the IBGC (2009), the term of corporate governance is designed to
establish rules governing the relationship between businesses and the interests
of shareholders and managers (IBGC, 2009).
For
Domeneghetti and Meir (2009), the Corporate governance can be considered as one
of the most important and valuable objects of a company, assuming that the
principles of conduct and best practices can make them more competitive,
favoring better long term results.
The
culture of critical management is essential to the practice of governance, but
should be carried out with ethics, transparency, trust between agents and
proprietors, with exemplary counsel and diverse membership that act for
shareholders and "stakeholders" adding value simultaneously for both.
Although
private companies do not have a specific governance code, the laws for public
companies define guidelines related to the composition and duties of the board
of directors, supervisory board and executive board. It is observed that this
ownership structure is determined to board composition of directors and
advisors to meet the needs of its drivers.
Issues
such as risk values for enterprises, level of motivation of its employees,
loyalty against competitors, threats satisfaction and loyalty contracts,
strategies for a culture of trust and improve relations between board members,
shareholders, agents, administrators and other stakeholders need to be
addressed when thinking about governance (HILB, 2005).
As informed
in the IBGC (2009), the board of directors acts as a mediator with control
mechanisms to protect the interests of shareholders that accompany the
management of agents in decision-making position, and is the protection of
investor interests. The assignments demonstrate that the board is the main
component of a governance system as it is responsible for the decisions of the
strategic direction of the company. In accordance with to the IBGC (2010), the
pillars of Corporate Governance are transparency, fairness, accountability and
corporate responsibility.
Figure 1:
Pillars of Corporate Governance
Source: Lean Transformation Consultan (LEAN) 2009
The
principle of transparency should ensure that they are provided to
"stakeholder’s" information of interest in a balanced way, with
quality, clarity, timeliness and accessible language, prevailing substance over
form, and allowing for a correct understanding of the organization (IBGC,
2009). It notes that this principle is present in organizations by the essence
of the company and is regulated by government agencies.
Accountability
(accountability) states that agents in the management position when they make
decisions, they must account for their actions in full, of the acts who
practice or omissions that may occur and create risks to shareholders.
Fairness
is characterized by fair treatment of all shareholders and other stakeholders,
the stakeholders (IBGC, 2009).
Corporate
responsibility assumes that agents in management position to make decisions
with transparency and ethics, and taking steps to ensure the sustainability of
organizations to ensure longevity of companies, incorporating social
considerations and the principle of governance.
Models
of corporate governance in organizations are of the insider system: high
concentration of companies with shared control family with few investors,
ownership structure with high concentration of common shares and high emission
rate preferred shares.
It
notes the existence of minority shareholders very active, high overlap between
ownership and management with little clarity, guidelines between the roles of
the board and management with a shortage of professional counselors, and no
committees responsible for specific issues (IBGC, 2009).
3. LOGISTICS OPERATORS, SUPPLY CHAIN AND LOGISTICS
PARTNERSHIP
In
Brazil, the term Logistics Operator comes from the concept of logistics service
outsourcing (outsourcing) or logistics contract (LIEB; RANDAL, 1996) that
emerged in the USA in the eighties, and today is strongly widespread in
European countries the nomenclature of Third-Party Logistic Provider.
The
Logistics provider’s definitions that have arisen in recent years in Brazil,
are several. As informed from the Brazilian association of handling Logistics
(ABML), the Logistics provider is a logistics service provider that specializes
in the management of logistics operations activities, or part of the various
stages of the (Supply Chain), adding value to stored products of its customers,
with the power to at least simultaneously provide services in three activities:
inventory control, warehousing and transportation management.
As it
says the Fleury and Ribeiro (2001), a logistics company will only be considered
as a logistics operator in that it can provide the three basic activities:
warehouse management, information system, operation and management transport
for distribution of products, and have a solid and transparent relationship of
business partnerships with their suppliers.
To
Christopher (2001), logistics is the strategic management in obtaining,
handling and storing stocks of materials, finished products, and distribution
and marketing channels all contribute to the organization's profitability.
As
the Logistics Operations provider in addition to brand credibility and
transparent management with suppliers, they highlight the need for loyalty and
formalization of contracts of commercial partnerships with service providers, and
good corporate governance practices for approval supply that can add value in
the commercial relationship.
Lambert,
Emmelhainz and Gardner (1999) defines partnership like the transactions based
on mutual trust, transparency, sharing of risks and benefits, providing a
competitive advantage to the organization.
The
contractual form of partnerships between companies has emphasis on the degree
of detail and the time. Trust is associated with reputation and relationship
process over time. Williamson (1985) suggests that opportunistic behavior tends
to disappear if the parties are more transparent and ethical.
For
Larentis, Antonello and Slongo (2010), relations between organizations rely on
the relationship between people who support and understand the complexity of
the actions and strategies of companies, and develop a standard management
process in the supply chain (Supply Chain).
As
pointed out by Lambert and Cooper (2000), the evolution of interest in
understanding the management of the supply chain lies in the argument that
companies do not compete separately, but jointly by creating relationships that
can consolidate and generate partnerships.
To
Cislaghi et al (2014), the commercial relationships are not based only on
resources investments and selecting the best search commercial partners, but
also the aspects that involve trust, loyalty, commitment, exchange of
information, cooperation and understanding relationship value among companies.
To the extent that commercial partnerships with logistics operators are formed
based on ethics, transparency, trust and loyalty between companies, it is found
positive results in providing services and suppliers throughout the supply
chain.
Providers
should understand that governance aspects are for the logistics operator one
way the partnership to be solid it. Points to care: The recognition of good
conduct and commitment to ethics, transparency between companies to conduct
business with corporate responsibility, customer recognition, credibility for
the emergence of partnerships, new business opportunities in other segments for
provider’s services, and does not create risks for shareholders and investors.
The
growth of the logistics operations depends on the Logistics Operators
investment to optimize the Supply Chain and attracting new customers, who are
demanding quality, productivity, security of stored products and risk of
malfunctions and product theft where's is to clear that Corporate Governance
are very important it for this relationship.
As
reported to La Londe and Cooper (1989) and Bowersox et al (1989), risk sharing
and benefit appears as a factor in the construction of logistics partnerships,
and must do with the concept of fair division and benefits the contractual
rules, emerging confidence as the main indicator and decisive for partnerships
between companies.
Frankema
and Costa (2005) and Möllering (2005) point out that control and trust are
shown entwined in relations between companies, and favor the predictability of
the actions of the actors involved and, consequently, reducing the risk of
losses on transactions performed.
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY PROCEDURES
The
object of this study companies are originally American and European global,
being the first based in the United States of America, and the second in
France. Both
companies boast expertise in solutions in
the Supply
Chain for
the provision of logistics services. The American company has been on the market for more
than a century, and the French company for 58 years.
The European
company came to Brazil in the second half of 2013 through acquisition of
subsidiary and American competitor, which is part of this study and worked in
the country for over 17 years. Overall, the French buyer, considering all the
subsidiaries of the group in the world in the year 2014, presented a turnover
reported by the Board
of Director of 3
billion Euros and had approximately 15000 commercial partners in Brazil close
to 2000. The
group is supported by a conglomerate of more than 20000 employees on a global
scale. In
Brazil this figure is around 1300 employees.
So
this research is characterized by a case study in the group described here.
The
main activities carried out in the country are, and innovation in the Supply
Chain with
the optimization of the logistics operations, warehousing and distribution of
products, to increase productivity in areas moving to palletized loads, co-packing and transport
products already present in other countries. To accomplish all this operating
cycle endorses service providers for quality aspects, commercial partnerships
and adoption of best practices of corporate governance to basically follow
transparency, ethics and corporate responsibility of its agents.
For
global governance policy issues of confidentiality in the whole group, the
company does not authorize disclosure of the business by means of communication
is written or spoken, and not the names of service providers, business partners
and customers.
4.1.
Questionnaire applied
The
research methodology using quantitative and descriptive analysis. A structured
questionnaire with close-ended questions is used in data collection. In this
manner, structured questionnaire was sent to 30 contractors with profile for
commercial partnerships. The
sample is random and not for convenience, although it is known that the sample
size is small.
The
application of the questionnaire (see attachment) was a descriptive study that
sought to identify the perception of value on good practices of corporate
governance among service providers and logistic operators, in so far as
assumptions such as transparency, ethics and corporate responsibility generate
value for the consolidation of commercial partnerships, as well as drivers and
facilitators that could allow this kind of rapprochement and integration
between the companies.
The
questionnaire consists of 20 questions about the values and governance factors
that direct and facilitate the physical approach to the business relationship. Each question
has a weight and scoring scale to enable standardization of analysis with
statistical inference, which allowed the answers, as model below.
4.2.
definition
and selection of variables in Likert Scales
The
data collection instrument was based on the theory of Lambert, Emmelhainz and
Gardner (1996) and included 4 drivers and 4 facilitators for business
partnerships between companies and governance aspects.
(A). Drivers: Values that nurture and encourage
business partnerships;
(B). Facilitators: Organizational Factors that
influence the development of partnerships.
Table 1: “Drivers"
and "Facilitators" to commercial partnership and loyalty contracts
Perception/Constructs |
Variables |
A. Drivers
(adapted from LAMBERT; EMMELHAINZ; GARDNER, 1996) A.1. MOTIVATOR CONTRIBUTE TO COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIP |
1. What
is the probability of the partnership have influence only in the cost
presented in the business proposal and aspects of governance? |
2. what
is the probability of commercial partnership for the service generate new
business in other clients? |
|
3. what
is the probability of commercial partnership to open new service provider
customers in different segments of the logistics industry? |
|
4. what
is the probability of commercial partnership to consolidate long-term and on
up to five (5) years? |
|
B. Facilitators (adapted from LAMBERT; EMMELHAINZ; GARDNER, 1996) B.1. ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS THAT
ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIPS |
5. What
is the probability of the companies have similar organizational cultures
following instruments such as those of ethics, transparency and corporate
responsibility? |
6. What
is the probability of the partner and the operator Have leadership systems logistics and organizational philosophies similar
Operational management? |
|
7. What
is the probability of having the service provider same criteria for calculation of KPIs and SLAs Logistic operators |
|
8. What
is the probability of the Logistical Operator customer loyalty and consolidate short-term and long-term contracts on commercial
partnership? |
Source:
based on Lambert, Emmelhainz and Gardner (1996)
The
variables were measured in a range on Likert scale ranging in score of 1 (one)
to 5 (five) and 1 = 0% probability and 5 = 100% probability.
The
sum of the scores of drivers
and facilitators for
business partnership formed the variables used in the analysis of the study and
statistical techniques can range from 1 (one) to 5 (five) so that the scores of
variables composed of 4 (four) to 20 (twenty). The study also analyzed 12 (twelve)
elements of commercial partnerships (operational and managerial) measured on a
scale ranging from 1 (one) to 3 (three), 1 = weak, 2 = moderate 3 = strong.
Data
analyses were made by groups and cross-tabulations, which is a multivariate
technique to group data based on a measure of equality, when groups formed
homogeneously and heterogeneously, compared to other groups (HAIR et al., 2009).
In
the initial analysis of the data was used the method of exploratory sorting to
get the best number for groups on empirically. In studies of Lambert, Emmelhainz
and Gardner (1996) are suggested the existence of 3 (three) different types of
commercial partnerships, one of these groups must contemplate very
heterogeneous profiles of the variables of the study (drivers and facilitators) in commercial
partnerships.
The
meaning of these different types are respectively:
(a) Type 1:
the more favorable facilitators consider the proximity between players is very
important, but without interest in exclusivity of supply;
(b) Type 2: does not appreciate the proximity to
commercial, because the partnership intends to work exclusively;
(c) Type 3:
value the proximity to commercial.
Data
were analyzed by the method of sorting by groups of business partnerships,
allowing analysis on the structure of the sample profiles of partnerships in
which the results have confirmed the method not exploratory way ordering to
obtain the optimal number for empirical analysis.
The
original study of Lambert, Emmelhainz and Gardner (1996) suggests the existence
of 3 (three) types and profiles of different partnerships, even occurring
heterogeneous groups in terms of the variables of study of drivers and
facilitators for partnerships.
The
application of these criteria was in function of the sample being considered
too small for only 30 (thirty) business.
The companies’ object of this study
is from original global American origin, the first based in the United States
and have expertise in solutions in the Supply Chain for logistics services. The
American company is in the EUA market for more than a century and in Brazil for
17 year.
We
can say that the main activities in the country are innovation solutions in the
chain of Supply Chain with optimization in the logistics operations on storage,
distribution of products and solutions for increase of productivity in areas of
handling of palletized loads, packaging of products for transportation and
fundamentally to realize Approval of service providers by criteria of
punctuality and risk assessment in the delivery of the client's load, besides
the adoption of good governance practices such as transparency, ethics and
corporate responsibility.
According
to the company that provided data for these studies, and for confidentiality
reasons do not had it consent it to the sharing this information’s of their
social reasons and in the same way as service providers which has business
partners and customers.
The
questionnaire used in collecting information was consented of questions into
Governance about aspects values and factors that direct and facilitate the
physical approach to the business relationship between enterprises and
identified from Corporate Governance values and factors that direct and
facilitate the physical approach to the business relationship.
For
each question was assigned a weight and scoring scale to allow standardization
of analysis with statistical inference.
The instrument
for data collection was based on the Lambert theory, Emmelhainz and Gardner
(1996), and included four drivers and four facilitators for business
partnerships between business and governance aspects. For others driver is it
to understand the values that consolidate and motivate business partnerships
and facilitators are the organizational factors that influence the development
of partnerships.
The
research worked three types of commercial partnership where’s the commercial
partnership type 1 is characterized by show more distant commercial
relationships, type 2 partnerships have a more advanced process in the
commercial relationship, and type 3 partnerships are more developed in
commercial relationships because they are characterized by trust in this
relationship and where's it is evidence the governance factors.
Data
were analyzed by the ordering method by groups of commercial partnerships that
allowed the analysis of the sample structure of the partnerships profiles
between logistics operators and suppliers.
5. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
From
a universe of 200 service providers of the Logistics Operator database, only 30
potentially proposed to respond to the survey, with 5 (five) having a (close)
correlation to the Logistic Operator's activity and Supply Chain as
Warehousing, Labor of Third Parties, Provision of Logistic Services in the
audit of freight values, Transportation and Distribution of products, while the
others presented conventional supply characteristics with no correlation closer
to the logistics operator And end-of-company activity, but are prone to the
commercial partnership, according to the areas of activity mentioned in the
table below.
Table 2:
Activity and branches of service of the providers
Segment Operatestion |
Frequency |
% |
1.
Third- hand services (1) |
3 |
8.50% |
2. Rental of products and services (1) |
2 |
9.30% |
3.
Accounting and tax advice |
1 |
3.20% |
4.
Logistics distribution solutions (1) |
1 |
4.20% |
5.
Commercial properties for rent |
3 |
8.30% |
6.
Painting, plastering
and building alteration services |
4 |
8.30% |
7.
Maintenance of
telecommunications and IT equipment |
1 |
3.85% |
8.
Infrastructure
services of information technology |
1 |
3.85% |
9.
Office furniture and furniture |
1 |
3.20% |
10.
Battery maintenance services |
1 |
3.10% |
11.
Visual communication services |
1 |
3.60% |
12. Provision of direct labor services (1) |
Referring to Fig. |
19.80% |
13.
Logistics services
and auditing of freight rates (1) |
1 |
3.20% |
14.
Services of locks
mithery and industrial hardware |
1 |
5.20% |
15.
Industrial collective meals |
2 |
6.20% |
16. Freight and transport of employees |
1 |
3.00% |
17.
Men's and women's
uniforms (retail and wholesale) |
1 |
3.20% |
Σ = 30 |
Σ = 100% |
Source: Prepared by the author
Table
2 - Variables of the "drivers" and "facilitators"
constructs of the partnerships Construct Variables
Drivers (Adapted from LAMBERT;
EMMELHAINZ; GARDNER, 1996) How likely is this relationship between firms to be
based solely on cost relation?
What
is the likelihood that the business relationship between companies will
increase significantly resulting in new business for the company?
What
is the probability that the relationship with the contracting company will
allow access to prospecting new business with other companies and / or markets
different from the current segment?
What
is the probability that the business relationship with the contracting company
will last in the next 3 (three) years?
Facilitators
(Adapted from LAMBERT; EMMELHAINZ; GARDNER, 1996) How likely are the two
companies (contractor and contractor) to have similar crops?
How
likely are the two companies (contractor and contractor) to present similar
operational management systems and philosophies?
What
is the probability that the contracting company wishes to develop objectives,
targets and KPI (indicators) for the purposes of supply approval?
How
likely is the contractor to have a long-term view of the business relationship?
Table 3:
Descriptive statistics Partner grouping Types
Supplier Group |
Drivers |
Facilitators |
|
Partnership Commercial Type 3 |
Number of cases |
3 |
3 |
Average |
18,0000 |
17,0000 |
|
Standard deviation |
0,00000 |
0.00000 |
|
Coefficient varies |
0% |
0% |
|
Partnership Commercial Type 2 |
Number of cases |
19 |
19 |
Average |
18.84025 |
17.23077 |
|
Standard deviation |
1,36541 |
2.07169 |
|
Coefficient varies |
9% |
14% |
|
Partnership Commercial Type 1 Favorable Facilitators |
Number of cases |
2 |
2 |
Average |
10,5000 |
13,5000 |
|
Standard deviation |
0,70711 |
2,12132 |
|
Coefficient varies |
7% |
16% |
|
Partnership Commercial Type 1 Favorable Drivers |
Number of cases |
6 |
6 |
Average |
13.3333 |
10,1667 |
|
Standard deviation |
1.03280 |
1,16905 |
|
Coefficient varies |
8% |
11% |
Source: Research done
Three
service providers showed a propensity for type 3 commercial partnerships, which
may indicate a relationship of total trust between companies due to
transparency, ethics and corporate responsibility aspects.
This
type of partnership configuration, although sustained by long-term contracts, were
found in a smaller proportion in the segment, due to the high complexity of the
services scopes, as well as the high investment costs involved to consolidate
the partnerships between companies.
The
other groups were represented in type 1 partner, with two suppliers of this
group are less developed, but with more favorable facilitators that the
partnerships drivers, which can be an indicator that the agents of the
companies in management position tend to keep away the propensity to commercial
partnership due to aspects of interorganizational, that can motivate the gap in
the commercial relationship in long and short term.
The
sample had a predominance of supplier’s partnerships with type 2. This group
had 58% of cases, and was characterized by having median scores for both
drivers and facilitators, which can be an indicator that these companies have
an intermediate level of business relationship supplier customer partnerships
under development
What
was reported in the previous paragraph has not occurred in the last group with
six supplier’s similarity of the partnership for type 1 with the most favorable
partnerships drivers of the facilitators, which can be an indicator to
formalize the commercial partnership but with little approach organizational
for development.
Companies
with type 3 commercial partnerships value commercial proximity, but with low
propensity to exchange organizational and little interest in the joint
investment and with interest in the exclusivity of supply.
The
companies that had business partnerships type 2 value not proximity between
agents (70.2%), because they intend to work with the partner exclusively. It
was noted that the partnership is considered important only for the contractor,
no joint investment, there is no exchange of personnel, contracts are
short-term, communication between the parties is limited, there is low risk
tolerance compared with the type 3.
Companies
that had type 1 trade partner with more favorable facilitators consider the
proximity of the very important agents, but no interest in the exclusivity of
supply. This makes it difficult to establish a pattern in the elements of the
commercial partnership without joint investment, exchange of personnel for
short-term contracts, limited communication, and low risk tolerance.
The
study has limitations for not having made possible a comparison with other
logistics providers because the number of survey participant’s companies was
small, which is not possible to generalize the results to the entire population
but it was possible to identify the profiles of each group.
It
was also possible in accordance with Mazzali and Milan (2006) to showed, type 1
showed low organization and planning for commercial partnerships, the type 3
showed a significant degree of interaction between agents in management
position, and type 2 showed an intermediate situation between the two other
types.
The
boundaries between companies and different types of business partnerships were
not rigidly, which can be seen in service provider’s suppliers, who despite
being positioned within a classification in some of the items have
characteristics belonging to another group.
It
was not possible to say in research that the Logistics Operator may have a
systemic view of the entire business partnership and its overall framework
spectrum of service provider’s suppliers, as shown Machline (2011), and the low
interaction with the Service Providers.
About
on risk analysis and mutual benefit to share among companies in the commercial
partnership it was possible to observe an evolution of type 1 group to
type which is close to the proposed
Ladeira, Marconatto and Estivalete (2012), which shows the relationship of
confidence and risk due to the perception of inter organizational partnership.
In
contracts was observed that only companies of type 3 tend to partnerships in
the long term, which does not occur in type 1 and 2, which approaches the trust
proposal between the parties, as Williamson's proposal (1985), Villena, Revilla
and Choi (2011) and Rogan (2013).
This
finding shows transparency between companies and indicates the possible
existence of aspects and values of corporate governance aspects.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Data
analysis enabled us to identify that Corporate Governance aspects can be
contribute for companies where’s which the main contributed was it to
relationship for groups to commercial partnership between the Logistics
Operator and Service Providers. So most
with of suppliers have interest in exclusivity of long and short term supply
contracts with logistic operator and intention to share profit and with did not
showed different from the other groups of suppliers which as the risk
tolerance, showed that both low and average values.
Commercial
relationships between service provider’s suppliers and logistics operators are
current so that:
a) Motivators
for to partners in relationships in business partnerships are more important
for the characterization of groups that facilitators;
b) In
commercial partnership type 3, lower frequency, there is need for full
confidence in inter-organizational relationships, and require more time for
consolidation and development;
c) In
Type 2 partnerships most companies are in an evolutionary process for commercial
partnership, and opportunities in the short-term migration to type 3; and,
d) In
the commercial partnership type 1, the motivating drivers of the partnership
show that agents in positions for relationship remains distant, and have a low
propensity for commercial partnership as facilitators show no more developed
partnerships between suppliers and customers.
The
study showed the possibility of close trade relationships at different levels
between Service Providers and Logistics Operators, for drivers account and
proximity facilitators for business partnerships at different levels and types
of grouping. As a limitation of study, a small number of respondents.
The
study also shows governance aspects such as mutual trust, transparency, ethics
and corporate responsibility, which can create more favorable environments for
consolidation of strong partnerships in the short and long term.
REFERENCES
BERNARD, C. B.;
SIMON, I. P. (2013) Boardroom strategic decision-making style: understanding
the antecedents. Corporate Governance: An
International Review. USA: March, v. 21, n. 2, p. 131-146.
BOWERSOX, D. J.
et al. (1989) Leading Edge Logistics:
Competitive Positioning for the 1990 s Oak Brook (Illinois): Council of
Logistics Management.
CHRISTOPHER, M. (2001)
Logistics and supply chain management:
strategies to reduce costs and improve services. Translation Francisco Roque Monteiro
Leite. 2ª 9 Reprint. 1 The d. São Paulo: Pioneering 2001.
CISLAGHI, T. P.;
LARENTIS, F.; GONÇALVES, T.; VILMAR A.; SPERANDIO, G.; DE TONI D. (2014) Contribution
of interorganizational relationships for relational performance: a study in
dyads focal companies and advisers in foreign trade in the furniture sector.
In: ASSOCIATION MEETING OF NATIONAL
GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN MANAGEMENT, 28, 2014 Rio de Janeiro. Anais, Rio de
Janeiro: ANPAD.
DOMENEGHETTI,
D.; MEIER, R. (2009) Intangible assets:
the real value of companies. 3. ed. Sao Paulo: Campus.
DRIVE ABML
BRAZILIAN ASSOCIATION LOGISTICS (1999) The
concept of logistics operator. Tecnologistica. Special Section ABML, year
IV, n. 39.
FLEURY, M. P.;
RIBEIRO, A. A. (2001) Logistic Service
Providers Industry in Brazil: Featuring the Top Operators. Available in:
<Http: //www.cel.coppead.ufrj.br; http: //www.cel.coppead.ufrj.br.http:
//www.cel.coppead.ufrj. br.
GARDNER, R. W.;
JOHNSON, C. L. (1994) Third-party
Logistics in The Logistics. Handbook.
HAIR JR., J. F.; BLACK, W. C.; BABIN, B. J.;
ANDERSON, R. E.; TATHAM, R. L. (2009) Análise
multivariada de dados. 6 ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
HILB, M. (2005) New corporate governance: from good to
great practice guidelines. Corporate Governance. Oxford, v. 13, n. 5. p.
569-581.
IBGC - BRAZILIAN
INSTITUTE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. (2010) Corporate
governance of corporate control structure. Saint Paul Saint Paul, 2009.
Corporate governance pillars of corporate governance. Saint Paul Saint Paul,.
LA LONDE, B. J.;
COOPER, M. C. (1989) Partnerships in
providing customer service: a third-party perspective. Oak Brook, IL: The
Council of Logistics Management, 1989.
LADEIRA, W. J.; MARCONATTO,
D. A. B.; ESTIVALETE, V. B. (2012) Control to trust? A risk analysis perceived
in relationships in a supply chain. Economia
& Management, v. 12, n. 29, p. 98-123. DOI - 10.5752 /
P.1984-6606.2012V12N29P76.
LAMBERT, D. M.;
EMMELHAINZ, M. A.; GARDNER, J. T. (1996) Developing and Implementing supply
chain partnerships. The International
Journal of Logistics Management, v. 7, n. 2, p. 1-17.
LAMBERT, D. M.;
EMMELHAINZ, M. A.; GARDNER, J. T. (1996) Building Successful Partnerships
Logistics. Journal of Business Logistics,
Oak Brook (Illinois), v. 20, no. 1, p. 165-182,
LAMBERT, D. M.;
EMMELHAINZ, M. A.; GARDNER, J. T. (1999) Developing and Implementing supply
chain partnerships. The International
Journal of Logistics Management, v. 7, n. 2, p. 1.
LAMBERT, D. M.;
COOPER, M. C. (2000) Issues in Supply Chain Management. Industrial Marketing Management, v. 29, n. 1, p. 65-83.
LARENTIS, F.;
ANTONELLO, C. S.; SLONGO, L. A. (2010) Relationship marketing and
organizational cultural change: a multiple case study in dyads. in: ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL MEETING OF GRADUATE
PROGRAMS IN ADMINISTRATION, 24, 2010, Rio de Janeiro. Anais ..., Rio de
Janeiro: ANPAD 2010.
LIEB, R.C.;
RANDALL, H. L. (1996) A Comparison of the User of Third-Party Logistics
Services by Large American Manufactures, 1991, 1994 and 1995. Journal of Business Logistics, v. 17,
n. 1, p. 55-62.
MACHLINE, C. (2011)
Five decades of business logistics management and supply chain in Brazil. Journal of Business, v. 51, n. 3, p.
227-231.
MAZZALI L; MILAN,
E. S. (2006) Integration Company Customer - Logistics Operator: An Analysis in
the automotive chain. Magazine
Management & Production, v. 13, n. 2, p. 353-366.
SAITO, R.;
SILVEIRA, A. D. M. (2008) Corporate governance: agency costs and ownership structure.
Journal of Business Administration – FGV,
v. 48, n. 2, p. 79-86.
SOLOMON, J.
(2011) Corporate governance and
accountability. John Wiley & Sons.
VILLENA, V. H.;
REVILLA, E.; CHOI, T. Y. (2011) The dark side of buyer supplier relationships:
social capital perspective. Journal of
Operations Management, v. 29, n. 6, p. 561-576.
WILLIAMSON, O.
E. (1985) The Economic Institutions of
Capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: The Free
Press.
ATTACHMENT
QUESTIONNAIRE
Name of service provider: |
www site: |
Start date of the signing of the contract: |
Products or services: |
Completion date: xx/xx/xx |
To the issues below please tick (X) only one of the options offered
MOST ASPECTS OF COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIP APPROACH |
YES |
No |
1. Is of fundamental importance to the understanding of good corporate
governance practices for success and physical proximity to business
relationship between the companies? |
( ) |
( ) |
2. For the service for the interests of commercial partnership be
exclusive? |
( ) |
( ) |
3. The partnership between computer-based rational design companies that
can be interrupted before the end of the contract in some period? |
( ) |
( ) |
To the questions below indicate (indicating with an X) which the percentage
that most closely matches the condition of commercial partnership relationship
between companies including aspects of the value of governance.
ISSUES
DRIVERS: MOTIVATORS THAT
CONTRIBUTE TO COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIP |
0% |
25% |
50% |
75% |
100% |
1. What is the probability of the partnership have influence only in the
cost presented in the business proposal and aspects of governance? |
|
|
|
|
|
2. What is the probability of commercial partnership for the service
generate new business in other clients? |
|
|
|
|
|
3. What is the probability of commercial partnership to open new service
provider customers in different segments of the logistics industry? |
|
|
|
|
|
4. What is the probability of commercial partnership to consolidate
long-term and on up to five (5) years? |
|
|
|
|
|
Analysis of the aspects and activities that stimulate and sustain the
partnership between the companies.
FACILITATORS: ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS THAT ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS |
0% |
25% |
50% |
75% |
100% |
5. What is the probability of the companies have similar organizational
cultures following instruments such as those of ethics, transparency and
corporate responsibility? |
|
|
|
|
|
6. What is the probability of the partner and the logistic operator have
leadership systems and organizational philosophies similar Operational
management? |
|
|
|
|
|
7. What is the probability of the service provider have the same criteria
of calculation of KPIs and SLAs Logistic operators |
|
|
|
|
|
8. What is the probability of the Logistical Operator customer loyalty
and consolidate short-term and long-term contracts on commercial partnership? |
|
|
|
|
|
Analysis of the appearance and activities that stimulate and sustain the
commercial partnership between the companies
For the following questions below, indicate only one answer that most
closely matches the business relationship between the companies.
9. The
breadth of scope of business partnership between companies |
|
( ) |
a) The commercial partnership can represent only a very small fraction of
the business between companies. |
( ) |
b) The commercial partnership can represent a significant fraction of the
business at just one company. |
( ) |
c) The commercial partnership can represent a significant portion of
business in both companies. |
10. The analysis of the scope of
services. |
|
( ) |
a) the commercial partnership is only) for a technical Logistic
Operator's operational activity and covers only one of the plants. |
( ) |
b) The commercial partnership may involve various technical operational
activities in only one of the plants. |
( ) |
c) The commercial partnership involves technical operational activities
in various plants. |
11. The relevance of the commercial partnership between the companies |
|
( ) |
a) the partnership involves only commercial) activities important to the
service provider |
( ) |
b) The commercial partnership involves activities only relevant to the
service provider. |
( ) |
c) the commercial partnership involves only critical activities for both
companies, |
12. Investments for commercial partnership between companies |
|
( ) |
a) companies don't make investments) sets of low added value |
( ) |
b) companies make investments in assets sets of low added value |
( ) |
c) companies are joint investment in assets with high added value |
13. Investments in information technology to support the commercial
partnership |
|
( ) |
a) No prospecting or investments in information technology sets |
( ) |
b) For joint information technology investments only in low-value assets |
( ) |
c) For joint investments in information technologies of high value and
regularly |
14. The analysis of the exchange of professionals between service
providers and competitors |
|
( ) |
a) interchanging supplier and competitors that already serves the
operator is limited or no longer exists |
( ) |
b) the Exchange and often involves a significant portion of employees or
doesn't exist |
( ) |
c) the exchange between supplier and competitors that already serves the
following operator contract |
15. The analysis of contractual deadlines for consolidation of
partnerships between companies |
||
( ) |
a) contracts are short-term and less than 1 (one) year |
|
( ) |
b) contracts are long-term and more than 1 (one) year without penalties
for breach of the term |
|
( ) |
c) contracts are specific no link or by reference to the time |
|
16. Contractual
aspects between contractor and hired |
||
( ) |
a) contracts are signed for execution of specific activities |
|
( ) |
b) contracts are signed for general activities without indication
specifies operational |
|
( ) |
c) the contracts do not specify obligations and common responsibilities
just ideologies |
|
17. The analysis of the processes of communication in commercial
partnership |
|
( ) |
a) are made by representatives of the companies and in handling of
specific activities |
( ) |
b) there are a limited number of official information between service
provider and logistics operator |
( ) |
c) For processes with manual or electronic communication technology
between companies |
18. Operational aspects in business partnership and communication between
companies |
|
( ) |
a) Limited and only to meet
only the operational activity being executed. |
( ) |
b) Communication is continuously to meet various hierarchical levels
between businesses. |
( ) |
c) the communication is planned on commercial partnership and at various
levels of the companies |
19. analysis of processes to financial risk and profit sharing |
|
( ) |
a) there is a low tolerance for losses and losses by enterprises |
( ) |
b) For average tolerance for possible losses and risks among businesses
only in the short term |
( ) |
c there's high tolerance for) possible losses among the companies, both
in the short and in the long run |
20. analysis to share risks and profits |
|
( ) |
a) There is low interest among the parties to support the other if
additional revenue from profits. |
( ) |
b) There is a high interest among the parties to support the other party
to consolidate greater gains. |
( ) |
c) The relationship between commercial support companies to extend the
gains are in contract signed. |