Article Discussions1. What ar.docx

Article Discussions
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of incremental
internationalization? (From the article: Internationalization
Process of Fast Fashion Retailers: Evidence of H&M and Zara)
Globalization has made many businesses all over the world to
adopt strategies that will give them a competitive edge over
other similar businesses. Some of them have adopted
incremental internationalization, which refers to the behavior of
firms to start operations in domestic markets and later expand
into new markets. This helps firms to establish themselves in
local markets before venturing into new foreign markets. As
such, it makes sense for a firm to first raise capital and learn the
most efficient business operations locally before it can expand
into other countries. Another advantage of incremental
internationalization is that firms are facilitated to gather
sufficient resources that enable them to come up with effective
strategies to enter the new markets. For instance, a firm
intending to operate globally should first consider setting up
operations in a stable environment that will facilitate for its
growth and sustainability. Based on the lessons learnt, it can
then identify more effective strategies when operating in other
countries. Some may argue that the model has become outdated
due to increased competition that has forced companies to seek
ways of faster penetration into new markets. However,
incremental internationalization is an effective model for firms
intending to grow gradually.. this model is also criticized as it
encourages firms to have late market entry, which may limit
their market share as other early entrants may have already
taken over the market.
2. Why are international brands first introduced as premium
brands in developing countries?(From the article: Evolution
Patterns of Apparel Brands in Asian Countries: Propositions
From an Analysis of the Apparel Industry in Korea and India)

It makes sense to attach higher prices to products so as to earn
higher earnings. This concept has been used by many
international firms, as premium brands are associated with high
quality and well–designed products. This is due to the fact that
local apparels are regarded as being inferior in quality and
design. Therefore, premium brands fetch better prices, and the
firm earns a competitive advantage over other firms producing
domestic apparel. For instance, the Tommy Hilfiger brand is
considered as a premium brand in India, and it is so costly that
the price of one item is twice a worker’s monthly income. To
support this point, most developing countries prefer wearing
international brands to their own designs. This is due to the
mentality that global brands are more superior. However,
premium pricing is only a marketing strategy to enhance a
company’s competitive advantage.
3. Which is the best method of approaching a consumer for
retail clothing? (From the article: International Brand
Management and Strategy: Apparel Market in China)
The far end of the supply chain is the consumer, who has a big
impact on the success of an apparel business. However,
approaching consumers is one of the biggest challenges that
businesses have to go through. It would help if the were to be
aware that multiple methods of communication that are
cumulated over time are the best options for approaching
consumers. When making decisions regarding clothing items,
consumers rely on pre–existing knowledge. Various
communication sources should be used to get to the consumers
so as to enhance brand awareness. For instance, in China,
consumers for apparel do not take time to search for the best
clothing items that are available, as their basis for selecting a
particular brand is due to the attributes that have been
communicated to them via various communication channels. In
other parts of the world, this strategy can also be adopted. A
company that sends a consistent message about its brand raises
consumer awareness, therefore influencing consumer purchase
decisions.

Discussion
As seen in the Learning Activities, conducting research can be a
time-intensive process. However, there are various methods that
may help you conduct research more efficiently. This evidence
can be categorized as primary or secondary sources. Primary
research is based on first-hand observations and interpretations;
in secondary research, you have to rely on another writer’s
ability to find and analyze information. It is ideal to have a
research strategy or plan in place before jumping into looking
for sources. In this Discussion, you will build your research
strategy.
After completing the unit’s Activities, respond to the following
questions in at least two well-developed paragraphs:
• Include your thesis statement for an argument for
change in your community or workplace, and identify at least
three search terms you can use in the KU Library or an Internet
search engine to find sources to support that thesis statement.
• How will you evaluate the credibility of the sources
you find, particularly those on the Internet?
• What primary sources might be helpful for addressing
questions that your secondary sources cannot answer?
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Country of origin factors influencing US consumers' perceived
price for multinational products
Jung Ha-Brookshire So-Hyang Yoon
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jung Ha-Brookshire So-Hyang Yoon, (2012),"Country of origin
factors influencing US consumers' perceived price for
multinational products", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.
29 Iss 6 pp. 445 - 454

Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761211259250
Downloaded on: 23 September 2015, At: 12:38 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 33 other
documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1516 times
since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Khalid I. Al-Sulaiti, Michael J. Baker, (1998),"Country of
origin effects: a literature review", Marketing Intelligence
&
Planning, Vol. 16 Iss 3 pp. 150-199
Ronald Drozdenko, Marlene Jensen, (2009),"Translating
country-of-origin effects into prices", Journal of Product &
Brand
Management, Vol. 18 Iss 5 pp. 371-378
Gerard P. Prendergast, Alex S.L. Tsang, Cherry N.W. Chan,
(2010),"The interactive influence of country of origin of
brand and product involvement on purchase intention", Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss 2 pp. 180-188 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761011027277
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald
subscription provided by emerald-srm:146575 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald
publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for
and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to
the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series
volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The
organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative
for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
St

at
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t 1
2:
38
2
3
Se
pt
em
be
r

20
15
(
PT
)
Country of origin factors influencing US
consumers’ perceived price for multinational
products
Jung Ha-Brookshire and So-Hyang Yoon
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA
Abstract
Purpose – In response to the popularity of multinational
products with limited information on countries of origins, this
study aims to explore factors
influencing consumers’ perceived prices for multinational
products.
Design/methodological approach – The study performed a 2
(COP) £ 2 (COM) within-subjects randomized experimental
research, using the USA
and China as the countries of parts (COP) and the countries of
manufacturing (COM) for cotton apparel. A total of 77 US
consumers participated.
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed.
Findings – Consumers’ income level was important for
perceived prices on apparel products made in the USA and/or of
US cotton. Expertise was also

important for higher pricing of apparel made in the USA of US
cotton, while familiarity with COO labeling laws negatively
affected perceived prices
when apparel was made in China. Perceived sustainability had
the largest impact on consumers’ perceived prices for apparel
made in the USA of
Chinese cotton.
Research limitations/implications – The study used a limited
sample size and the data were collected through experimental
studies. Generalization
must be done with caution.
Practical implications – Apparel businesses may want to declare
COP, if this country could provide cues to high quality, high
price, or excellent
design. Apparel businesses that would like to promote US
products may want to target those who have a high sense of
self-efficacy and educate
consumers with COO labeling rules and regulations.
Originality value – The findings offer significant factors
affecting consumers’ perceived price on multinationl products,
providing business practice
recommendations surrounding COP and COM.
Keywords Country of origin, Perceived price, Multinational
products, Hybrid products, United States of America, China,
Consumer behaviour
Paper type Research paper
An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Today’s economy is extremely complex and intricately

interwoven with multiple key players in multiple countries.
Products that we see in the marketplace are the results of
multinational collaborations and trades. Camry, a Toyota
automobile, is a no longer a Japanese product as most Camrys
currently sold in the US are built in the US and all 2012
model Camrys will be assembled in the US (Timmins, 2011).
By contrast, a significant number of the parts used in a Ford
or General Motors car are made in foreign countries and
imported to be assembled into final products in the US. This
does not make it easy to conclude whether or not a Camry is a
Japanese or US product. Similarly, a question arises regarding
how many foreign parts are allowed in a Ford or General
Motors car while still allowing it to claim to be a US product.
To some consumers, a Toyota Camry would be still a
Japanese product, just as a Ford would be a US product.
The concept of country of origin (COO), the country where
products or services were manufactured, has recently
expanded to country of parts (COP), country of

manufacturing (COM), country of brand (COB), and
country of design (COD). Each COO offers different
information, and consumers could use these more specific
designations to evaluate product attributes based on different
COO information. Consumers are interested in knowing
COM to ensure products are safe and made in a safe manner.
Others want to know COM to exercise their support for
domestic economy and local communities. COP helps
consumers make appropriate judgments of a country’s
involvement in the overall manufacturing process, while
COD and COB help communicate added values contributed
by a country that is well known for excellence in the product
category.
The consumers demand for products made in the USA
supports past studies on the COO effect. The COO effect
refers to a consumer’s dependency on COO when formingThe
current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
29/6 (2012) 445–454

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/07363761211259250]
This project was completed in part through research grants,
Margaret
Mangle Research Catalyst Award and Seeding Interdisciplinary
Research
Collaboration Fund by the College of Human Environmental
Sciences, as
well as Faculty Research Grant by the Center for the Digital
Globe,
awarded to the first author at the University of Missouri.
445
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a

St
at
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t 1
2:
38
2
3
Se
pt
em
be

r
20
15
(
PT
)
opinions on the quality of a product (Han and Terpstra,
1988). For example, when consumers see a product “Made in
USA,” compared to a product “Made in China,” they may
perceive the US product to be higher in quality and value.
Particularly when price is unknown, certain product
attributes, such as brand name or COO, are useful for
consumers to form their own opinion on what the product
price would be, in return, impacting purchase intention
(Bettman et al., 1998; Zeithaml, 1988).
Given the relationship between COO and consumers’
perceived price, the study was designed to explore factors
influencing consumers’ perceived prices for multinational
products. Using the US and China as COP and COM for
cotton apparel, the study assessed the effect of consumers’
demographic characteristics, prior knowledge, and perceived
sustainability on their perceived price. The study presents a

literature review of the COO effect and social responsibility,
the COO effect and perceived prices, and information
processing theory, followed by the research methods. The
results are discussed and the study concludes with
contributions, implications, limitations, and future research
opportunities.
Literature review
COO effects and social responsibility
The literature shows that COO plays a major role in
consumers’ decision-making processes and influences how
consumers view and evaluate product attributes (Samiee,
1994). The term COO effect refers to a consumer’s
dependency upon COO when forming opinions on the
quality of a product (Han and Terpstra, 1988). The previous
research suggests consumers’ demographic characteristics and
the economic development level of the country of origin are
important factors in the COO effect. For example, Schooler
(1971) found US female consumers evaluated foreign
products higher than US male consumers did. Similarly,
Wall and Heslop (1986) also found Canadian consumers have
a more positive attitude towards foreign products than
Canadian male consumers do. Younger consumers tend to
evaluate foreign products more favorably than older people do

(Bailey and Pineres, 1997). Educated consumers with higher
income were more likely to accept foreign products than
consumers with limited education and lower income were
(Bailey and Pineres, 1997).
The past research also suggests that consumers rate
products as higher quality if those products were produced
in countries that are more economically developed and
politically free (Wang and Lamb, 1983). Particularly,
consumers have pre-conceived ideas for different countries
and these stereotypical images of the countries affect
consumers’ evaluation on product quality. One of the
interesting findings on stereotype and the COO effect is that
consumers prefer products from their own country because
they believe domestic products have the highest quality and
pose the least risk (Hooley et al., 1988). This idea stems from
ethnocentrism, the belief in the inherent superiority of one’s
own ethnic group or culture (Hooley et al., 1988).
Ethnocentrism, coupled with 9/11 and the economic
recession in 2008, fueled patriotism among US consumers,
resulting in the heightened popularity of the “Buy Made in
USA” campaign. These consumers focus on helping domestic
economies and local communities, and, by purchasing US-
made products, they believe they help fellow Americans (Lee
et al., 2003). In this light, the COO effect has been discussed

in the socially responsible consumer behavior literature (Ha-
Brookshire and Norum, 2011).
Investigating the COO effect, however, is no longer a simple
task. Many of today’s businesses are now producing their
products all over the world, using raw materials produced in
multiple countries. Thus, hybrid or multinational products
(or products with more than one country of origin) are
common in today’s marketplace place. Yet, most industries
use a “one-country” origin designation that usually refers to
the country where the product is manufactured. This practice
makes it difficult to determine which country is a true country
of origin for a multinational product.
Therefore, some researchers have argued that multi-level
COO must be declared to reflect today’s complex supply
chain systems (Bilkey and Nes, 1982). In this light, the
concepts of country of design (COD), country of assembly
(COA), country of parts (COP), and country of manufacture
(COM) were introduced as they could be useful for
consumers’ value judgments (Essoussi and Merunka, 2007;

Insch and McBride, 1998). COD refers to the country where
the final product was initially conceptualized and designed..
COP points out the country where component parts are
manufactured. COA describes the country where the product
is partially or fully assembled, but not ready to be sold to the
end consumer COM refers to the country where the final
product is manufactured.
These multi-level COO determinations were found to affect
consumers’ evaluations on the product quality (Chowdhury
and Ahmed, 2009). Compared to a single-country COO
designation, the multi-level COO determinations are also
expected to help consumers better evaluate the contributions
of different countries, so they could choose the products that
fit their purchasing goals by using more accurate information.
For example, if one sees the US as a COP even if COM is
China, he or she may form different perceptions on the
product’s social and environmental impact than a simple
“Made-in China” label. Thus, multi-level COO designations

could help consumers better exercise their socially responsible
consumption than single-country origin determinations.
Despite the important impact of multi-level COO
determinations, COM represents COO in the US
marketplace (Samiee, 1994). Particularly for the textile and
apparel products, COO marking rules enforced by the US
Federal Trade Commission (2011) require that products
display the country where the most significant assembly
process occurred (or COM) as a COO on the finished
product (United States Department of Agriculture, 2011).
Translating COO effect into prices
Among many variables, price is usually discussed in the
literature as an influential extrinsic cue in relation to
consumers’ evaluations of product alternatives and their
purchase decisions (Veale and Quester, 2009). Studies found
that consumers use price as a predictor of quality, particularly
when they have limited knowledge of product offerings (Veale
and Quester, 2009). Consumers often formulate a natural

ordering of products according to a price scale, believing the
higher quality products are more expensive and products of
lesser quality are cheaper; or the higher-priced products have
higher quality and lower-priced products have lesser quality
Country of origin factors influencing US consumers’ perceived
price
Volume 29 · Number 6 · 2012 · 445–454
446
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni

a
St
at
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t 1
2:
38
2
3
Se
pt
em

be
r
20
15
(
PT
)
(Lee and Lou, 1996). This price/quality relationship is
described as the price-reliance schema (Lee and Lou, 1996).
Although the relationship between quality and price has
been highly discussed, how price influences the COO effect
has rarely been. To fill this gap, Drozdenko and Jensen (2009)
recently attempted to translate the COO effect into prices and
found that US consumers were willing to pay a 37 percent
premium for US-made shoes and a 105 percent premium for
US-made toothpastes, compared to the same products made
in China. The authors continued that the more consumers
were exposed to negative news concerning Chinese products,
the price premiums US consumers were willing to pay
increased. Similarly, Ha-Brookshire and Norum (2011) found
that US consumers were willing to pay over a 17 percent

premium for a shirt made of US-grown cotton, compared to
cotton without the COO display. All of these studies,
however, have focused on consumers’ willingness to pay,
rather than how much consumers believe that these products
should cost, that is, perceived price.
Perceived prices and information processing theory
Although previous literature review shows that COO is an
important extrinsic cue for consumers’ purchase intention
and purchase behavior, the relationship between COO and
perceived price has been little explored. Perceived price is
defined as what a consumer gives up or sacrifices in order to
obtain a product (Zeithaml, 1988). Thus, when actual price is
unknown, consumers may use other available product
attributes, such as brand name or COO, to form their own
opinion on what the product price, and therefore, quality
would be (Bettman et al., 1998). That is, when consumers
face new product attributes, they generate perceived price and
perceived quality, in return, impacting perceived value and
purchase intention (Zeithaml, 1988). The thesis that
consumers use various cues to construct their preferences is
explained by Bettman’s (1979) information processing theory
of consumer choice. Based on the notion that decision makers
have limitations on their capacity for processing information,
information processing theory suggests that consumers do not

always make perfect decisions. Rather, consumers make
decisions based on the limited information available in a given
situation.
Information processing theory further explains that an act
of preference construction is highly dependent on context and
individual characteristics. Prior knowledge is one of the
important factors in consumers’ preference construction as it
is believed to facilitate the acquisition of new information as
well as the use of existing information (Rao and Monroe,
1988). Prior knowledge is known to have two dimensions:
familiarity and expertise (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987).
Familiarity is defined as the number of product-related
experiences accumulated by a consumer, and expertise refers
to the ability to successfully perform product-related tasks,
such as quality, price, and value evaluation. Thus, prior
knowledge is defined as information held in memory about
product alternatives as well as consumers’ ability to perform
product-related tasks (Rao and Monroe, 1988).
From the familiarity perspective, consumers are more likely
to use extrinsic cues if new product attributes are unfamiliar
to them, while they are less likely use extrinsic cues if they are
more familiar with new product attributes (Rao and Monroe,
1988). The role of familiarity with new product attributes gets
enhanced if consumers have expertise in such product

attributes (Rao and Monroe, 1988). That is, consumers
who are familiar and have expertise in new product attributes
are better able to assess product quality and value through an
examination of intrinsic cues. However, consumers who are
unfamiliar with new product attributes with little expertise in
such attributes are more likely dependent on extrinsic cues for
their product evaluation.
Research questions
Given that the COO effect exists and COO, particularly
multi-level COO, is an important extrinsic cue for today’s
consumers, who want to know where products are made to
exercise their support for domestic economy and local
communities, the study aimed to explore factors influencing
consumers’ perceived prices for multinational products,
which are extremely common in today’s marketplace. First,
considering its impact on the COO effect, consumers’
demographic characteristics were included in the study as
potential factors consumers may consider when forming
perceived price. Following the information processing theory,
prior knowledge was included in this study as a possible
influential factor of consumers’ perceived price. Both
familiarity and expertise were considered to characterize

prior knowledge. Finally, the perception of the social and
environmental impact, or perceived sustainability, of the
product, suggested by multi-level COO designations, was
considered a new product attribute, impacting perceived
price. Figure 1 illustrates the study’s conceptual model.
Methodology
2 3 2 within-subject randomized experimental design
For the purpose of the study, a 2 (COP) £ 2 (COM) within-
subjects randomized experimental research was designed. In
this study, COP and COM were of interest to represent the
multi-level COO designations for hybrid products. It was
believed that a separate COP designation along with COM
would affect how consumers perceived price. Two-level COO
designations were used because the COO effect tends to
become weaker if the COO construct is broken down into too
many dimensions (Tse and Lee, 1993). Cotton shirts were used
as the study manipulations. Cotton is an apparel product’s
major part. In addition, cotton meets over half of the world’s
apparel needs and almost everyone owns cotton apparel,
regardless of income, gender, and age (Kadolph, 2011).
For both COP and COM, the US and China were selected
for a few reasons. First, these countries are two of the top
cotton producing countries in the world. Second, over 50

percent of today’s cotton produced in the US is shipped to
China to be further processed into apparel, making China the
leading importer of US-grown cotton (United States
Department of Agriculture, 2011). Third, China is the
leading cotton apprel exporter to the US, supplying over 27
percent of the entire cotton apparel imported to the US
marketplace in 2008 (Cotton Incorporated, 2009). Thus, it
was reasonably assumed that a significant portion of US
cotton exported to China comes back to the US as final
apparel products. Yet, the final products bear only a “Made In
China” label, undermining the contribution of US cotton.
This phenomenon was particularly important for the study
design, because many of today’s US consumers are seeking
“Made In USA” products to help domestic economy, show
patriotism, and demonstrate their social responsibility.
price
Volume 29 · Number 6 · 2012 · 445–454
447
D

ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
St
at
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri

dg
e
A
t 1
2:
38
2
3
Se
pt
em
be
r
20
15
(
PT
)
Sample
After approval from the Institutional Review Board,
participants were recruited through advertisements in

university news media and a local newspaper in spring
2011. A large retailer’s gift card for the amount of $5 was
given to participants as an incentive. Totally, 77 participants
were recruited and completed the study. Because the study
was designed to be a set of randomized experiments with each
participant as a block, it was possible to collect all 77
responses per cell created by the combination of two COP
and two COM. This design met the sample size requirements
suggested by Hair et al. (2006). First, the minimum sample
size per cell was greater than the number of dependent
variables, perceived price. Second, the sample size of 77
exceeded the minimum sample size per cell, 20, for repeated
measures design. Third, 77 responses per cell ensured equal
sample size per cell.
Overall, 54 out of 77 participants were women and the rest
were men. This was expected as the recruitment statements
included the phrase “apparel shopping behavior” and women
seemed more interested in this study than men. A total of 56
participants indicated themselves as Caucasian, 10 as Asian

and Pacific Islander, 7 as African American, and 4 as others.
Participants ranged from 18 years old to 69 years old, with an
average age of 30.6 years. A little over half of the participants
were single or divorced and the rest were either in a
relationship or married. Approximately half of the
participants had some college or high school education,
while the rest had college degrees or graduate education.
Finally, over half of the participants indicated that they had
over $30,000 as household income. Table I shows the study
sample characteristics.
Stimuli
Four cards were created to represent four different sets of
COP and COM of an apparel product. Each card was 3
inches wide and 2 inches long, and contained the following
information in black lettering on a white background:
. 100 percent Cotton from USA. Made in USA;
. 100 percent Cotton from USA. Made in China;
. 100 percent Cotton from China. Made in USA; and
. 100 percent Cotton from China. Made in China.
Variables

The price of a cotton shirt estimated by each respondent
served as a dependent variable in this study. The dependent
variable, perceived price, was measured by a single question
asking the participant to estimate the retail price for each of
the four types of cotton shirt with different COP and COM
combinations.
Nine predictor variables were included in this study, following
the study’s conceptual model. The first block of predictor
variables, demographic variables, served as control variables
in our model. Demographic variables included the
participants’ age, gender, marital status, education level,
and household income.
Figure 1 Conceptual model
Table I Characteristics of the study sample
Characteristic Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 22 29.9
Female 54 70.1

Ethnicity
Caucasian 56 72.7
African American/Black 7 9.1
Asian and Pacific Islander 10 13.0
Hispanic/Middle Eastern/Other 4 5.2
Age
21 and Under 24 31.2
22 to 34 31 40.3
35 to 44 6 7.8
45 to 54 9 11.7
55 to 64 5 6.5
65 and Over 2 2.6
Marital status
In a relationship 20 26.0
Single/Divorced 39 50.6
Married 18 23.4
Education level
Some high school education 1 1.3
High School degree 4 5.2
Some college education 34 44.2

College degree 22 28.6
Some graduate education 8 10.4
Graduate degree 16 20.8
Income
Less than $10,000 18 23.4
$10,000-$29,999 17 22.1
$30,000-$59,999 16 20.8
$60,000-$99,999 15 19.8
$100,000-$119,999 7 9.1
$120,000-$199,999 3 3.9
$2000,000 above 1 1.3
Note: Total number of participants ¼ 77
price
Volume 29 · Number 6 · 2012 · 445–454
448
D
ow

nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
St
at
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri
dg

e
A
t 1
2:
38
2
3
Se
pt
em
be
r
20
15
(
PT
)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/
07363761211259250&iName=master.img-
000.jpg&w=424&h=90
The two dimensions of prior knowledge, familiarity and
expertise, were included as the second block of predictor
variables. Familiarity was then divided into two: familiarity

with COO labeling laws and familiarity with the concept of
sustainability. Familiarity of COO labeling laws was measured
to assess the participants’ procedural knowledge, while the
familiarity of the concept of sustainability was intended to
examine whether or not the participants possessed conceptual
knowledge related to the study objectives. Conceptual
knowledge refers to a person’s representation of major
concepts (Reber and Reber, 2001). It is the kind of
knowledge that cannot be learned by rote. It must be
learned by thoughtful, reflective learning, and may be
transferred between situations. Procedural knowledge is
knowing the method of manipulating a specific condition or
the technique for implementing a task. It is knowing how to
control the relevant factors for examining some phenomenon
(Reber and Reber, 2001). Responses were recorded on a five-
point Likert scale ranging from “not familiar at all, or 1” to
“very familiar, or 5.”
Expertise was measured by the scale of self-efficacy as it is
commonly used in the literature to assess one’s expertise
(Schwarzer and Jerusalem, 1995). Self-efficacy is defined as
the confidence in one’s coping ability across a wide range of
demanding or novel situations (Bandura, 1994). A 30-item
scale was adopted from Sherer et al. (1982) and Schwarzer
and Jerusalem (1995) to examine the participants’ overall

confidence or belief that they could perform what they set out
to do, or expertise.
The third and last block of predictor variables was
perceived sustainability for each stimulus card. Perceived
sustainability was designed to assess the participants’
subjective judgment on the impact of sustainability of each
stimulus when they were exposed to such stimulus. The
participants were asked to rank each stimulus in the order of
the least sustainable to the most sustainable option among the
four cards.
Data collection procedures
Upon arrival at the university laboratory, participants were
asked to complete surveys including demographic
characteristics and prior knowledge. Then, the experiment
began with the statement, “we are showing you four different
cards that represent different country of origins of a cotton t-
shirt in random order. Assuming all others are equal, please
think about which option would be the most or least
sustainable to the environment and society, and organize the
cards in order from the most sustainable to the least
sustainable. Please take as long as you wish.” Most
participants took two to three minutes to respond to the
initial instruction. This perceived sustainability of the product

was recorded from 1 to 4, 1 being the least sustainable to 4
being the most sustainable.
Next, the four cards were mixed again and presented to the
participants. This time, participants were presented with the
statement “now, we found out that a typical cotton t-shirt sold
in major stores in the US is made out of 100 percent cotton
and has a label of ‘Made in China.’ The average price of this
shirt is $40. Compared to a $40 shirt, how much do you
believe that other options would cost at a retail store? Please
indicate one retail price for each option while considering the
sustainability impact of each card.” This procedure was done
to obtain perceived price of each card, using a cotton shirt
with a “100 percent cotton, Made in China” label as a
control. The control card represents what consumers see in
the marketplace under the current COO rules. The retail
price of $40 was set to represent the medium quality, average-
price cotton apparel products in the US marketplace.
Participants took approximately two to three minutes to
complete this task for all four cards. The responses were
recorded as perceived price.
Data analysis
Four sets of hierarchical multiple regressions were performed.
Petrocelli (2003) clarified hierarchical multiple regression

analysis is useful and powerful when researchers want to test
theoretical assumptions and examine the influence of several
predictor variables in a sequential way. By doing so, the
relative importance of a predictor can be evaluated based on
how much each predictor variable could add to the prediction
of a dependent variable, over and above other important
predictors. For the purpose of the study, hierarchical multiple
regression analysis was deemed ideal as the technique would
provide the relative importance of demographic
characteristics, prior knowledge, and perceived sustainability
on the participants’ perceived prices for four different
combinations of COP and COM profiles of cotton shirts. In
addition, the relationships between independent and
dependent variables were hypothesized based on theoretical
assumptions and past research. Regression coefficients and
changes in R2 were examined throughout the analysis.
Results
Perceived price for products Made in USA with US
cotton
The mean perceived price for this card was $56.9 with
standard deviation of 25.2. As indicated in Table II, nine
predictor variables accounted for 28.0 percent of total
variance in dependent variable, perceived price. Among the
demographic variables, the respondents’ gender and income

showed statistically significant impact on the price estimate.
First, men (standardized b ¼ 20.19; p , 0.10) and affluent
(standardized b ¼ 0.37, p , 0.01) consumers provided a
much higher perceived price for the product with this type of
COM and COM designation. The incremental R2 for the
entire demographic variables was 19.3. Second, participants’
expertise showed a statistically suggestive effect on perceived
price (standardized b ¼ 0.21, p , 0.10) with an incremental
R2 value of 4.1, after accounting for demographic variables.
Third, perceived sustainability of this product has a
statistically significant impact on perceived price
(standardized b ¼ 0.23, p , 0.05) with an incremental R2 of
4.6, after accounting for demographic and prior knowledge
variables. In sum, income, perceived sustainability, gender,
and expertise were important factors for the participants
perceived price for an apparel product made in USA with US
cotton.
Perceived price for products Made in China with US
cotton
For an apparel product made in China with US cotton,
participants estimated it to be $46.9 with a standard deviation
of 17.6. In addition, nine predictor variables accounted for
31.7 percent of the total variance in perceived price. First,
participants’ income level showed a statistically significant

price
Volume 29 · Number 6 · 2012 · 445–454
449
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
St
at
e
U

ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t 1
2:
38
2
3
Se
pt
em
be
r
20
15
(

PT
)
positive impact on perceived price (standardized b ¼ 0.37,
p , 0.01), with an incremental R2 value of 18.5. Other
demographic variables were not found statistically significant.
In terms of prior knowledge, interestingly, participants’
familiarity with COO labeling laws showed a statistically
significant, yet negative effect on their perceived price for this
product (standardized b ¼ 20.23, p , 0.05), after
accounting for demographic variables. That is, the more
familiar the participants were with the COO laws, the lower
they estimated the value of the product if it was made in
China even if US cotton was used. Perhaps, participants put
more weight on costs related to manufacturing than on raw
materials costs, and thus, they thought the price should be
lower if the product is made in China with high-price raw
materials. Finally, perceived sustainability also showed a
statistically significant impact on perceived price
(standardized b ¼ 0.27, p , 0.05) with an incremental R2 of
5.9, after accounting for demographic and prior knowledge
variables. Overall, income, perceived sustainability, and
familiarity with COO labeling laws were important
influencers of perceived price for an apparel product made
in China with US cotton.

Perceived price for products Made in USA with Chinese
cotton
The mean price estimate for an apparel product made in USA
with Chinese cotton was $46.1 with a standard deviation of
18 and nine predictor variables accounting for 37.2 percent
(the highest of the four cards) of total variance in perceived
price. First, participants’ income level showed a statistically
significant positive impact on perceived price (standardized
b ¼ 0.24, p , 0.05), with an incremental R2 value of 17.5.
Other demographic variables were not found statistically
significant. Different from the first two cards, prior knowledge
showed no statistical significance on their perceived price,
after accounting for demographic variables. Instead, perceived
sustainability showed a statistically significant impact on
perceived price (standardized b ¼ 0.40, p , 0.01) with an
incremental R2 of 15.4, after accounting for demographic and
prior knowledge variables. This finding suggested perceived
sustainability is the single largest influencing factor on
perceived price for the product made in USA with Chinese
cotton. In short, income and perceived sustainability were
important factors for perceived price for an apparel product
made in the USA with Chinese cotton.
Perceived price for products Made in China with
Chinese cotton
The mean price estimate for an apparel product made in

China with Chinese cotton was $38.2 with a standard
deviation of 13. This price estimate was below the control
price of an apparel product with a COO label of “Made in
China” without any information on the origin of raw
materials. In addition, nine predictor variables accounted
for only 19.2 percent (the lowest of the four cards) of total
variance in perceived price. Age was the only demographic
variable with a statistically suggestive positive impact on
perceived price (standardized b ¼ 0.27 p , 0.10), with an
incremental R2 value of 7.6. Other demographic variables
were not found statistically significant. Instead, prior
knowledge was found to be significant for their perceived
price with an incremental R2 value of 9.4, after accounting for
demographic variables. More specifically, participants’
familiarity with COO labeling laws showed a statistically
suggestive, yet negative effect on their perceived price
(standardized b ¼ 20.21, p , 0.10). Participants’ familiarity
with the concept of sustainability showed a statistically
suggestive positive effect on perceived price (standardized
Table II Results of hierarchical multiple regression for
perceived prices
100% Cotton from
USA Made in
USA
100% Cotton from

USA Made in
China
100% Cotton from
China Made in
USA
100% Cotton from
China Made in
China
Mean of perceived pricesa (standard deviation) $56.9 (25.2)
$46.9 (17.6) $46.1 (18.0) $38.2 (13.0)
Demographicsb
Age 0.06 20.07 0.18 0.27 *
Gender (Female) 20.19 * 20.18 20.15 0.00
Marital status (married) 20.10 20.01 20.09 20.22
Education 0.10 0.15 0.03 0.05
Income 0.37 * * * 0.37 * * * 0.24 * * 0.07
Incremental R2 (%) 19.3 * * * 18.5 * * * 17.5 * * * 7.6
Prior knowledgeb
Familiarity with COO labeling laws 20.05 20.23 * * 20.12 20.21

*
Familiarity with sustainability 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.25 *
Efficacy 0.21 * 0.17 0.13 0.08
Incremental R2 (%) 4.1 7.2 * 4.4 9.4 *
Sustainabilityb
Perceived sustainability 0.23 * * 0.27 * * 0.40 * * * 0.17
Incremental R2 (%) 4.6 * * 5.9 * * * 15.4 * * * 2.6
Total R2 (%) 28.0 31.7 37.2 19.5
Note: n ¼ 77; aControl price was $40 for a cotton shirt with the
“Made in China” label; bEntries are standardized regression
coefficients; *Indicates p , 0.10;
* *Indicates p , 0.05; * * *Indicates p , 0.01
price
Volume 29 · Number 6 · 2012 · 445–454
450
D
ow
nl
oa

de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
St
at
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A

t 1
2:
38
2
3
Se
pt
em
be
r
20
15
(
PT
)
b ¼ 0.25, p , 0.10). Different from the rest of the three
cards, perceived sustainability had no impact on perceived
price, after accounting for demographic and prior knowledge
variables. Overall, age, familiarity with COO labeling laws and
familiarity with the concept of sustainability were important
influencers of perceived price for an apparel product made in
China with Chinese cotton.

Conclusions and managerial implications
In response to the large quantity of multinational products
with limited information on countries of origins, the study
explored factors influencing consumers’ perceived prices for
multinational products. Particularly, given the US imports
over 90 percent of its apparel from the rest of the world and
China is the leading exporter of such products, the study used
the US and China as the countries of parts and
manufacturing to assess consumers’ perceived prices.
Demographic variables, prior knowledge, and perceived
sustainability were included in the study as potentially
influential factors for consumers’ perceived price.
The hierarchical multiple regression results from a 2
(COP) £ 2 (COM) within-subjects randomized experimental
research of 77 participants in the US showed several
interesting findings. First, even for a product made in
China, consumers believe it would be more costly if the label
includes the US as the origin of the cotton origin and less
costly if the label includes China as the cotton origin. This
indicates that where raw materials were produced does matter
to consumers’ perceived prices, even if the country of

manufacturing is the same. Thus, businesses may want to
declare the origins of the countries in which raw materials
produced, if this country could provide cues to high quality,
high price, or excellent design. This added information to the
current COO would help raise the value of the products in
consumers’ mind. The government also may want to consider
establishing requirements of declaring COP in addition to
COM, as some products without COM could be deceiving or
confusing to consumers.
Second, the results showed the different factors affecting
consumers’ perceived prices for products with multi-level
COO designations. For example, male consumers with high
income, who believe they have expertise, tend to have higher
perceived sustainability on products made in USA with US
cotton, resulting in higher perceived price for such products.
Consumers with little knowledge of COO labeling laws tend
to have higher perceived sustainability on products made in
China, regardless of fiber origins. Thus, businesses that would
like to promote US products may want to target those who
have a high sense of self-efficacy and educate consumers with
COO labeling rules and regulations. The more they are
familiar with COO labeling laws and the more confident they

are in themselves, the more consumers would value US
products.
Third, the study finding showed the explanatory power
(15.4 percent) of perceived sustainability on products made in
the USA with Chinese cotton is very powerful. In addition, it
was 3.4 times greater than that on products made in USA
with US cotton. Today’s marketplace in the US is full of
cotton apparel made in China with US cotton, rather than
made in the USA with Chinese cotton. This trend can be seen
by the trade data, showing the US rarely imports Chinese
cotton while it exports a great amount of cotton to China
where most cotton is processed into apparel before being re-
exported back to the US. Given the fact of the abundance of
products made in China with US cotton in the US
marketplace, this finding offer important implications for
businesses whether they should communicate COP, COM, or
both.
Finally, overall, demographic variables had the most
explanatory powers over perceived price across the study
stimuli, ranging from 17.5 percent to 19.3 percent.
Particularly, except for products made in China with

Chinese cotton, consumers’ income was the most or second
most important factor for their perceived price of products
with US involvement as COP, COM, or both. Prior
knowledge or perceived sustainability have relatively lower
power than demographic variables, and this finding poses
challenges to businesses as to how to influence consumers for
additional values that COP might provide. After all, if
consumers do not have high income, the value of
sustainability alone may not be significant enough to change
consumers’ purchase behavior.
Limitations and future research opportunities
As most other research, this study also has limitations and,
therefore, future research opportunities. First, although the
study findings showed interesting consumer profiles for
products with different COP and COM combinations, the
study did not examine why consumers have such high
perceived value for US-made products using US raw
materials – almost twice as high as Chinese-made products
using Chinese raw materials. If we could understand why this
phenomenon occurs and what type of consumers overvalue
US-made products, businesses, policy makers, researchers,

and consumer advocacy groups would be able to help inform
consumers of the fair value of US-made products. This would
help consumers be less affected by fraud or deception that
may occur from incomplete COO labels and less turned off by
the high price of US-made products.
Second, although experimental research design was useful
to keep participants fully engaged in the study and produce
good quality data from the participants’ responses, because of
the laboratory setting, some participants might have provided
what they perceived to be socially acceptable answers. Thus,
further studies in a natural shopping environment are
recommended, where researchers are not intrusive and
participants may not feel judged by answers they provide
during the study. Third, a greater sample size in a larger
population is recommended to help generalize the study
findings. Finally, given the fact that US-made products have
different meanings for consumers from different countries and
cultures, cross-cultural studies investigating the effect of COP
and COM on perceived prices of domestic products and
foreign products would be fruitful to further our knowledge

on the COO effect.
References
Alba, J. and Hutchinson, J. (1987), “Dimensions of consumer
expertise”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13,
pp. 411-54.
Bailey, W. and Pineres, S. (1997), “Country of origin effects
on product evaluation”, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 25-41.
price
Volume 29 · Number 6 · 2012 · 445–454
451
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C

al
if
or
ni
a
St
at
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t 1
2:
38
2

3
Se
pt
em
be
r
20
15
(
PT
)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1
300%2FJ046v09n03_03
300%2FJ046v09n03_03
086%2F209080&isi=A1987G554200001
Bandura, A. (1994), “Self-efficacy”, in Ramachaudran, V.
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, Academic Press,
New York, NY, pp. 71-81.
Bettman, J. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of
Consumer Choice, Addision-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bettman, J., Luce, M. and Payne, J. (1998), “Constructive

consumer choice processes”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 25, pp. 187-217.
Bilkey, W. and Nes, E. (1982), “Country of origin effects on
product evaluation”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 89-99.
Chowdhury, H. and Ahmed, J. (2009), “An examination of
the effects of partitioned country of origin on consumer
product quality perceptions”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 496-502.
Cotton Incorporated (2009), “Supply chain insights: the
economy and apparel sourcing trends”, available at: http://
lifestylemonitor.cottoninc.com/Supply-Chain-Insights/
Economy-and-Apparel-Sourcing-Trends-02-09/ (accessed
28 June 2011).
Drozdenko, R. and Jensen, M. (2009), “Translating country-
of-origin effects into prices”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 371-8.
Essoussi, L. and Merunka, D. (2007), “Consumers’ product
evaluations in emerging markets: does country of design,
country of manufacture, or brand image matter?”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 409-26.

Ha-Brookshire, J. and Norum, P. (2011), “Willingness to pay
for socially responsible products: case of cotton apparel”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 344-53.
Hair, J.J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E.
(2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Han, C. and Terpstra, V. (1988), “Country of origin effects
for uni-national and bi-national products”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 235-55.
Hooley, G., Shipley, D. and Krieger, N. (1988), “A method
for modelling consumer perceptions of country of origin”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 67-76.
Insch, G. and McBride, J. (1998), “Decomposing the
country-of-origin construct: an empirical test of county-
of-design, country-of-parts, and country-of-assembly”,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 69-91.
Kadolph, S. (2011), Textiles, 11th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Lee, M. and Lou, C.-C. (1996), “Consumer reliance on
intrinsic and extrinsic cues in product evaluations:

a conjoint approach”, Journal of Applied Business Research,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 21-30.
Lee, W.-N., Hong, J.-Y. and Lee, S.-J. (2003),
“Communicating with American consumers in the post 9/
11 climate: an empirical investigation of consumer
ethnocentrism in the United States”, International Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 22, pp. 487-510.
Petrocelli, J. (2003), “Hierarchical multiple regression in
counseling research: common problems and possible
remedies”, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, Vol. 36, pp. 9-22.
Rao, A. and Monroe, K. (1988), “The moderating effect of
prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 253-64.
Reber, A.S. and Reber, E. (2001), The Penguin Dictionary of
Psychology, 3rd ed., Penguin Books, London.
Samiee, S. (1994), “Customer evaluation of products in
global markets”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.
Schooler, R. (1971), “Bias phenomena attendant to the
marketing of foreign goods in the US”, Journal of

International Business Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-81.
Schwarzer, R. and Jerusalem, M. (1995), “Generalized self-
efficacy scale”, in Weinman, J., Wright, S. and Johnston, M.
(Eds), Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio.
Casual and Control Beliefs, NFER-Nelson, Windsor,
pp. 35-7.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn,
S., Jacobs, B. and Rogers, R.W. (1982), “The self-efficacy
scale: construction and validation”, Psychological Reports,
Vol. 51, pp. 663-71.
Timmins, B. (2011), “All 2012 Toyota Camrys sold in US
will be built in US”, Motor Trend, available at: http://
wot.motortrend.com/all-2012-toyota-camrys-sold-in-u-s-
will-be-built-in-u-s-114803.html (accessed 30 September
2011).
Tse, D. and Lee, W. (1993), “Removing negative country
images: effects of decomposition, branding and product
experience”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 25-48.
United States Department of Agriculture (2011), “US export
sales for week ending 6/16/2011”, available at: www.fas.
usda.gov/export-sales/cottfax.htm (accessed 30 June 2011).

United States Federal Trade Commission (2011), “Textile,
wool, fur, apparel and leather matters”, available at: www.
ftc.gov/os/statutes/textilejump.shtm (accessed 20 June
2011).
Veale, R. and Quester, P. (2009), “Do consumer expectations
match experience? Predicting the influence of price and
country of origin on perceptions of product quality”,
International Business Review, Vol. 18, pp. 134-44.
Wall, M. and Heslop, L. (1986), “Consumer attitudes toward
Canadian-made versus imported products”, Journal of
Academy of Marketing Sciences, Vol. 14, pp. 27-36.
Wang, C. and Lamb, C. (1983), “The impact of selected
environmental forces upon consumers’ willingness to buy
foreign products”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 71-84.
Zeithaml, V. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality
and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 2-22.
About the authors
Jung Ha-Brookshire, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Textile and Apparel Management at the

University of Missouri. Her research interests include global
supply chain and sourcing strategies, sustainable production
and consumption of textile and apparel, and firm/industry
identity issues. Jung Ha-Brookshire is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
So-Hyang Yoon, PhD, is a research fellow at the Center for
Digital Globe in the School of Journalism, University of
Missouri-Columbia. Her research interests include marketing
communication, branding strategies, consumer behaviors in
multicultural settings, participatory behaviors, and the roles
of communication in social engagements.
price
Volume 29 · Number 6 · 2012 · 445–454
452
D
ow
nl
oa

t 1
2:
38
2
3
Se
pt
em
be
r
20
15
(
PT
)
007%2FBF02722154
111%2Fj.1470-6431.2009.00783.x
111%2Fj.1470-6431.2009.00783.x
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.11
08%2F07363761111149992
307%2F1251446&isi=A1988P366500001
057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490732

08%2F10610420910981855
057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490732
057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490379&isi=A1988P235800004
08%2F10610420910981855
057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490379&isi=A1988P235800004
466%2Fpr0.1982.51.2.663&isi=A1982PK72100067
300%2FJ046v10n04_05
016%2Fj.ibusrev.2009.01.004&isi=000266513000003
086%2F209162&isi=A1988Q202300009
057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490539&isi=A1982NU68200006
08%2F02651330710760991&isi=000250281500003
057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490539&isi=A1982NU68200006
007%2FBF02721862
057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490213&isi=A1994PJ81100007
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=00018264
5100002
5100002
08%2Feb008359
086%2F209535&isi=000077542600001

007%2FBF02722154
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and
executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article
in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of
the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
Plenty evidence exists to show that consumer purchase
decisions are significantly influenced by country-of-origin
(COO) effects. Various studies have found that demographic
characteristics and the level of economic development within
the COO are especially significant. Of particular relevance is
research indicating a more positive attitude towards foreign
products among females, younger consumers and educated
individuals earning high salaries. In comparison, males, older
consumers and less educated, low earning people displayed a
lower tendency to accept these products.

Many nations have become stereotyped and consumers
typically rely on these images to evaluate products from
certain countries. There is also a strong indication that people
regard products as being of higher quality when they are
manufactured in more economically advanced nations. COO
research has likewise noted that domestic products are
typically regarded as being superior to those manufactured
abroad. For individuals with ethnocentric tendencies, this is
likelier still.
The notion of COO being a simple construct has
traditionally prevailed. However, this is no longer the case
because it has become the norm for many organizations to
source materials and manufacture their products in different
countries around the world. It is consequently feasible to
regard many products as “hybrid or multinational” in nature.
Nevertheless, the propensity remained in certain industries
to use COO as a reference to where the product was made.
This resulting lack of clarity prompted academics to clamor
for a “multi-level COO” and has given rise to additional labels

that include country of design (COD), country of assembly
(COA), country of parts (COP) and country of manufacture
(COM).
Use of multi-level COO definitions can impact on how
consumers measure product quality, some academics have
discovered. The assumption is that people are able to more
accurately assess how different nations have contributed.
However, in the US the issue is complicated by stipulations in
certain industries that COO should refer to the COM or the
country responsible for the “most significant assembly
process”. The “Made in” label may not be fully informative
and consumer decisions could well be different if they, for
instance, know which country supplied the parts. Providing
additional information is also likely to help those whose
consumption is driven by a desire to behave in a socially
responsible manner.
Plenty research has identified that consumers frequently use
price as a quality indicator. When knowledge of products is
limited, this extrinsic cue becomes even more relevant.

Consumers invariably assume that positive correlation exists
between price and quality levels. The relationship between
price and the COO effect has in comparison received little
attention. However, studies have found a willingness among
US consumers to pay substantially more for product made in
the US as opposed to the same goods manufactured in China.
These and other studies producing similar findings addressed
consumer willingness to pay rather than their perception of
how much the products should cost.
In this context, it is supposed that consumers who are
unaware of the price may use brand name or COO
information to determine their perceived price and to
evaluate product quality. Prior knowledge in the shape of
familiarity and expertise are used in a similar vein. According
to different research sources, people with prior knowledge of
new product attributes are more likely to use intrinsic cues to
judge quality and value. A reliance of extrinsic cues is
characteristic among consumers lacking familiarity or
expertise.

Ha-Brookshire and Yoon address consumer perceived
prices for common multinational products and aim to
identify which factors influence their evaluations. Subjects
were recruited through newspaper and university news media
campaigns. Given the focus on clothing shopping activities,
that 54 of the 77 participants were women did not surprise.
Various ethnic groups were represented in the sample
containing respondents aged between 18 and 69.
Cotton shirts were selected for the research in which
subjects were exposed to one of four COP-COM designs. The
selection of China and the US for COP and COM was
determined by their involvement in cotton manufacturing,
apparel production and the import and export of the raw
materials and products.
Participants were exposed to cards depicting four types of
cotton shirt with different combinations of COP and COM.
They were asked to estimate the retail price of each one. The
study considered a range of demographic variables along with
familiarity and expertise. Familiarity was used in relation to

COO labeling regulations and to the concept of sustainability.
In addition, subjects had to rank the cards in order based on
levels of perceived sustainability and consider this while
determining the retail price. The control card used stated that
the shirt contained 100 percent cotton and was made in
China. This reflected current COO laws and what customers
see in the marketplace. The $40 price tag was deemed
appropriate for this quality of product sold in the US.
Analysis revealed that shirts:
. Made in the US with US cotton had a mean perceived
price of $56.9. perceived price was most influenced by
income, perceived sustainability, gender and expertise.
. Made in China with US cotton were on average perceived
to cost $46.9. Variables which mainly impacted on
perceived price were income, perceived sustainability
and familiarity with COO labeling laws.
. Made in the USA with Chinese cotton had an average
perceived price of $46.1. Income and perceived
sustainability were the most important factors.
. Made in China using Chinese cotton had a mean

perceived price of $38.2. The main determinants of
perceived price were age, familiarity with COO labeling
laws and familiarity with the sustainability concept.
Consumers seem to believe products made in China will cost
more when the label identifies the US as the origin of the
cotton used. When China is specified at the COP, the product
is assumed to be cheaper. Therefore, companies should
perhaps include COP information on labels when the country
in question is associated with superior quality or design and
price
Volume 29 · Number 6 · 2012 · 445–454
453
D
ow
nl
oa
de

d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
St
at
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t 1

2:
38
2
3
Se
pt
em
be
r
20
15
(
PT
)
high price. The likelihood exists that consumer would value
products more highly in such circumstances.
Marketers are encouraged to educate consumers about the
regulations which govern COO labeling. This can help in their
promotion of US products, since individuals without
knowledge of these regulations appear to rate goods made
in China as being more sustainable. Targeting those high in

“self-efficacy” is recommended.
Demographic variables were overall more influential than
perceived sustainability on perceived price of product where
the US was either or both COP or COM. A high income
appears particularly significant. However, marketers face a
challenge where lower earners are concerned. Ha-Brookshire
and Yoon assume that purchase behavior among these
consumers may not change on the basis of sustainability
value alone.
That perceived sustainability is higher for shirts made in the
US with Chinese cotton is another potential dilemma. Since
most cotton apparel sold in the US is manufactured in China
using cotton from the US, companies face a difficult decision
of what COO information to relay on clothing labels.
Future research could identify reasons for the high
perceived value of products made in the USA. Larger
sample sizes and cross-cultural studies comparing domestic
and foreign products are also suggested.
(A précis of the article “Country of origin factors influencing
US
consumers’ perceived price for multinational products”.
Supplied
by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
price

Volume 29 · Number 6 · 2012 · 445–454
454
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
St
at

e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t 1
2:
38
2
3
Se
pt
em
be
r
20

15
(
PT
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Gargi Bhaduri, Jung Ha-Brookshire. 2015. Gender
differences in information processing and transparency: cases of
apparel
brands’ social responsibility claims. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 24:5, 504-517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Subir Bandyopadhyay. 2015. Investigating Quality
Perceptions of International Services by Chinese Consumers.
Thunderbird
International Business Review n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if

or
ni
a
St
at
e
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t 1
2:
38
2
3
Se

pt
em
be
r
20
15
(
PT
)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2014-0683
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JPBM-08-
2014-0683
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JPBM-08-
2014-0683
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tie.21746
Industrial Management & Data Systems
Strategic sourcing in the textile and apparel industry
Jin Su
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jin Su, (2013),"Strategic sourcing in the textile and apparel
industry", Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 113 Iss 1 pp. 23 - 38
Permanent link to this document:

Downloaded on: 23 September 2015, At: 12:38 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 37 other
documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2007 times
since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Ruth K. Shelton, Kathy Wachter, (2005),"Effects of global
sourcing on textiles and apparel", Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 318-329 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020510610444
Jin Su, Vidyaranya B. Gargeya, (2012),"Strategic sourcing,
sourcing capability and firm performance in the
US textile and apparel industry", Strategic Outsourcing: An
International Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 145-165
S. Gary Teng, Hector Jaramillo, (2005),"A model for evaluation
and selection of suppliers in global textile
and apparel supply chains", International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 35 Iss 7 pp. 503-523
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald
subscription provided by emerald-srm:146575 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald
publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to
the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350
books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The
organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and
the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta

te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te
m
be

r
20
15
(
P
T
)
*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a

S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te

m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
Strategic sourcing in the textile
and apparel industry
Jin Su
The Department of Human Development and Environmental
Studies,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania,
USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate
performance outcomes of strategic sourcing,
specifically examining how strategic sourcing affects buyer-
supplier relationship, supplier evaluation,
and sourcing performance from the buying firm’s perspective in
the context of the US textile and
apparel industry.
Design/methodology/approach – This study provides an

empirical investigation of a theory-based
model integrating the resource-based view and the relational
view of strategic management. The model
is tested using data from 180 US textile and apparel firms by
structural equation modeling.
Findings – The survey results indicate that strategic sourcing
significantly impacts buyer-supplier
relationships, supplier evaluation, and sourcing performance of
buying companies. The study also
shows that supplier evaluation significantly influences buyer-
supplier relationship.
Research limitations/implications – Given that the data are from
a specific industry, the
generalizability of current findings to other industries may
require additional investigation.
Practical implications – Sourcing becomes a key strategic
consideration for textile and apparel
firms to sustain or improve their competitiveness.
Originality/value – The study contributes to the literature by
developing a research model based on
a multi-theoretical perspective and conducting a large-scale
empirical survey in the textile and apparel
industry and analyzing the model by structural equation
modeling. The dynamic textile and apparel
industry is a classical representation of global supply chain,
characterized by the industry’s significant
contribution to the world economy and international trade, the
extremely worldwide spread supply
network, and the tremendous competition in global market.
Examining strategic sourcing’s influences
in this important industry provides many valuable implications
for industrial practitioners.

Keywords United States of America, Textile industry, Buyers,
Suppliers, Channel relationships,
Sourcing, Buyer-supplier relationship, Performance, Strategic
sourcing, Supplier evaluation,
Textile and apparel
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Strategic sourcing in the textile and apparel industry has
received increasing attention
over the last decade due to two important developments. First,
textile and apparel
firms have increasingly been competing in dynamic and
complex world marketplace,
considering continual changes and uncertainties in product
availability, prices,
and competition (MacCarthy and Jayarathne, 2012; Bruce and
Daly, 2011; Kumar and
Arbi, 2008; Åkesson et al., 2007). Second, the prominence of
effectively managing
global textile and apparel supply chain has increased. Business
managers are thinking
of new strategies and implementing new practices to increase
firm performance.
The textile and apparel industry is a classical representation of
global supply
chain, which is characterized by the significant contribution to
world economy and
international trade, the numerous steps and the diverse activities
in the chain, the
extremely worldwide spread supply network, the tremendous
competition in global

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm
Strategic
sourcing
23
Received 25 May 2012
Revised 10 June 2012
15 June 2012
Accepted 16 June 2012
Industrial Management & Data
Systems
Vol. 113 No. 1, 2013
pp. 23-38
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-5577
DOI 10.1108/02635571311289647
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d

by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t

12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te
m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
market, the varying product and quality specifications being
managed and the volatility
of consumer preferences (MacCarthy and Jayarathne, 2012;
Bruce and Daly, 2011;
Abernathy et al., 2006). The textile and apparel industry not
only includes industrial
segments of fiber, fabric, and apparel production, but also
consists of marketing,
distribution, and retail operations of apparel and textile
products. The nature of the textile

and apparel industry and the increased pressures from fickle
consumers and uncertain
business environment are making more and more firms to
recognize the strategic role that
sourcing can play in achieving sustainable competitive
advantage (MacCarthy and
Jayarathne, 2012; Bruce and Daly, 2011; Kumar and Arbi,
2008). One method of improving
a firm’s competitiveness in managing the globally extended
textile and apparel supply
chain is through the strategic approaches to worldwide
suppliers. Going far beyond cost
considerations, sourcing decisions affect the production,
marketing, distribution and
financial strategies that a firm can put into effect. Top
management in textile and apparel
firms are developing and implementing more proactive sourcing
strategies to deal with
environmental changes, risks and uncertainties.
The objective of this paper is to investigate the role of strategic
sourcing in
improving textile and apparel firms’ performance, specifically
the effect of strategic
sourcing on buying firm’s buyer-supplier relationship, supplier
evaluation, and
sourcing performance. In the following section, the relevant
literature review is
presented; then, the research conceptual framework and the
hypotheses are developed.
Subsequently, the research methodology is described, followed
by the data analysis
and results. The paper discusses the results and implications in
Section 6. Finally, the
paper provides conclusions and future study directions.

2. Literature review
This section presents the literature on the theoretical
background of this study and the
research constructs, specifically strategic sourcing, buyer-
supplier relationship, and
supplier evaluation.
2.1 Theoretical background
Previous research suggests that strategic sourcing and buyer-
supplier relationship are
multifaceted phenomena that can only be explained by a multi-
theoretical perspective.
Terpend et al. (2008) advocate that future research needs to
recognize the limitations of
a single theoretical perspective and adopt a multidimensional
view to explain how
buyer practices and the influence of buyer-supplier mutual
efforts. In reviewing the
body of literature, we utilize multiple-theory studies, including
specifically the
resource-based view (RBV) and the relational view.
2.1.1 Resource-based view. The RBV theory (Barney, 1996;
Wernerfelt, 1984) focuses
on explaining how firm-specific resources and capabilities
characterized by value,
rareness, imitability, and non-substitutability form the basis of
sustained competitive
advantage. A firm’s resources include tangible and intangible
assets and capabilities
such as employment of skilled personnel, trade contacts, in-
house knowledge of
technology, efficient procedures, etc. (Barney, 1996;
Wernerfelt, 1984). From a theoretical
perspective, strategic sourcing is viewed by top management as
an important resource

of a firm which can be utilized to create or develop the firm’s
unique and inimitable
resources and capabilities to maintain or increase the firm’s
competitiveness
(Dobrzykowski et al., 2010; Shook et al., 2009; Chen et al.,
2004).
IMDS
113,1
24
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te

U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te
m
be
r

20
15
(
P
T
)
2.1.2 Relational view of strategic management. The increasing
importance of
strategic role of purchasing in supply chain management and the
rapid growth of
strategic buyer-supplier relationships across many industries
has attracted a great deal
of scholarly attention to recognize the issue of how relational
competencies generate
sustainable strategic advantage (Chen et al., 2004). Dyer and
Singh (1998, p. 660) argue
that “an increasingly important unit of analysis for
understanding competitive
advantage is the relationship between firms”. The relational
view of strategic
management argues that firms should view their ability to
manage their
inter-organizational relationships as a strategic resource for
building strategic
advantage (Cousins et al., 2008; Paulraj et al., 2008; Dyer and
Singh, 1998). Relational
view highlights the idea that inter-organizational relationships
potentially provide a
firm with access to key resources from its environment.
Strategic sourcing requires
a long-term orientation and may ultimately create collaborative

advantage and
bring about greater benefits of collaborative advantage than a
traditional non-strategic
sourcing based approach to competition (Chen et al., 2004).
2.2 Strategic sourcing
Previous literature addresses the need for sourcing to assume a
more strategic role
(Su and Gargeya, 2012; Kang et al., 2009; Paulraj and Chen,
2007; Gottfredson et al., 2005)
in this age of ever-increasing world competition. Chan and Chin
(2007) maintain that
strategic sourcing has been increasingly recognized as an
integral part of business
strategies and practices. Carr and Pearson (2002) define
strategic sourcing as the process
of planning, evaluating, implementing, and controlling highly
important sourcing
decisions in an effort to meet a firm’s long-range plans and
goals. Kocabasoglu and
Suresh (2006) identify the four key elements of strategic
sourcing: elevation of
purchasing function to a strategic level, effective cross-
functional communication and
support within an organization, information sharing with key
suppliers, and
development of key suppliers. Chiang et al. (2012, p. 53)
defines strategic purchasing
as “a demonstration of the strategic role of purchasing in the
firm’s long-term planning
and this is posited to have a bearing on supply chain agility”.
Incorporating previous
literature and considering the purpose of this study, the
theoretical construct of strategic
sourcing in this research is conceptualized by being proactive as
well as long-term focus,

having top management support, and strategically managing
supplier relationships.
2.3 Buyer-supplier relationship
In strategic sourcing, in order to manage suppliers as assets and
integrate suppliers
into the supply chain, buying firms need to make considerable
effort to develop
beneficial buyer-supplier relationship. Buying firms attempt to
interact closely with
their key supply partners to manage environmental
uncertainties. The development of
relationship-specific capabilities can lead to collaborative
advantages for both supplier
and buyer firms in the dynamic marketplace.
There has been an impressive increase in the number of
publications on buyer-supplier
relationships over the past two decades (Miocevic and Crnjak-
Karanovic, 2012;
Terpend et al., 2008). Cousins et al. (2008, p. 238) argue that
“close link between buyers
and suppliers are increasingly cited as a critical differentiator of
high and low performers
in global supply chains”. Terpend et al. (2008) provide a
comprehensive review of the
studies of buyer-supplier relationships between 1986 and 2005.
Terpend et al. (2008, p. 28)
Strategic
sourcing
25
D
ow

nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri

dg
e
A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te
m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
reveal that scholars have primarily investigated performance
outcomes and value
derived from buyer-supplier relationship and “researchers

considered more
buyer-supplier mutual efforts since 1996 than the earlier
decade”. Among the
mechanisms used by both buyers and suppliers to increase the
value derived from their
relationships, communication, information sharing, and trust are
three prominent
contributors for successful buyer-supplier relationships
(Terpend et al., 2008).
2.4 Supplier evaluation
Since suppliers represent a critical resource to a firm, the
perceptions of the buying
organization regarding its suppliers’ current and expected
performance affect the
performance of the buying firm directly and indirectly. Supplier
evaluation is a
quantification process that is linked to not only the evaluating
buyer company’s decision
process, but also the evaluated supplying company’s behavior
(Hald and Ellegaard,
2011). Supplier evaluation is a tool to communicate the buyer
firm’s perceptions of
supplier performance and capabilities (Prahinski and Fan,
2007). Buying organizations
can utilize supplier evaluation for supplier selection, supply
base reduction decisions,
supplier development and benchmarking, and development of
strong and collaborative
relationship with a group of key preferred suppliers (Cormican
and Cunningham, 2007;
Prahinski and Fan, 2007).
It is important for evaluating buying companies to have a
formal program or system
for evaluating and recognizing suppliers and tracking the

performance of the existing
suppliers. Supplier evaluation program or system can be used as
an effective way to
quantify and communicate the measurements and targets to the
supplier so that the
supplier is made aware of the discrepancy between its current
performance and the
buying firm’s expectations (Modi and Mabert, 2007; Prahinski
and Fan, 2007; Prahinski
and Benton, 2004). Buying firms use formal supplier evaluation
to communicate their
perceptions of supplier’s strengths and weaknesses and
expectations of supplier
performance and capabilities to maintain capable and high
performance supply bases
(Modi and Mabert, 2007; Prahinski and Fan, 2007).
3. Conceptual framework and hypotheses
3.1 Linking strategic sourcing to buyer-supplier relationship
Firms that consider sourcing to be strategic are likely to
appreciate buyer-supplier
cooperative relationships. In strategic sourcing, sourcing
managers play a pivotal role
in developing working relationship and effective communication
with suppliers
(Chiang et al., 2012; Kocabasoglu and Suresh, 2006; Chen et
al., 2004). A collaborative
buyer-supplier relationship is more desirable for the buying
firm in the supply market
which is full of uncertainty, risk, and turbulence. As an
important resource of a firm,
strategic sourcing drives the firm to access, acquire, or develop
additional resources
through buyer-supplier cooperation. According to this line of
reasoning, the following
hypothesis is developed:

H1. Strategic sourcing has a positive impact on buyer-supplier
relationship.
3.2 Linking strategic sourcing to supplier evaluation
Strategic sourcing recognizes the important role that suppliers
play in the buying
firm’s sourcing decision making (Chiang et al., 2012;
Kocabasoglu and Suresh, 2006).
Strategic sourcing helps the firm to identify the most
appropriate supply base for its
IMDS
113,1
26
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a

m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
needs in today’s dynamic global market (Chiang et al., 2012).
Measuring supplier
performance is an important result of strategic sourcing
decision. Decisions regarding
the sourcing requirements and sourcing strategy will define the
set of suppliers for
initial consideration. The supplier evaluation then becomes a
matter of highly rigorous
assessment of potential supplier candidates. Strategic sourcing
influences how the
buying firms identify their key suppliers and how the supplier
evaluation programs
are designed, implemented, and used. Thus, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H2. Strategic sourcing has a positive impact on supplier
evaluation.
3.3 Linking supplier evaluation to buyer-supplier relationship
One of the largest resources for a company is its supply base.

Strategically managing
suppliers from evaluating, recognizing, and tracking suppliers
through supplier
certification provides information about the buying firm’s
perceptions regarding the
supplier’s performance, which in turn will influence the
supplier’s commitment to
the buying firm and the buying firm’s effort in supplier
development program
(Prahinski and Fan, 2007; Prahinski and Benton, 2004).
Supplier evaluation is an
effective communication strategy that a buyer undertakes to
improve a supplier’s
performance and/or capabilities to meet the buyer’s short- or
long-term supply needs.
The practice of supplier evaluation is aimed at improving
communication between
buyers and suppliers and strengthening the buying firm’s
relationships with key
suppliers so that risk of opportunistic behavior is limited.
Therefore, the following
hypothesis is formally stated:
H3. Supplier evaluation has a positive impact on buyer-supplier
relationship.
3.4 Linking buyer-supplier relationship to sourcing performance
The value of buyer-supplier relationship is well documented in
the supply chain
literature. The RBV and the relational view of strategic
management explain value
extraction in buyer-supplier relationships (Terpend et al., 2008).
Strong relationship with
suppliers benefits the buying firm in the long run, fostering an
environment of mutual
support, improving flexibility and responsiveness among supply

chain partners, and
providing value to the ultimate customer (Miocevic and Crnjak-
Karanovic, 2012;
Terpend et al., 2008; Paulraj and Chen, 2007). Better
information sharing and higher
levels of collaborative communication between a firm and its
suppliers can increase
both buyer and supplier performance (Paulraj et al., 2008) due
to increased operational
efficiency and better coordination from both buyer and supplier
firms. Therefore,
this leads to the following hypothesis:
H4. Buyer-supplier relationship has a positive impact on
sourcing performance.
3.5 Linking supplier evaluation to sourcing performance
Measuring supplier performance is an important approach to
modifying a buyer firm’s
managerial behavior, and aligning the relationship with the
strategic and operational
goals of the buyer firm (Cousins et al., 2008). Based on RBV, it
is apparent that
supplier’s capability, skills, and technologies can be an
inimitable resource that has
a significant impact on business performance. Supplier
evaluation will help change
supplier behavior which is aligned with the evaluating
company’s interests and
improve supplier capabilities and performance; furthermore this
in turn will benefit the
Strategic
sourcing
27

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or

th
ri
dg
e
A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te
m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

evaluating buyer firm (Prahinski and Benton, 2004). Therefore,
based on this logic, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H5. Supplier evaluation has a positive impact on sourcing
performance.
3.6 Linking strategic sourcing to sourcing performance
Chen et al. (2004) demonstrate robust support for the links
between strategic purchasing,
customer responsiveness, and financial performance of the
buying firm. Paulraj and Chen
(2007) provide empirical support that there is a positive link
between environmental
uncertainties and strategic supply management initiatives
(strategic sourcing is a key
ingredient of strategic supply management), and their findings
further support the link
between strategic supply management and buyer performance.
Chiang et al. (2012) find
that strategic sourcing is significantly related to the firm’s
supply chain agility.
Following the preceding discussion, we expect the following
hypothesis:
H6. Strategic sourcing has a positive impact on sourcing
performance.
3.7 Conceptual model
Grounded on the RBV and the relational view, the research
conceptual model was
developed based on the linkages between strategic sourcing,
buyer-supplier
relationship, supplier evaluation, and sourcing performance.
The theoretical model
postulated is shown in Figure 1, which includes the above six

hypotheses.
4. Methodology
4.1 Research design
A survey instrument was used to collect the data and test the
proposed hypotheses.
The items tapping the theoretical constructs were developed
based on an extensive
Figure 1.
Model integrating the
structural and
measurement models –
SEM representation
H6
H5
H4
H3
H2
H1
E8
E13
E12
E11
E1

Strategic
Sourcing
V1
V2E2
E3
V9 V10
E9 E10
E4 E5 E6 E7
V3
V4 V5 V6 V7
V8
V11
V12
V13
Buyer-
Supplier
Relationship
Supplier
Evaluation
Sourcing

Performance
IMDS
113,1
28
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs

it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te
m
be
r
20
15
(
P

T
)
literature review of the managerial and scholarly literature to
establish the content
validity of each construct and associated scales. Feedback on
the initial design was then
obtained from academics familiar with empirical research in
study domain and senior
managers. A revised survey instrument was finally pre-tested by
nine purchasing
managers for content validity. Where necessary, questions were
reworded to improve
validity and clarity. Our discussions with academic and
industrial professionals
strengthened the fact that the choice of the indicators
adequately measured each construct.
To increase measurement accuracy, multiple indicators were
used for each latent
variable considered (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2000) and
existing scales were employed
where possible. A five-point Likert scale was used with “1 –
strongly disagree” and
“5 – strongly agree”. The three items that measure strategic
sourcing were developed
by referring to Carr and Pearson (2002). They capture the key
concept of strategic
sourcing including strategic orientation, relationship
development with key suppliers,
and top management support. The four items of buyer-supplier
relationship construct
was adopted from Carr and Pearson (1999) including buyer-

supplier loyalty, frequent
face-to-face communications with key suppliers, high corporate
level communication
on important issues with key suppliers, and the buyer’s
influence on key supplier’s
responsiveness. The measure of supplier evaluation was adopted
from Carr and Pearson
(1999). The three items in the construct include formal supplier
certification program,
formal system to track the performance of the suppliers, and
formal program
for evaluating and recognizing suppliers. The three items
measuring sourcing
performance were developed from discussion with industrial
managers and literature
review, focusing on contributions of sourcing to the overall
success of the firm and to
the firm’s bottom-line profit, and sourcing’s value-creating
outcomes.
4.2 Data collection
Dillman’s (2000) “tailored survey methodology” was followed
for data collection from a
random sample of 660 firms in the US textile and apparel
industry in order to increase
the response rate. All the recipients of the survey were selected
carefully and were
believed to be the most knowledgeable about sourcing of textile
or apparel products for
their companies with titles such as purchasing/sourcing
manager, buyer, etc. The
cover letter of the survey also stated:
If you feel that you are not the most qualified individual at your
company to fill out the
survey, please forward this to that person and encourage him or

her to complete the survey.
To ensure that the most appropriate professionals fill out the
survey. Multiple contacts
by mail, e-mail and follow-up phone calls were implemented for
each firm during data
collection. A thank you e-mail message or a thank you letter
was sent to every company
who returned their survey. During the data collection, 21 firms
reported that they were
not in the textile and apparel industry any more. Finally, a total
of 181 questionnaires
were returned by mail, e-mail or fax, representing 28.3 percent
response rate. 180 were
usable responses for examining the relationships in the research
model.
5. Analysis and results
A comparison was made between the respondents who
responded immediately with
those who responded after follow-up steps were implemented to
examine non-response
bias. t-tests were performed on the items included in the
research model. No statistically
Strategic
sourcing
29
D
ow
nl
oa

de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg
e

A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te
m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
significant differences were found among the early and late
respondents, indicating
that non-response bias was not a problem in this study. To
investigate the
relationships in the conceptual model, structural equation
modeling (SEM) analysis
based on the maximum likelihood estimation method was

carried out using LISREL 8.8.
5.1 Descriptive statistics
Table I presents a summary of the descriptive statistics of the
respondents. About
45.3 and 54.7 percent of the respondents were from the textile
industry and the apparel
industry, respectively. About 49.2 percent of the responding
firms had annual gross
sales less than $100 million, about 27.6 percent had annual
gross sales $100-$500 million,
and about 14.4 percent had annual gross sales over $500
million.
5.2 The measurement model
Table II provides the correlation matrix and the descriptive
statistics of the variables in
the measurement model. Evaluation of the measurement model
was conducted using
confirmatory factor analysis to examine the relationships
between the indicator
variables and their respective underlying factors. Table III
shows the fit indexes used
in assessing measurement model fit. A satisfactory fit is
achieved for the measurement
Characteristics Frequency Percentage
Industrial sector
Textile industry 82 45.3
Apparel production 66 36.5
Apparel retailer/wholesaler/distributor 33 18.2
Geographic areas distribution (top eight states)
North Carolina 55 30.4
California 26 14.4
Georgia 18 9.9

Pennsylvania 10 5.5
South Carolina 9 5.0
Ohio 9 5.0
New York 8 4.4
Massachusetts 8 4.4
Number of employees
Less than 100 28 15.5
100-249 39 21.5
250-499 29 16.0
500-1,000 32 17.7
Over 1,000 51 28.2
Missing 2 1.1
Annual gross sales (US$)
Less than 5 million 13 7.2
8-24.9 million 31 17.1
25-49.9 million 19 10.5
50-99.9 million 26 14.4
100-500 million 50 27.6
Over 500 million 26 14.4
Missing 16 8.8
Note: Total respondents n ¼ 181
Table I.
Descriptive statistics
of the respondent firms
IMDS
113,1
30
D
ow
nl

oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg

e
A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te
m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
model (the x 2/(df) ¼ 1.62, less than 2.00; the root mean
squared error of approximation
(RMSEA) ¼ 0.059; the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) ¼ 0.92;
non-normed fit index
(NNFI) ¼ 0.98; comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.98) (Table III).

A summary of the factor loadings (unstandardized), standard
errors, t-values, and
reliability analysis in the measurement model is shown in Table
IV. The t-values of all
the path parameter estimates for each factor in the measurement
model are greater than
2.0; therefore, all the path parameter estimates are statistically
significant with p , 0.05.
Reliability analysis was conducted using the standardized
reliability estimate (Sharma,
1996) and composite reliability coefficient (DeVellis, 2003) for
a given construct.
As shown in Table IV, all the reliability coefficients are above
the threshold 0.60 which
DeVellis (2003) recommended and the acceptable guideline 0.70
which Nunnally (1978)
suggested, indicating strong support for the construct
reliability.
Convergent validity is established since all the t-values of the
factor loadings are
statistically significantly different from zero (Table IV) and
each loading is in the
anticipated direction and magnitude, indicating that all
indicators are effectively
measuring the same construct. Discriminant validity is shown
by the confidence interval
of two standard errors around the correlation for each respective
pair of factors. Table V
shows that none of the confidence intervals include 1.0;
therefore, discriminant validity
Fit indices for the measurement model Value Recommended
value

x
2/df 1.62 #2.0
RMSEA 0.059 #0.10
GFI 0.92 $0.90
NFI 0.95 $0.90
NNFI 0.98 $0.90
CFI 0.98 $0.90
Table III.
Fit evaluation of the
measurement model
VAR V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13
V1 1.000
V2 0.589 1.000
V3 0.595 0.650 1.000
V4 0.204 0.291 0.240 1.000
V5 0.298 0.242 0.226 0.271 1.000
V6 0.311 0.403 0.388 0.285 0.472 1.000
V7 0.263 0.454 0.299 0.347 0.455 0.494 1.000
V8 0.399 0.306 0.283 0.006 * 0.314 0.251 0.295 1.000
V9 0.432 0.387 0.338 0.127 * 0.363 0.350 0.309 0.669 1.000
V10 0.417 0.355 0.294 0.115 * 0.389 0.319 0.288 0.695 0.787
1.000
V11 0.329 0.350 0.428 0.250 0.184 0.216 0.260 0.177 0.333
0.236 1.000
V12 0.348 0.409 0.415 0.271 0.178 0.165 0.289 0.209 0.266
0.244 0.693 1.000
V13 0.271 0.442 0.337 0.322 0.165 0.179 0.352 0.162 0.256
0.193 0.686 0.707 1.000
Mean 3.24 4.19 3.98 4.31 3.85 4.03 4.19 2.80 3.36 3.03 4.56
4.48 4.72
SD 1.360 1.113 1.054 0.750 1.000 0.945 0.824 1.489 1.397
1.388 0.702 0.720 0.552

Notes: Correlation is not statistically significant at: *p , 0.05;
valid n ¼ 180
Table II.
Correlation matrix and
descriptive statistics for
the manifest variables
Strategic
sourcing
31
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S

ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te
m

be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
was established. The results from evaluation of the
measurement model indicate that the
measurement model is adequate for testing the proposed
structural model.
5.3 The structural model
The results from evaluation of the structural model are shown in
Figure 2. The structural
equation model supports the relationships stated in the H1
(standardized path
coefficient ¼ 0.48, p , 0.01) and H2 (standardized path
coefficient ¼ 0.52, p , 0.01),
Indicatorvariables and their
underlying factors
Unstandardized
factor loading SE
t-
value R 2

Composite
reliability
Standardized
reliability
Strategic sourcing 0.826 0.825
V1 – sourcing’s long-range plan is
reviewed and adjusted to match
changes in the company’s strategic
plans on a regular basis 1.00 0.09 10.66 0.54
V2 – sourcing’s long-range plan
includes developing relationships
with key suppliers 0.92 0.07 12.42 0.68
V3 – top management of our
company emphasizes the strategic
role of sourcing function 0.83 0.07 11.71 0.62
Buyer-supplier relationship 0.731 0.724
V4 – we are loyal to key suppliers 0.33 0.06 5.51 0.20
V5 – we have very frequent face-to-
face planning meetings or
communications with key suppliers 0.64 0.08 8.45 0.41
V6 – there is high corporate level
communication on important issues
with key suppliers 0.67 0.07 9.47 0.50
V7 – sourcing can influence key
supplier’s responsiveness to the
purchasing requirement 0.59 0.06 9.64 0.51
Supplier evaluation 0.887 0.886
V8 – we have a formal supplier
certification program 1.14 0.10 11.74 0.59
V9 – our company has a formal
system to track the performance of
the suppliers we deal with 1.23 0.09 14.29 0.78
V10 – our company has a formal
program for evaluating and

recognizing suppliers 1.24 0.09 14.57 0.80
Sourcing performance 0.871 0.872
V11 – the purchasing function is
very important to the overall
success of my company 0.58 0.05 12.70 0.67
V12 – the purchasing function adds
value to the firm in the area of
production/operations/logistics 0.61 0.05 13.29 0.72
V13 – purchasing contributes to the
firm’s bottom-line profit 0.46 0.04 12.96 0.69
Notes: All t-values are statistically significant at: p , 0.05; valid
n ¼ 180
Table IV.
Factor loadings, standard
errors, t-values, R 2 and
reliability coefficients in
the measurement model
IMDS
113,1
32
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C

al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t
12
:3

8
23
S
ep
te
m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
demonstrating that strategic sourcing has a positive impact on
buyer-supplier relationship
and supplier evaluation, respectively. The structural model
results also support the H3
(standardized path coefficient ¼ 0.27, p , 0.05) that supplier
evaluation has a positive
impact on buyer-supplier relationship, and the H6 (standardized
path coefficient ¼ 0.50,
p , 0.01) that strategic sourcing positively impacts sourcing
performance. However,
support is not found for the H4 (the relationship between buyer-
supplier relationship and

sourcing performance, standardized path coefficient ¼ 0.10,
non-significant) or the H5 (the
relationship between supplier evaluation and sourcing
performance, standardized path
coefficient ¼ 0.02, non-significant).
6. Discussion and implications
The objective of this research is to better understand the role
and the performance
outcomes of strategic sourcing. Based on the data analysis
results, several key insights
emerge, which lead to discussion of the findings and the
theoretical and managerial
implications.
Correlated factors Correlation SE Confidence interval
Strategic sourcing – buyer-supplier relationships 0.62 0.07
(0.48, 0.76)
Strategic sourcing – supplier evaluation 0.52 0.07 (0.38, 0.66)
Strategic sourcing – souring performance 0.57 0.06 (0.45, 0.69)
Buyer-supplier relationships – supplier evaluation 0.52 0.07
(0.38, 0.66)
Buyer-supplier relationships – sourcing performance 0.42 0.08
(0.26, 0.58)
Supplier evaluation – sourcing performance 0.33 0.08 (0.17,
0.49)
Table V.
Discriminant validity of
the measurement model
Figure 2.
Structural model and the
hypotheses in the

research model
H5
+0.02*
t = 0.17
H4
+0.10*
t = 0.84
H1
+0.48
t = 3.63
H2
+0.52
t = 5.69
H3
+0.27
t = 2.50
H6
+0.50
t = 4.07
Strategic
Sourcing
Buyer-
Supplier
Relationship
Supplier
Evaluation

Sourcing
Performance
Notes: *Indicates the t-value for the standardized path
coefficient is not
statistically significant at: p < 0.05; the path coefficients in the
figure are
standardized parameter estimates
Strategic
sourcing
33
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S

be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
6.1 The influence of strategic sourcing on buyer-supplier
relationship, supplier
evaluation, and sourcing performance
The direct, significant and positive relationship between
strategic sourcing and
buyer-supplier relationship empirically validates the assertions
made by Carr and
Pearson (1999) that strategic purchasing positively impacts
buyer-supplier
relationships. Sourcing professionals today have evolved to
become relationship
managers facilitating sourcing decision making by bringing
together the relevant
parties internal and external to the organization. Buying firms
should actively manage
their relationships with suppliers because strategic sourcing
leads firms to view the
buyer-supplier relationship as a key asset or a valuable resource
that brings
capabilities of the suppliers to complement and enhance their
own core competences,
not simply sources of low-cost materials in their drive for

minimizing unit-price.
The direct, significant and positive linkage between strategic
sourcing and supplier
evaluation found in this study indicates that strategic sourcing
leads to the increased
efforts in managing and developing a firm’s supplier base. Not
all selected suppliers
qualify for or need development assistance (Li et al., 2012). In
an effort to develop
long-term collaborative relationship with key suppliers, buying
firms choose to reduce
their supply base and undertake to improve their critical
suppliers’ performance and
capabilities using evaluation and certification to measure
against qualification level.
Modi and Mabert (2007) maintain that it is expected that firms
will undertake the
evaluation and certification activities prior to initiating
operational knowledge transfer
activities with the supplier.
The direct, significant and positive linkage between strategic
sourcing and sourcing
performance validates the results demonstrated by Chan and
Chin (2007). The current
study also supports the notions made by Chen et al. (2004) that
strategic purchasing
plays a vital role in supply management, which in turn
positively impacts buying
firm’s performance. Industrial managers need to realize the
significant contributions of
strategic sourcing to the buying firm’s business performance in
regard to firm’s
bottom-line profit, production/operations/logistics, and overall
success. It is imperative

for practitioners to incorporate strategic sourcing as an integral
part of the firm’s
business processes.
The positive and significant performance outcomes of strategic
sourcing provide a
solid ground for the theoretical implication that strategic
sourcing is a viable
prerequisite for effective sourcing behavior. The study results
support the notion that
the implementation of strategic sourcing will increase the firm’s
efforts in developing
collaborative buyer-supplier relationship with respect to
enhance communication and
responsiveness from suppliers and will tend to develop a
systems approach in managing
suppliers including evaluating, recognizing and certifying
suppliers and tracking
supplier’s performance. Strategic sourcing is critical to the
overall success of the firm.
6.2 The influence of supplier evaluation on buyer-supplier
relationship
The direct, significant and positive relationship between
supplier evaluation and
buyer-supplier relationship suggests that firms implementing
supplier evaluation through
formal system or program to evaluate, recognize, track, and
certificate suppliers are more
likely in a better position to build collaborative buyer-supplier
relationship.
From the theoretical perspective, this finding supports the
notion that supplier
evaluation is an effective way to maintain mutually beneficial
long-term relationships

IMDS
113,1
34
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs

T
)
with the key suppliers (Carr and Pearson, 1999). Not all
suppliers are equally valuable
in developing collaborative relationships because not all of
them contribute equally to
the buying firm’s business processes (Miocevic and Crnjak-
Karanovic, 2012). Supplier
evaluation plays an important role in ensuring that suppliers
have the required
minimum level of competence to warrant further investment of
resources and detecting
the most critical suppliers performing well enough for further
strategic relationship
development (Wu, 2009; Modi and Mabert, 2007). Hence, from
a practical perspective,
managers should use supplier evaluation as a first step before
starting other supplier
development activities. Modi and Mabert (2007, p. 53) argue
that “suppliers go through
a rigorous evaluation process and are categorized as partner,
key, approved or
conditional and the organization focuses on developing
suppliers categorized as partner
suppliers”. Therefore, supplier evaluation enables buying firms
to identify the best
suppliers that could be included in developing collaborative
buyer-supplier relationship.
6.3 The influence of buyer-supplier relationship and supplier
evaluation on sourcing
performance
The two hypotheses linking buyer-supplier relationship and

supplier evaluation to
sourcing performance were not supported in this study,
contradicting previous
findings. Li et al. (2012) show that buyers would be more likely
to achieve greater
success if they have close collaborative relationships with
suppliers. Modi and
Mabert (2007) indicate that evaluation and certification efforts
made by a buying firm
is proved to positively impact the buying firm’s operational
knowledge transfer
activities which help a firm create value for itself in the form of
improved supplier
performance. Furthermore, Modi and Mabert also demonstrate
that frequent and
timely communication between buyers and suppliers leads to
closer integration of
operations between buyers and suppliers, providing improved
performance benefits.
For researchers, two implications of the unexpected results from
this study include
that the complexity of buyer-supplier relationship and supplier
evaluation should not
be ignored, and the distinct nature of the textile and apparel
industry, which is
characterized as extremely competitive, labor intensive, highly
global and mobile
business, should be taken into consideration.
One possible explanation of the nonsignificant relationship
between supplier
evaluation and sourcing performance could be that textile and
apparel firms do not
implement formal supplier evaluation programs to a great extent
that lead to improved

sourcing performance. Simpson et al. (2002) found that a
surprisingly large number of
firms had no formal method in place for evaluating suppliers.
Another plausible reason
may be the fact that whether suppliers are committed to the
buying firm during the
supplier development program, like supplier evaluation.
Prahinski and Benton (2004)
suggest that if the supplier is not committed, the buying firm
cannot influence the
supplier’s performance through the supplier evaluation
communication process.
One explanation of the contradictory result between buyer-
supplier relationship
and sourcing performance could be that “good relations” with
suppliers do not directly
influence the suppliers’ performance significantly (Prahinski
and Benton, 2004),
which may lead to insignificant impact on buying firm
performance. Prahinski and
Benton (2004, p. 59) demonstrate that “the buying firm’s
cooperative efforts and
expression of commitment do not directly translate into better
product quality, delivery
performance, price, responsiveness, service, and overall
performance from the supplier”.
Strategic
sourcing
35
D
ow

dg
e
A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep
te
m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
However, the results do not indicate that managers should be
unconcerned with
the development of good buyer-supplier relationships with
suppliers.

7. Conclusions
This study contributes to the literature by assessing the linkages
between strategic
sourcing, buyer-supplier relationship, supplier evaluation, and
sourcing performance
in the context of the textile and apparel industry using empirical
survey-based research
methodology. Utilizing a multi-theoretical perspective, the
study developed and
examined a structural equation model connecting these
variables, and found support of
the significant and positive performance outcomes of strategic
sourcing. Strategic
sourcing is increasingly emphasized by textile and apparel
firms, so this research fills a
gap between theory and practice concerning this trend. The
results provide compelling
empirical support for incorporating sourcing in firm’s strategic
decision making to
foster firm’s strategic and operational competitive advantage.
Several limitations must be acknowledged, which may lead to
future research. First,
considering the complexity of buyer-supplier relationship, a
thorough and detailed
operationalization and empirical assessment of the buyer-
supplier relationship concept
and measures need to be developed and refined. Second, the
complex and rich relationship
between buyer-supplier relationship and sourcing performance
deserves further study.
The impact of supplier evaluation also needs to be
reinvestigated to validate this study
results. Third, some of the common limitations of survey-based
research apply to this

study as well, including the limitations arising from reliance on
single key informants for
subjective measures of sourcing performance and the need for
further research
improvements in future studies. Fourth, considering the
dynamic, global nature of the
textile and apparel industry, future research may consider
including business climate
factors, such as dynamism and industry competition. Moreover,
the generalizability
of current study findings to other industries may require
additional investigation. Finally,
future studies could also reveal other possible avenues for
studying the performance
outcomes of strategic sourcing in greater detail using a
qualitative research design.
The in-depth interpretive approach could be fruitful for
exploring and discovering
new dimensions as well as identifying the actual nature of
buyer-supplier relationship
and supplier evaluation in firm’s strategic sourcing processes.
References
Abernathy, F.H., Volpe, A. and Weil, D. (2006), “The future of
the apparel and textile industries:
prospects and choices for public and private actors”,
Environment and Planning A, Vol. 38
No. 12, pp. 2207-32.
Åkesson, J., Jonsson, P. and Edanius-Hällås, R. (2007), “An
assessment of sourcing strategies in
the Swedish apparel industry”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics

Barney, J. (1996), “The resource-based theory of the firm”,
OrganizationScience, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 469-96.
Bruce, M. and Daly, L. (2011), “Adding value: challenges for
UK apparel supply chain
management – a review”, Production Planning & Control: The
Management of Operations,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 210-20.
Carr, A.S. and Pearson, J.N. (1999), “Strategically managed
buyer-supplier relationships and
performance outcomes”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 497-519.
IMDS
113,1
36
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni

a
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t
12
:3
8
23
S
ep

te
m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
08%2F09600030710840840
08%2F09600030710840840
080%2F09537287.2010.498574&isi=000288267900002
068%2Fa38114&isi=000243252100003
287%2Forsc.7.5.469&isi=A1996WA60100001
016%2FS0272-6963%2899%2900007-8
Carr, A.S. and Pearson, J.N. (2002), “The impact of purchasing
and supplier involvement on
strategic purchasing and its impact on firm’s performance”,
International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 1032-
53.

Chan, T.C.T. and Chin, K.-S. (2007), “Key success factors of
strategic sourcing: an empirical study
of the Hong Kong toy industry”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 107 No. 9,
pp. 1391-416.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A. and Lado, A.A. (2004), “Strategic
purchasing, supply management, and firm
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No.
5, pp. 505-23.
Chiang, C.-Y., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C. and Suresh, N. (2012),
“An empirical investigation of the
impact of strategic sourcing and flexibility on firm’s supply
chain agility”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32 No.
1, pp. 49-78.
Cormican, K. and Cunningham, M. (2007), “Supplier
performance evaluation: lessons from a large
multinational organisation”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 352-66.
Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B. and Squire, B. (2008), “Performance
measurement in strategic
buyer-supplier relationships: the mediating role of socialization
mechanisms”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 238-58.
DeVellis, R.F. (2003), Scale Development:Theoryand
Applications, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dillman, D.A. (2000), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored

Design Method, 2nd ed., Wiley,
New York, NY.
Dobrzykowski, D.D., Tran, O. and Tarafdar, M. (2010), “Value
co-creation and resource based
perspectives for strategic sourcing”, Strategic Outsourcing: An
International Journal, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 106-27.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), “The relational view:
cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 660-79.
Gottfredson, M., Puryear, R. and Phillips, S. (2005), “Strategic
sourcing: from periphery to the
core”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 132-9.
Hald, K.S. and Ellegaard, C. (2011), “Supplier evaluation
processes: the shaping and reshaping of
supplier performance”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management,
Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 888-910.
Kang, M., Wu, X. and Hong, P. (2009), “Strategic outsourcing
practices of multi-national
corporations (MNCs) in China”, Strategic Outsourcing: An
International Journal, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 240-56.
Kocabasoglu, C. and Suresh, N.C. (2006), “Strategic sourcing:
an empirical investigation of the
concept and its practices in US manufacturing firms”, Journal of
Supply Chain

Kumar, S. and Arbi, A.S. (2008), “Outsourcing strategies for
apparel manufacture: a case study”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 19 No.
1, pp. 73-91.
Li, W., Humphreys, P.K., Yeung, A.C.L. and Cheng, T.C.E.
(2012), “The impact of supplier
development on buyer competitive advantage: a path analytic
model”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 353-66.
MacCarthy, B.L. and Jayarathne, P.G.S.A. (2012), “Sustainable
collaborative supply networks in
the international clothing industry: a comparative analysis of
two retailers”, Production
Planning & Control, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 252-68.
Strategic
sourcing
37
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al

if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
N
or
th
ri
dg
e
A
t
12
:3
8

23
S
ep
te
m
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
016%2Fj.ijpe.2011.06.019&isi=000297402700035
08%2F02635570710834027&isi=000251461600008
016%2Fj.ijpe.2011.06.019&isi=000297402700035
08%2F01443570810856170&isi=000255147900003
08%2F17538290911005153
08%2F01443571211195736&isi=000302510200003
08%2F01443571211195736&isi=000302510200003
9300007

08%2F17410380810843462
08%2F01443570210440528&isi=000178949600005
08%2F17410380710743752
08%2F01443570210440528&isi=000178949600005
08%2F01443571111153085&isi=000295500900008
016%2Fj.jom.2004.06.002&isi=000223750100004
080%2F09537287.2011.627655&isi=000302249200003
080%2F09537287.2011.627655&isi=000302249200003
111%2Fj.1745-493X.2006.00008.x
111%2Fj.1745-493X.2006.00008.x
08%2F17538291011060330
2700011
Miocevic, D. and Crnjak-Karanovic, B. (2012), “The mediating
role of key supplier relationship
management practices on supply chain orientation – the
organizational buying
effectiveness link”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 115-24.
Modi, S.B. and Mabert, V.A. (2007), “Supplier development:
improving supplier performance
through knowledge transfer”, Journal of Operations

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY.
Paulraj, A. and Chen, I.J. (2007), “Environmental uncertainty
and strategic supply management:
a resource dependence perspective and performance
implications”, Journal of Supply Chain
Paulraj, A., Lado, A.A. and Chen, I.J. (2008), “Inter-
organizational communication as a relational
competency: antecedents and performance outcomes in
collaborative buyer-supplier
relationships”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No.
1, pp. 45-64.
Prahinski, C. and Benton, W.C. (2004), “Supplier evaluations:
communication strategies to improve
supplier performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.
22 No. 1, pp. 39-62.
Prahinski, C. and Fan, Y. (2007), “Supplier evaluations: the role
of communication quality”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 16-28.
Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G.A. (2000), A First Course in
Structural Equation Modeling,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Sharma, S. (1996), Applied Multivariate Techniques, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Shook, C.L., Adams, G.L., David, J.K. Jr and Craighead, C.W.
(2009), “Towards a ‘theoretical

toolbox’ for strategic sourcing”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Simpson, P.M., Siguaw, J.A. and White, S.C. (2002),
“Measuring the performance of suppliers: an
analysis of evaluation processes”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 29-41.
Su, J. and Gargeya, V.B. (2012), “Strategic sourcing and
supplier selection: a review of
survey-based empirical research”, in Choi, T.-M. (Ed.), Fashion
Supply Chain Management:
Industry and Business Analysis, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp.
149-72.
Terpend, R., Tyler, B.B., Krause, D.R. and Handfield, R.B.
(2008), “Buyer-supplier relationships:
derived value over two decades”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 28-55.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 171-80.
Wu, L.-C. (2009), “Supplier selection under uncertainty: a
switching options perspective”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp.
191-205.
About the author
Jin Su, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Human Development and
Environmental Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania,

USA. Her research interests
include global supply chain management, the dynamics in the
global textile, apparel, and retail
industries, markets, and trade issues, and cross-cultural
consumer behaviour. Jin Su can be
contacted at: [email protected]
IMDS
113,1
38
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S

be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)
016%2Fj.jom.2003.12.005&isi=000189213600003
111%2Fj.1745-493X.2002.tb00118.x
016%2Fj.indmarman.2011.11.015&isi=000301612800014
111%2Fj.1745-493X.2008.00053.x
08%2F02635570910930091&isi=000264971100011
016%2Fj.jom.2007.04.001&isi=000252517100003
08%2F13598540910927250&isi=000264040800001
111%2Fj.1745-493X.2007.00032.x
016%2Fj.jom.2006.02.001&isi=000243611900003
002%2Fsmj.4250050207&isi=A1984TC19400006
111%2Fj.1745-493X.2007.00033.x

111%2Fj.1745-493X.2007.00033.x
This article has been cited by:
1. Martin Kotula, William Ho, Prasanta Kumar Dey, Carman Ka
Man Lee. 2015. Strategic sourcing supplier
selection misalignment with critical success factors: Findings
from multiple case studies in Germany and
the United Kingdom. International Journal of Production
Economics . [CrossRef]
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
C
al
if
or
ni
a
S
ta
te

20
15
(
P
T
)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.039
An Investigation of the
Relationship Between
Chinese Exporters and
U.S. Importers From
China’s Perspective
Dong Shen
1
Abstract
In marketing relationship literature, the buyer–supplier
relationship is often studied from the buyers’
perspective in Western countries. In order to address these two
gaps, this study investigated the
relationship between Chinese exporters/suppliers and U.S.
importers/buyers from the Chinese
suppliers’ perspective. Fourteen in-depth interviews were
conducted in 2008 and two themes
were identified. The first theme, surviving, presented a negative
and pessimistic perception
between the two parties. The second theme, thriving, presented
a positive and optimistic percep-
tion. Three conclusions were drawn. First, an x–y diagram

presented the overall perceptions of
Chinese suppliers on their business relationship with U.S.
buyers. Second, this study supported
the transition from a power-dominating supplier–buyer
relationship to a commitment–trust sup-
plier–buyer relationship in the United States–China trading
business. Last, what business partners
either side needs to look for when they want to do business with
each other was stated. Contri-
butions and limitations were discussed as well.
Keywords
buyer–supplier, relationship, China, US
Introduction
With an estimated population in excess of 1.3 billion, and a
continually growing economy, The
People’s Republic of China (referred to hereafter as China) is
one of the world’s largest and most
promising markets. Considered the best international
manufacturing base by many countries, includ-
ing the United States, billions of dollars of foreign investment
continue to pour into China. In 2007,
China ranked second with 8.8% of the world’s exports, jumping
from 9.8 billion U.S. dollars of
1Family and Consumer Sciences, California State University–
Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:

Dong Shen, Family and Consumer Sciences, California State
University–Sacramento, Sacramento, CA 95819, USA
Email: [email protected]
Clothing & Textiles
Research Journal
29(1) 20-34
ª 2011 International Textile &
Apparel Association
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0887302X11399422
http://ctrj.sagepub.com
at CALIFORNIA ST UNIV NORTHRIDGE on September 23,
2015ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ctr.sagepub.com/
exports in 1978 to 1,218 billion U.S. dollars in 2007 (China
ranks 2nd with 8.8% of world’s exports
by 2007, 2008). However, under those promising and exciting
numbers, the reality of conducting
business with Chinese suppliers/exporters has been complicated,
difficult, confusing, and time-
consuming. Due to the unfamiliar social, political, economic,
legal, and cultural environment in
China, many U.S. companies have encountered numerous
unpredictable problems and difficulties
in importing products from China (Lavin, 1994; Yuan, 2004).

In addition, trading policies between the United States and
China in recent years have undergone
dramatic changes, introducing further volatility in business
relationships between Chinese suppliers/
exporters and U.S. buyers/importers. Since 1986, when China
began the process of seeking mem-
bership in General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the
former international trading orga-
nization of the World Trade Organization (WTO), both sides
have continually struggled with a lack
of quotas, which has caused many uncertainties for logistics,
shipping, and deliveries (Informed
Trade, 2004). Finally, when China became a member of the
WTO in 2001, the entry did not grant
a quota-free trading environment in all sectors. Instead, a new
3-year agreement was established in
2005 to guard the textile sector, which set new restrictions for
imports from China to the United
States (D’Andrea, 2009).
In recent years, as more and more U.S. businesses see potential
opportunities in China along
with a multitude of problems, many American scholars
(Campbell, 1997; Jap, 2001; Johnston,
McCutcheon, Stuart, & Kerwood, 2004; Kannan & Tan, 2006)

have turned their attention to
buyer–supplier business problems of doing business in China.
While most studies examined the
business relationships from the United States, or other Western
countries’ perspectives (Hoetker,
Swaminathan, & Mitchell, 2007; Hsu, Kannan, Tan, & Leong,
2008; McHugh, Humphreys, &
McIvor, 2003), there was an obvious lack of literature on the
buyer–supplier relationship from
China’s perspective; the first gap in the current literature.
Meanwhile, the buyer–supplier relationship literature shows that
the buyers’ side has often
become the focus of studies rather than the suppliers’ side
(Cannon & Peneault, 1999; Sternquist,
Ogawa, & Cooper, 2002; Terpend, Tyler, Krause, & Handfield,
2008), which leads to another gap
in the literature. The understanding of the relationship between
a buyer and a supplier will vary
depending on which point of view is examined. What is sought
in terms of benefits may be different
for buyers versus suppliers since each side has very different
roles and functions. When Campbell
(1997) studied different types of buyer–supplier relationships,
he found that answers from the buyers

showed differences from those of the suppliers. In order to fill
these two gaps, this study intended to
examine the textiles and apparel business relationship between
these two complementary groups
from the Chinese supplier/exporters’ perspective in order to
reveal a dynamic portrayal of the
U.S. and China trade situation.
The textile and clothing sector was selected as the focus of this
study. This choice was not
only based on the fact that China is the No. 1 supplier of
textiles and apparel products to the United
States (Martin, 2007) but because the United States has been the
principal buyer of China’s textiles
and apparel products. The United States–China textiles and
apparel business has been hampered by
conflicts and problems as well as the constant intervention of
trade policy in the last three decades.
Therefore, a study of the buyer–supplier relationship between
the United States and China in the tex-
tile and apparel sector can potentially generate valuable and
representative insight and information.
This study focused on the business relationship between
Chinese textile/clothing (T & C)

suppliers/exporters and U.S. T & C buyers/importers.
Specifically, it investigated the perceptions
and evaluations of Chinese T & C suppliers/exporters regarding
their relationship with their
U.S. buyers/importers, in order to provide new information and
analysis of the U.S. and China
trading system. This previously unexplored perspective allows
for a more balanced understand-
ing of the buyer–supplier relationship in international business
for academic scholars and busi-
ness practitioners.
Shen 21
Literature Review
International Trade Between the United States and China
When China embarked on the open-door policy and economic
reforms in 1978, the import and
export business between the United States and China expanded
rapidly. Between 1979 and 2002,
the average yearly increase in total trading volume between

China and United States was 25%. In
1988, the total trading volume between China and United States
had reached 10 billion U.S. dollars,
a 10-fold increase over 1979. By 2004, the total trading volume
had increased 72 times that of 1978
(CENN, 2008). In the United States, China has been the single
largest source of imports in textiles
and apparel over the past decade. China supplied 14% of all
U.S. textile imports in 2002. In 2005,
China exported a total value of U.S. $22.4 billion T & C
products to the United States, followed by
another U.S. $27.8 billion in 2006 (Zhou, Mehta, & Sinha,
2007).
With the dramatic increase of trading volume between China
and the United States, Chinese
suppliers/exporters have gone through major changes as well. In
the early 1980s, when the
central-controlled economic system started the slow transition
to a market-oriented system, the cen-
tral government still made most of the decisions including the
total control of distribution of
quotas. The government granted annual quotas to a very limited
number of state-owned companies,
allowing only those companies to export products directly. In
later years, when the central govern-

ment further decentralized the rights to foreign trade and
granted import–export rights to more
companies—including not only more state-owned companies but
joint-ventures and private enter-
prises—the export market became fiercely competitive (Hong
Kong Trade Development Council,
1999). Currently, in the textile and clothing industries, 70% of
quota distribution is no longer con-
trolled by the government but has been replaced by more
market-driven methods. This has enabled
companies who want to trade with foreign partners to buy
quotas through bidding (Shen, 2008).
With more and more Chinese suppliers/exporters emerging each
year along with the continuous
increase of trading volume between the United States and
China, studying Chinese supplier/expor-
ters’ perceptions and evaluation of their relationship with their
U.S. business partners is becoming
more critical and timely not only for the academic world but for
the business community as well.
Buyer–Supplier Relationships
The literature of business relationships shows that researchers
often categorize the nature of buyer–
supplier relationships into two general groups: competitive
versus cooperative (Cannon & Peneault,

1999; Choi & Wu, 2008, 2009; Heide & John, 1990). In a
competitive relationship, due to the lack of
mutual benefit and common goals, a buyer and a supplier often
struggle for their own profit, which
leads to a win–lose context. Wagner (2006) found that
companies in primary industries or process
industries, such as textiles/clothing, pulp/paper, and
plastic/rubber, frequently rely on competitive bid-
ding and arm’s-length buyer–supplier relationships rather than
long-term cooperative buyer–supplier
relationships. A buyer might take advantage of his purchasing
power by demanding price reductions
without adequately compensating the suppliers, while the
suppliers may reduce resources invested in
the buyer’s business to balance its effort and gains (Rossetti &
Choi, 2005, 2008).
In a cooperative relationship, however, a buyer and a supplier
are committed to work together to
develop a long-term relationship along with common goals and
mutual benefit. In this win–win con-
text, there are no unexpected surprises because the two firms
spend time together and really get to
know each other’s business in order to solve problems jointly
and share risk and benefits together

(Balakrishnan & Geunes, 2004; Penone, Zaheer, & McEvily,
2003). From a theoretical perspective,
Lau and Moon’s study (2008) took on a pioneering role by
exploring the buyer–supplier cooperative
relationship among Hong Kong clothing manufacturers and
found that long-term relationships
enable effective business transactions and help to develop
mutual trust. Comparing these two types
22 Clothing & Textiles Research Journal 29(1)
of buyer–supplier relationships, the competitive relationship
was dominant prior to the 1980s. One
of the most commonly used theories in this buyer–supplier
relationship is the Theory of Power, first
introduced in the political science literature (Gaski, 1984).
Power in the marketing channel has gen-
erally been defined as one channel member’s (e.g., a buyer’s)
ability to control the decision variables
in the marketing strategy of another member (e.g., a supplier) of
the channel at a different level of

distribution (Gaski, 1984). The more successful one channel
member is in getting its partner to go
along with its wishes by definition, the more power that member
has over its partner.
Beginning in the 1980s, when more and more companies that
had power over their partners failed
to develop and maintain a successful long-term business
relationship with their partners (Sherman,
1992), U.S. companies started to adopt a more cooperative
approach to manage the relationship with
their suppliers (Monczka, Peterson, Handheld, & Ragatz, 1998;
Sherman, 1992). In a study done by
Campbell, four types of buyer–supplier relationships were
identified: self-centered (characterized by
a focus on firms’ needs), personal loyalty (mutual responsibility
and commitment), mutual invest-
ment (long-term commitment for strategic advantage), and
political control (mutual dependence and
high levels of integration; Campbell, 1997). Aside from the first
one, the remaining three all involve
a great deal of mutual trust, cooperation, and commitment.
Morgan and Hunt (1994) started to develop the commitment–
trust theory of marketing relation-
ships because they found that commitment and trust, instead of

power, are keys to encouraging com-
panies to resist attractive short-term alternatives and maintain
long-term relationships. The
combination of trust and commitment promotes efficiency,
productivity, and effectiveness and even-
tually leads to relationship marketing success with a ‘‘win–
win’’ outcome (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
Trust has long been considered a critical contributor to business
success (Williams, 2001), espe-
cially in marketing relationships. This allows the partners to
work together to achieve joint outcomes
in the long run rather than pursue individual profit (Dirks,
1999). Trust refers to the belief in a partner’s
trustworthiness and integrity (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). In a high-
trust relationship, the two companies
communicate openly by expressing their opinions and ideas
freely as they expect each other to be
working toward helping each other and accept and bear risk
jointly (Chu & Fang, 2006). As a primary
antecedent of intangible benefits, trust can enhance the overall
performance of business (Beccerra &
Gupta, 1999).
Commitment is the expression of one’s willingness to
increasingly invest effort in maintaining a

relationship with another (Chu & Fang, 2006). This enduring
desire to maintain a cooperative rela-
tionship between a company and its partner can lead to long-
term benefits and a successful business
relationship.
The commitment–trust theory of business relationships served
as a theoretical framework for this
study. Specifically, an overview of China’s current T & C
exporters’ relationships with their U.S.
buyers was explored, which provides an overall framework in
which the individual buyer–supplier
relationships exist. Then a closer investigation of Chinese
suppliers/exporters’ perceptions of their
relationships with their U.S. buyers/importers was conducted.
Method
The choice of research methodology should depend on the
research purpose. Since quantitative
research methods are more appropriate for validating theories,
and qualitative methods are more
suitable for grounded theory building (Creswell, 2003), a
qualitative method, namely, interviews,
was chosen for this study over a quantitative method. The
current literature shows a lack of empirical

research of China’s market and reveals that most theories,
including the commitment–trust theory,
were developed and applied almost exclusively in Western
societies. Thus, since exploring the
dynamic reality and seeking in-depth description of Chinese
perceptions was the goal for this par-
ticular study, a qualitative method was clearly appropriate.
Furthermore, the non-stop changing and
Shen 23
unpredictable trading regulations and rules between China and
the United States in the last two
decades made it difficult to allow for sustained predictability, a
central requisite for identifying uni-
versal principles in a quantitative study.
In general, a qualitative study follows an inductive process
(Creswell, 2003) that includes data
collection, organization, and analysis. This process was adopted
for this study: (a) researcher gathers
information; (b) researcher asks open-ended questions of

participants; (c) researcher analyzes data to
form themes or categories; (d) researcher looks for broad
patterns, generalizations, or theories from
themes or categories; and (e) researcher explores possible
generalizations to existing theories.
Sample
Conducting empirical research in China is uniquely challenging,
due to its size, culture, history, and
recent economic and social changes (Zhao, Flynn, & Roth,
2006). Locating a group of interviewees
representing various types (size, product type, length of
exporting history, and geographic location)
of T & C suppliers/exporters is very difficult. The interviewees
for this study needed to meet the
following criteria: (a) having the required legal exporting
license; (b) being actively involved in
exporting T & C products; and (c) exporting products to the
United States.
A list of potential interviewees was developed in the following
two ways: (a) through a business
directory and (b) through personal contacts. In the end, all the
interviewees were obtained through
personal contacts. The reason why the business directory proved
ineffective was because T & C has

always been a fast-changing sector and the companies in this
sector come in and out of business at a
fast pace. So a good number of companies included in the
business directory were no longer in exis-
tence and the newcomers were not included on the list yet.
Meanwhile, it is not surprising that a per-
sonal network and personal contacts play key roles in China’s
business world.
Finally, a convenience sample of 14 interviewees in three main
regions was finalized: the greater
Beijing region that represented Northern China, the greater
Shanghai region represented Central
China, and Fujian province represented Southern China. Beijing
is the center of China’s politics and
business. Being located in or very close to the capital has made
businesses there a distinctive group.
The greater Shanghai region was chosen due to the long history
of T & C production since the begin-
ning of the last century. Currently, that area is also the center of
China’s T & C production and
imports/exports. Southern China has been developing extremely
fast in the last decade mainly rely-
ing on soft-goods industries, including T & C. The businesses
there are newer and more competitive

than those in other regions, and Fujian province is a good
representative of this region.
Interviews
One of the common strategies of conducting a qualitative study
is to develop two types of research
questions: central questions and associated subquestions. A
central question is the broadest question
that can be asked in the study. An associated subquestion can be
a topic specifically explored in
interviews. Normally, a qualitative study can have one or two
central questions followed by no more
than five to seven subquestions (Creswell, 2003). By following
this particular strategy, this study
developed the following central questions and associated
subquestions. The central questions were
worded according to the purpose of this study and the
associated subquestions were developed with a
goal of finding more detailed and richer information on a more
micro scale.
The central questions are as follows: (a) What are your overall
perceptions and evaluations of
your relationships with your U.S. business partners? And (b)
Why do you hold such perceptions

toward your U.S. business partners?
The associated subquestions are as follows: (a) What do you
enjoy the most when you do business
with your U.S. partners? (b) What frustrates you the most when
you do business with your U.S.
partners? (c) Do your perceptions of different U.S. partners
vary? How? Why? (d) Has doing
business with your U.S. partners been a good experience for
you? Why? And (e) What kind of future
do you think doing business with your U.S. partners holds for
you? Why?
After the central questions and associated subsquestions were
developed, an outline of the semistruc-
tured interview was designed in English. After that, one
Chinese–English speaker translated the English
outline to Chinese and another Chinese–English speaker
translated the Chinese outline back to English.
After consistency of the two versions of the outline was
reached, the interview outline was finalized.

Generally, an interview can be done in three different ways:
structured interview, semistructured
interview, and nonstructured interview. Based on the advantages
and disadvantages of them, a semi-
structured interview was selected for this study. Thus, the core
questions deemed central to the
objectives of the study were asked of all respondents; however,
some flexibility was allowed when
it appeared that the respondent was likely to offer unexpected
information relevant to the study but
not covered by the core questions.
Data Analysis and Results
Fourteen interviews were conducted and ranged from 1 hr to
2and one-half hours. Among them, three
were from the Beijing area, another three were in the Fuzhou
area in Fujian province, and the last eight
were from the areas near Shanghai. The sample (see Table 1)
showed a good variety of companies rang-
ing from private companies to joint-ventures to government-
owned enterprises and ranging from long-
time apparel exporters to relative newcomers. The companies
interviewed represented exporters of the
following apparel categories: women’s lingerie, men’s suits,

casual wear, sportswear, professional
uniforms, and knit casual wear. Their U.S. buyers/importers
included discount stores such as Kmart,
Wal-Mart, and Target; department stores such as Macy’s,
Kohl’s, JCPenney, and May; and specialty
brands such as the Gap, Calvin Klein, Reebok, Ann Taylor,
Talbot, Tommy Bahama, Banana Republic,
Levi’s, Liz Claiborne, Tommy Hilfiger, Polo Ralph Lauren,
Rugby, and Phillips-Van Heusen.
All the interview notes were translated from Chinese to English
and then back translated to Chi-
nese by two Chinese–English speakers in order to reach
consistency. After that, the same two
researchers read through all the data in order to reach its overall
meaning. Then detailed analysis
started with the coding process in which the data were
organized into categories and then labeled
with a term (Creswell, 2003). The categories/terms included (a)
the characteristics of exported prod-
ucts and the corresponding exporting strategies; (b) the
disagreement areas; (c) the business relation-
ship with the U.S. importers/buyers; and (d) the attitude toward
the overall relationship with U.S.
importers/buyers. Based on the list of the terms (codes), two

themes emerged and there were distinct
differences between them across all the above four categories.
According to its characteristics, the
first theme was named surviving, whereas the second theme was
called thriving (Table 2).
According to Creswell (2003), validity is viewed as a strength
of qualitative studies. One way to
increase validity is to identify and discuss one or more
strategies available to check the accuracy of
the findings. Among different strategies, this study chose to use
the rich and thick description to con-
vey the findings in order to transport readers to the setting and
give the discussion an element of
shared experiences.
Surviving
The interviewees in this theme portrayed an overall feeling of
struggling in the business relationship
with their U.S. partners. Both sides lacked a spirit of
collaboration, trust, and a long-term plan of
commitment. The Chinese suppliers were in constant threat of
business failure. This surviving theme
is discussed in four categories as follows:
Shen 25

T
a
b
le
1
.
S
u
m
m
ar
y
o
f
th
e
In
te
rv
ie
w

P
ar
ti
ci
p
an
ts
N
o
.
D
at
e
L
o
ca
ti
o
n
T
it
le
o
f
th
e

In
te
rv
ie
w
e
e
A
ge
o
f
th
e
In
te
rv
ie
w
e
e
G
e
n
d
e
r

o
f
th
e
In
te
rv
ie
w
e
e
Y
e
ar
s
in
B
u
si
n
e
ss
C
o
m

p
an
y
o
f
th
e
In
te
rv
ie
w
e
e
(t
h
e
ye
ar
st
ar
te
d
to
e
x

p
o
rt
ap
p
ar
e
l)
1
.
6
/1
7
/0
8
H
an
gz
h
o
u
P
re
si
d
e

n
t
5
8
M
al
e
2
6
X
X
a
In
te
rn
at
io
n
al
G
ro
u
p
L
im

it
e
d
(1
9
9
2
)
2
.
6
/2
0
/0
8
B
e
iji
n
g
O
ff
ic
e
M
an

ag
e
r
4
1
F
e
m
al
e
1
0
X
X
G
ar
m
e
n
t
Im
p
o
rt
&
E

x
p
o
rt
C
o
.,
L
td
.(
1
9
6
0
)
3
.
6
/2
0
/0
8
B
e
iji
n
g

E
x
e
cu
ti
ve
G
e
n
e
ra
l
M
an
ag
e
r
4
4
F
e
m
al
e
1
8

B
e
iji
n
g
X
X
In
te
rn
at
io
n
al
T
ra
d
in
g
C
o
.,
L
td
(2

0
0
4
)
4
.
6
/2
3
/0
8
B
e
iji
n
g
H
e
ad
o
f
F
o
re
ig
n
T

ra
d
e
D
e
p
t.
3
9
M
al
e
7
B
e
iji
n
g
X
X
G
ar
m
e
n
ts

C
o
.,
L
td
.
(2
0
0
5
)
5
.
6
/2
5
/0
8
F
u
zh
o
u
G
e
n

e
ra
l
M
an
ag
e
r
4
5
M
al
e
1
3
F
u
zh
o
u
X
X
C
lo
th

in
g
C
o
.,
L
td
.
(1
9
9
9
)
6
.
6
/2
5
/0
8
F
u
zh
o
u

G
e
n
e
ra
l
M
an
ag
e
r
3
8
M
al
e
1
1
X
X
H
o
n
gK
o
n
g

O
u
td
o
o
r
S
p
o
rt
s
P
ro
d
u
ct
s
C
o
.,
L
td
(2
0
0
6
)

7
.
6
/2
7
/0
8
F
u
zh
o
u
G
e
n
e
ra
l
M
an
ag
e
r
4
0

F
e
m
al
e
9
F
u
zh
o
u
X
X
G
ar
m
e
n
t
C
o
.,
L
td
.
(2

0
0
3
)
8
.
7
/1
/0
8
S
u
zh
o
u
G
e
n
e
ra
l
M
an
ag
e
r

5
3
M
al
e
2
8
S
u
zh
o
u
X
X
G
ar
m
e
n
t
C
o
.,
L
id
.

(2
0
0
2
)
9
.
7
/1
/0
8
W
u
jia
n
g
G
e
n
e
ra
l
M
an
ag
e

r
3
5
M
al
e
6
W
u
jia
n
g
X
X
T
e
x
ti
le
C
o
.,
L
td
.
(2

0
0
4
)
1
0
.
7
/1
/0
8
W
u
jia
n
g
G
e
n
e
ra
l
M
an
ag
e

r
4
2
M
al
e
5
X
X
G
ro
u
p
(?
)
1
1
.
7
/1
/0
8
W
u
jia

n
g
G
e
n
e
ra
l
M
an
ag
e
r
3
8
M
al
e
7
W
u
jia
n
g
X

X
G
ar
m
e
n
ts
C
o
.,
L
td
.
(?
)
1
2
.
7
/1
/0
8
W
u
jia
n

g
G
e
n
e
ra
l
M
an
ag
e
r
3
9
F
e
m
al
e
5
W
u
jia
n
g

X
X
F
as
h
io
n
C
o
.,
L
td
.
(2
0
0
2
)
1
3
.
7
/4
/0
8

W
u
x
i
V
ic
e
G
e
n
e
ra
l
M
an
ag
e
r
4
8
M
al
e
1
6
X

X
G
ro
u
p
(1
9
9
7
)
1
4
.
7
/5
/0
8
S
u
zh
o
u
M
an
ag
e

r
3
6
M
al
e
6
S
u
zh
o
u
X
X
E
n
te
rp
ri
se
L
td
.
(1
9

9
4
)
N
o
te
:
a
X
X
:
u
se
d
to
re
p
la
ce
th
e
re
al
n
am
e
o

f
e
ac
h
co
m
p
an
y
in
o
rd
e
r
to
p
ro
te
ct
it
s
p
ri
va
cy

.
26
The characteristics of exported products and the corresponding
exporting strategies. Currently, China
is switching from being a major assembly base for the United
States in basic clothing categories
to producing and exporting clothing items that have more
requirements on technology and
design. Only 4 of the 14 interviewees were still exporting plain
cotton pants or basic cotton or
blend shirts to large discount stores, such as Wal-Mart and
Kmart. All four of them fell into the
surviving theme. In their exported product lines, there was very
little trend involved. Besides a lower
design and trend component in their lines, the technology
component was relatively low as well. As a
result, the product requirements on equipment, machinery, and
employees’ skills were very basic.
Interviewee 8: We do not have a design team. So we don’t get
involved in product development
with our customers. Most of our U.S. customers just order plain

cotton pants and cotton or blend
shirts from us. As a result, our products are at the low end.
Since basic product lines were the focus of this type of Chinese
suppliers, they could not rely on
new product development to keep their customers loyal and
happy. Instead, their main exporting
strategies were to rely on a low price and large volume purchase
orders to survive.
Interviewee 11: Our margin used to be around 5%. Currently, it
is even hard for us to have a 2%
margin because the U.S. customers have kept pushing the prices
down. Since we need the business to
survive, we have to keep lowering our prices.
The disagreement areas. Between a Chinese supplier/exporter
and a U.S. importer, there can be
many different disagreements, such as disagreements on
packaging, on shipping, or on insurance.
The main disagreement between the Chinese suppliers/exporters
and U.S. buyers/importers in this
surviving theme was on price.
Interviewee 10: The biggest problem between our U.S.
customers and us is the constant disagree-
ment on price. Sometimes, what our U.S. customers ask for is
even lower than our production cost.

In those cases, we have to turn down the business. Because of
the price conflict, we are always very
sensitive to and vulnerable of any cost-related change.
Since basic merchandise is the main exported product for the
Chinese exporters in this group,
price becomes one of the few key negotiating weapons for both
sides. U.S. buyers do not look for
a supplier who can provide them the best quality products with
excellent workmanship and latest
designs. Instead, they want to find someone who can offer them
products with the lowest cost and
acceptable quality. In order to be competitive, the Chinese
suppliers in this group have to rely on low
price to get business from U.S. buyers. However, China has
slowly started to lose its competitive
cheap labor cost to other countries, such as Vietnam, Cambodia,
and the Philippines. Therefore, con-
tinually lowering the price has become harder for Chinese
exporters, especially for those who can
only rely on low price to keep their business running.
Table 2. Summary of the Findings
Themes Categories Surviving Thriving
Characteristics of Exported Products

and the Corresponding Exporting
Strategies
Basic merchandise; the exports
focus on price and big purchase
orders
Fashion merchandise; the
exports focus on quality and
design
Disagreement Areas Price Style and technical details
Business Relationship with the U.S.
Importers/Buyers
Short-term competitive
relationship
Long-term cooperative
relationship
Attitude toward the Overall Relationship
with the U.S. Importers/Buyers
Negative and pessimistic Positive and optimistic
Shen 27
The business relationship with the U.S. importers/buyers. The
companies coded in this surviving

theme evaluated their business relationships with their U.S.
importers/buyers and showed an overall
negative perception since China lost its competitive low labor
cost to other developing countries. More
and more U.S. buyers have outsourced their orders to Southeast
Asian countries and African countries
instead of China. Chinese suppliers in this category continually
experience pressure from their U.S.
customers for further price reduction. In many cases, Chinese
suppliers have been so passive that they
could barely make enough profit to cover all the expenses.
There exists an obvious lack of trust
between both sides and a lack of willingness to work together
through tough times. As a result, an
order-by-order short-term relationship is very common for the
companies that were coded in this sur-
viving theme in terms of their business relationships with their
U.S. customers. This nature of a buyer–
supplier relationship fits into the competitive relationship
developed prior to the 1980s in the United
States because in a competitive relationship, due to the lack of
mutual benefit and common goals, a
buyer and a supplier often struggle for their own profit, which
leads to a win–lose context.

Interviewee 8: Even though our U.S. customers are professional,
we have never established a
trustworthy close relationship with them. We have experienced
the constant uncertainty and we can
never rely on each other at tough times.
The attitude toward the overall relationship with U.S.
importers/buyers. The overall perceptions and
attitudes the Chinese suppliers hold toward their relationship
with U.S. importers coded in this sur-
viving theme are very negative. Any external changes, such as
the currency exchange rate, cost of
raw materials, and policy changes, are viewed as a serious
threat to their business viability. In this
fragile and bumpy ride, the Chinese suppliers have many doubts
and uncertainties in terms of their
business with their U.S. customers along with many problems
and complaints. However, it seems
that both sides need each other as well, at least in the short
term. For this group of Chinese suppliers,
before they have all the resources to establish a more design-
oriented and technologically advanced
team, they must rely on U.S. customers who can offer them
volume to survive. On the other side,
U.S. buyers are still drawn to such Chinese suppliers, because
even though labor cost in China has

become higher than that in countries such as Cambodia, the
quality of products is generally better.
Interviewee 11: Our business relationship with our U.S.
customers is very troublesome and we are
not optimistic about the future at all. There have been so many
disagreements between us and we can
never work together to address them.
Interviewee 12: Our U.S. customers have much more power than
we do. They keep pushing for
lower price. If we don’t agree, we will face the possibility of
losing the business. Very often, in this
circumstance, the U.S. importers have very big purchase orders,
and we can’t afford to lose them.
Thriving
Compared to the surviving theme, the overall feeling of the
thriving theme is much more positive.
The interviewees in this group present a more trusting and
collaborative spirit throughout their busi-
ness experiences with their U.S. customers, because they
believe they share common goals and
mutual benefits. The interview data show a completely different
picture in the following four cate-
gories than the surviving theme.

The characteristics of exported products and the corresponding
exporting strategies. Instead of making
basic merchandise, the interviewees in this theme start to show
more involvement in the design pro-
cess in a good variety of product lines. Such products include
suits, lingerie, casual wear, and sports-
wear. The method of involvement in the product development
varies considerably. Some Chinese
suppliers design their preliminary clothing lines and their U.S.
customers select the styles for final
production. Instead of designing clothing items, some suppliers
develop their fabric lines and their
U.S. customers choose the fabrics and develop clothing lines
using the chosen fabrics. Not only does
the design component play a more important role in this theme,
technology has become much more
critical as well. Several interviewees won their U.S. customers’
business because of the technology
they could offer, such as special finishing treatments required

by some specific sportswear. The data
also show that the group of U.S. customers in the thriving theme
was different from the ones in the
surviving theme. Instead of mega-discount retailers, such as
Wal-Mart and Kmart, the Chinese sup-
pliers were doing more business with specialty brands, such as
Reebok, Tommy Bahama, Banana
Republic, Levi’s, Tommy Hilfiger, Polo Ralph Lauren, and
Phillips-Van Heusen.
Interviewee 1: We are involved in the design process with the
U.S. companies. For example, with
Liz Claiborne, we design fabrics and provide the fabrics to them
and Liz designs their clothing lines
based on our fabric design.
Interviewee 5: We have our own design team. So we do design
and our customers pick the styles
they like. Our products include casual wear and sportswear.
Because the group of interviewees in this thriving theme has
developed a strong design team with
more technology involved in their production, they win the
majority of their U.S. business by their
capability of making fashion and trendy merchandise with
complex technical requirements instead

of just offering the lowest price. As a result, they rely on those
strengths to develop their exporting
strategies and seek U.S. customers who value quality over price.
Because the interviewees coded in this thriving theme focus on
product lines with more design
and technology requirements rather than low price, their
average margin tends to be higher than the
average margin of 5% in the current Chinese clothing industry.
The interviewees demonstrate that
the higher the content of technology and design involvement,
the higher their profit margin.
Interviewee 4: Our main product line is men’s suits, mainly
jackets. Our U.S. customers send their
orders of jackets to us and orders of pants to their suppliers in
Vietnam. Since jackets are more com-
plicated and require employees who have more experience and
better skills, our margin has been
pretty good.
Interviewee 7: Our main product lines are women’s knit casual
wear. The main customers include
Macy’s, CK and Reebok. Our orders are small, but with high
margin. Our profit can reach 20%
sometimes.
The disagreement areas. Disagreements on technical details or
design details between the Chinese

suppliers and their U.S. customers tend to happen more often in
this theme than do disagreements on
price. In order to achieve the best design with the best quality
products, both sides often work
together as a team until they reach a consensus. It is very clear
that the resources and energy of both
sides are focused primarily on improvement and adjustments of
design and technical details.
Interviewee 7: Our main product lines are women’s knit casual
wear. The main difference
between us and our customers is often related to design details.
In terms of quality, price, and turn-
around time, our U.S. customers and we agree with each other
most of the time.
Interviewee 13: We make men’s casual wear and formal wear.
The main customers are Liz
Claiborne, and CK. The main difference between us and our
customers is related to technical details
and quality. There is not too much difference in terms of price.
The business relationship with U.S. importers/buyers. Whereas
the surviving theme portrays an over-
all struggling and unbalanced business relationship between the
Chinese suppliers and their U.S.
customers, the data show a completely different description of
the relationship between the compa-

nies that were coded in the thriving theme and their U.S
importers/buyers under the thriving theme.
The Chinese suppliers in this group have established a long-
term, trusting, and balanced relationship
with their U.S. buyers. Compromises are not unilateral. Instead,
whenever new challenges occur, the
suppliers in this category are able to approach their U.S.
partners and work closely together to try to
Shen 29
resolve the problems. This is exactly the same as the
cooperative relationship explained in the review
of the literature. A buyer and a supplier are committed to
working together to develop a long-term
relationship along with common goals and mutual benefit. In
this win–win context, the two firms
solve problems jointly and share risk and benefits together
(Balakrishnan & Geunes, 2004).
The interviewees in the thriving theme state that their
disagreements are often related to design and

technical details. They work together with their U.S. buyers to
find best solutions in order to keep pro-
duction running smoothly. Even if price disagreements occur,
the strategies to tackle the price differ-
ences are still different from those in the surviving theme. In
companies coded in the thriving theme,
both sides work together to find out how to lower production
costs or to meet in the middle to share the
difference. On the contrary, for companies coded in the
surviving theme, if the Chinese supplier cannot
meet their U.S. customers’ price, the contracts are often
canceled by the U.S. buyers.
Interviewee 7: If our products cannot meet the original design
of our U.S. customers, they are not
stubborn. They work with us and make some adjustment.
Because we offer good products and ser-
vice, we are one of their best suppliers. When problems occur,
they often protect us first. We trust
each other and support each other.
The attitude toward the overall relationship with U.S.
importers/buyers. Companies coded in the thriv-
ing theme show a more positive overall picture than those coded
in the surviving theme. Most inter-
viewees in this group express a very optimistic attitude toward
the overall relationship with their

U.S. customers. For them, the future is bright and more hurdles
down the road can potentially bring
their U.S. customers even closer to them, further strengthening
the business relationship. Several
interviewees in this group stated that it was hard for them to
make any profit in the year of 2008
due to the increasing cost of raw materials, energy, and labor;
the double pressure caused by the
change of the Yuan’s value; and constantly changing policies.
However, even without any profit,
they would still keep doing business with their U.S. customers,
because they were hoping that they
would be able to make a profit in the following year. The long-
term commitment in this mutual and
trusting relationship between Chinese suppliers and U.S. buyers
produced very positive overall per-
ceptions from this group of Chinese suppliers toward their U.S.
buyers. Several suppliers mentioned
that their U.S. customers were trustworthy, reliable,
responsible, and supportive. They were easy to
communicate with and they were professional and efficient.
Interviewee 1: Since we have established a long-term business
relationship with our U.S. custom-

ers, we rely on each other a lot. Even though there are small
disagreements going on, overall we have
a good and successful relationship.
Conclusions and Discussion
The purpose of this research was to study the buyer–supplier
business relationship between the U.S.
and China in the textile and clothing sector not only to provide
the latest information and analysis to
the United States and China trading system but to bring a better
understanding of the buyer–supplier
relationship in international business to both academic scholars
and business practitioners.
Fourteen in-depth interviews were conducted in China. During
the data analysis, four categories/
terms emerged including (a) the characteristics of exported
products and the corresponding export-
ing strategies; (b) the disagreement areas; (c) the business
relationship with U.S. importers/buyers;
and (d) the attitude toward the overall relationship with U.S.
importers/buyers. Two themes emerged
from the above four terms. The first theme, surviving, portrayed
an overall struggling feeling lacking
the spirit of collaboration, trust, and long-term commitment.
The second theme, thriving, presented a

more positive and optimistic perception when both sides shared
common goals and mutual benefits.
Based on the above findings, three major conclusions were
formed in this study. First, an x–y
diagram was identified to present the overall perceptions of
Chinese suppliers on their business
relationship with U.S. buyers. In this x–y diagram, the x-
horizontal direction represents the
exporting strategies of the Chinese suppliers varying between
price and design/quality/technology,
and the y-vertical direction represents the business relationship
between the Chinese suppliers and
their U.S. buyers ranging from short term to long term. The
Chinese suppliers who are in the upper-
right quadrant tend to have the most positive perceptions of
their business relationship with U.S.
buyers, whereas those who are in the lower-left quadrant tend to
have the most negative perceptions.

The suppliers who are in the upper-left quadrant are somewhere
in between the above two scenarios.
None of the interviewees fell into the lower-right quadrant;
presumably because if a supplier wants
to focus on design/tech by getting involved in the design/tech
development process, they have to do
business with a U.S. customer who has a long-term plan. Among
the 14 Chinese suppliers inter-
viewed, 8 of them (Interviewees 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14)
fell into the upper-right quadrant,
whereas only 4 of them (Interviewees 8, 9, 10, and 12) were in
the lower-left quadrant. It is clear
that the long-term relationship between the Chinese suppliers
who focus their exporting strategies
on good design, quality, and technical details and their U.S.
customers is more dominant in this
group of respondents than the short-term relationship between
the Chinese suppliers who focus their
business strategies on price and their U.S. customers. The
Chinese suppliers in the lower-left quad-
rant have been struggling and trying to survive in a competitive
relationship with their U.S. buyers.
Instead of developing common goals and building mutual
benefit, these Chinese suppliers and their

U.S. customers were struggling for their own profit and fighting
for more power. In contrast, the
Chinese suppliers in the upper-right quadrant have successfully
developed a cooperative relationship
with their U.S. buyers in which both sides were committed to
work together because they found out
that commitment and trust, instead of power, were keys to long-
term success (Figure 1).
The second conclusion is related to the contribution of this
study to the academic world. The
findings from this study showed that among the companies
represented, there is a shift from the
lower-left quadrant to the upper-right quadrant in China–U.S.
trading business, because the business
relationship between Chinese suppliers and U.S. buyers is the
smoothest, most promising, and
positive in this quadrant. This study supported the transition
from a power-dominating marketing
relationship to a commitment–trust supplier–buyer relationship
in the U.S.–China trading business.
While the U.S. market went through this transition in the 1980s,
China is experiencing the same shift
three decades later. This similar shift/pattern of distribution
relationship might raise further ques-

tions regarding the distribution relationship literature, such as
(a) is a power-dominating/competitive
marketing relationship more common in a new business
relationship? (b) is a cooperative/trusting
business relationship the norm during the latter, more mature
phase of a business relationship? And
(c) can this developing pattern of business relationships be
generalized across a broader range of
international trade? Future research will be needed to answer
these questions.
The third conclusion relates to the contribution to business
practices. During the process of find-
ing a good match, a U.S. importer should look for a Chinese
exporter who focuses more on design/
quality/technology than price. On the other side, Chinese
exporters should look for U.S. importers
who (a) have more requirements on design and technical details
and quality rather than low price and
(b) have a long-term plan to work with Chinese suppliers rather
than just a one-time deal. In addition,
both sides should look for business partners who are willing to
develop and maintain a committed,
trusting, and cooperative business relationship instead of
seeking a counterpart who constantly fights

for power without a cooperative long-term plan.
Limitations, Implications, and Contributions
There are two limitations in this research. First, only Chinese
suppliers’ perceptions were examined
in this study. Understanding each side’s perceptions is
important since when firms understand and
appreciate each other’s viewpoints, they are able to arrive at a
working consensus and manage their
Shen 31
partnership more effectively. As a result, studying U.S. buyers’
perceptions of their business relationship
with those Chinese suppliers is also necessary. By comparing
their perceptions, a better communication
framework can possibly be established and a complete picture
showing the buyer–supplier relationship
in the U.S. and China trading business can be portrayed. One
might argue that studying the U.S. buyers’
side is not necessary since this side has been the main focus of
the current distribution relationship lit-

erature. In the study of a distribution relationship, exploring
only one side at the exclusion of the other
side provides only half of the information. A more efficient and
effective way to study a distribution
relationship is to have both sides investigated without ignoring
either one. Therefore, one of the future
studies could focus on the other side of the relationship—from
the U.S. buyers’ perspective.
The second limitation of this study is that only the textile and
clothing sector was investigated.
Hence, the results may not necessarily apply to other industries.
In order to gain a more generalized
understanding, more sectors need to be examined, which could
be another topic of future study.
In spite of these limitations, the findings of this study brought
contributions to different aspects.
From the perspective of business practitioners, the findings
from this study brought U.S. importers
first-hand information on how Chinese suppliers perceive and
feel about doing business with their
U.S. customers. Results from this study could help U.S.
importers better understand their Chinese busi-
ness partners, such as how to do business with them, what their
strengths and weaknesses are, and more

importantly, how to develop a long-term reliable business
relationship with them.
This study can also make a contribution to the business
relationship literature. Research examining
relationships has been mainly conducted in Western markets—
the United States and Europe. As a con-
sequence, understanding business relationships in
predominantly Western cultures does little to further
Long-term relationship
Interviewee 2 and 4 Interviewee 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 14
In the Middle Most Positive
Focus on Price Focus on Design/Quality/Tech
Interviewee 8, 9, 10, and12
Most Negative Doesn’t exist
Short-term relationship
Figure 1. A diagram of the overall perceptions of Chinese
suppliers on their business relationship with U.S.
buyers.

our understanding of supplier–buyer relationship in other
countries, such as China. By investigating the
relationship between Chinese suppliers and U.S. buyers from
the Chinese perspective, this study
enriched this part of the literature. In addition, this study
examined the business relationship theories
in the China–U.S. trading relationship and further supported the
applicability of those theories.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interests with
respect to the authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
This study is funded by 2007–2008 Research and Creative
Activity Grant from California State University–
Sacramento.
References
Balakrishnan, A., & Geunes, J. (2004). Collaboration and
coordination in supply chain management and
e-commerce. Production and Operations Management, 13, 1-2.
Beccerra, M., & Gupta, A. K. (1999). Trust within the

organization: Integrating the trust literature with agency
theory and transaction costs economics. Public Administration
Quarterly, 23, 177-203.
Campbell, A. (1997). Buyer-supplier partnerships: Flip sides of
the same coin? Journal of Business and Indus-
trial Marketing, 12, 417-434.
China ranks 2nd with 8.8% of world’s exports by 2007. (2008).
Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://news.
xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/28/content_10266111.htm
Cannon, J. P., & Peneault, W. D. (1999). Buyer-supplier
relationships in business markets. Journal of Marketing
Research, 36, 439-460.
CENN. (2008). Zhong Mei mao yi mo ca de yuan yin he dui ce
[The reasons of the trade conflicts between the
U.S. and China and the corresponding strategies]. Retrieved
June 16, 2009, from http://www.cenn.cn/info/
nid_69795.html
Choi, T. Y., & Wu, Z. (2009). Triads in supply networks:
Theorizing buyer-supplier-supplier relationship.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45, 8-25.
Choi, T. Y., & Wu, Z. (2008). Taking the leap from dyads to
triads: Buyer-supplier relationship in supply net-

work. Journal of Purchase and Supply Management, 14(4), 263-
266, 269-270.
Chu, S. Y., & Fang, W. C. (2006). Exploring the relationships
of trust and commitment in supply chain man-
agement. Journal of American Academy of Business, 9, 224-
229.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.).
London, UK: SAGE.
D’Andrea, M. (2009). The office of textiles and apparel:
Promoting the competitiveness of the U.S. textile
and apparel industry. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from
http://www.udel.edu/fiber/issue3/world/Promoting
Competitiveness.html
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work
group performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 84, 445-455.
Gaski, J. F. (1984). The theory of power and conflict in
channels of distribution. Journal of marketing, 48, 9-29.
Heide, J. B., & John, G. (1990). Alliances in industrial
purchasing: The determinants of joint action in
buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 27,
24-36.

Hoetker, G., Swaminathan, A., & Mitchell, W. (2007).
Modularity and the impact of buyer-supplier relationships
on the survival of suppliers. Management Sciences, 53, 178-
191.
Hong Kong Trade Development Council. (1999). Import
regulation and procedures of Chinese mainland.
Retrieved June 10, 2009 from,
www.tdctrade.com/main/chiimp.htm
Shen 33
Hsu, C., Kannan, V. R., Tan, K., & Leong, K. G. (2008).
Information sharing, buyer-supplier relationships, and
firm performance: A multi-region analysis. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Man-
agement, 38, 296-310.
Informed Trade. (2004). Import textile from China that need
quota.. help!! Retrieved June 15, 2009, from
http://www.itintl.com/community/showthread.php?t¼59
Jap, S. D. (2001). Pie-sharing in complex collaboration
contexts. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 86-99.
Johnston, D. A., McCutcheon, D. M., Stuart, F. I., & Kerwood,

H. (2004). Effects of supplier trust on perfor-
mance of cooperative supplier relationships. Journal of
Operations Management, 22, 23-38.
Kannan, V. R., & Tan, K. C. (2006). Buyer-supplier
relationships: The impact of supplier selection and buyer-
supplier engagement on relationship and firm performance.
International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, 36, 755-775.
Lau, M., & Moon, K. K. (2008). Adoption of strategic networks:
Evidence from the Hong Kong clothing indus-
try. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23, 342-
349.
Lavin, F. L. (1994). Negotiating with the Chinese: Or how not
to kowtow. Foreign Affairs, 73, 16-22.
Martin, F. M. (2007). U.S. clothing and textile trade with China
and the world: Trends since the end of quotas.
Retrieved June 15, 2009, from
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34106.pdf
McHugh, M., Humphreys, P., & McIvor, R. (2003). Buyer-
supplier relationships and organizational health.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 39, 1-15.
Monczka, R. M., Peterson, K. J., Handfield, R. B., & Ragatz, G.
L. (1998). Success factors in strategic supplier

alliances: The buying company perspective. Journal of
Operations Management, 29, 553-577.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust
theory of relationship marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 58, 20-38.
Penone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be
trusted? Organizational constrains on trust in
boundary spanners. Organizational Science, 14, 422-439.
Rossetti, C., & Choi, T. Y. (2008). Supply management under
high goal incongruence: An empirical examination
of disintermediation in the aerospace supply chain. Decision
Sciences, 39, 507-540.
Rossetti, C., & Choi, T. Y. (2005). On the dark side of strategic
sourcing: Experiences from the aerospace
industry. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 46-60.
Shen, D. (2008). What’s happening in China’s textile and
clothing industries? Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 26, 203-222.
Sherman, S. (1992). Are strategic alliances working? Fortune,
September, 77–78.
Sternquist, B., Ogawa, T., & Cooper, A. D. (2002). Japanese
department store buyer-supplier relationships.
Journal of Asian Pacific Marketing, 1, 22-46.

Terpend, R., Tyler, B. B., Krause, D. R., & Handfield, R. B.
(2008). Buyer-supplier relationship: Derived value
over two decades. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44, 28-
54.
Wagner, M. S. (2006). Supplier development practices: An
exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing,
40, 554-571.
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership for
an affective context for trust development.
Academy of Management Review, 26, 377-396.
Yuan, A. (2004). Enforcing and collecting money judgments in
China from a U.S. judgment creditors’ perspec-
tive. The George Washington International Law Review, 36,
757-781.
Zhao, X., Flynn, B. B., & Roth, A. V. (2006). Decision sciences
research in China: A critical review and
research agenda-Foundations and overview. Decision Sciences,
37, 451-496.
Zhou, K., Mehta, M., & Sinha, A. (2007). Shaping up for the
race. Journal of Asia on Textile and Apparel, April/
May. Retrieved July 12, 2010, from
http://textile.2456.com/eng/epub/n_details.asp?epubiid¼4&id¼
1199

Bio
Dong Shen, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of
Family and Consumer Sciences at California
State University–Sacramento. Her research interests include
international trade and cross-cultural studies in
consumer behavior.
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051 v2)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages false
/CreateJDFFile false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true

/DetectCurves 0.1000
/ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged
/DoThumbnails false
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedOpenType false
/ParseICCProfilesInComments true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize true
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveDICMYKValues true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveFlatness false
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts true
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Remove
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/CropColorImages false

/ColorImageMinResolution 266
/ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 200
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages false
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages false
/GrayImageMinResolution 266
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic

/GrayImageResolution 200
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages false
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages false
/MonoImageMinResolution 900
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Average
/MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000
/EncodeMonoImages true

/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051
v2)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/Description <<
/ENU
<FEFF00550073006500200074006800650073006500200053006
1006700650020007300740061006e006400610072006400200073

0065007400740069006e0067007300200066006f0072002000630
0720065006100740069006e006700200077006500620020005000
440046002000660069006c00650073002e0020005400680065007
30065002000730065007400740069006e0067007300200063006f
006e006600690067007500720065006400200066006f007200200
04100630072006f006200610074002000760037002e0030002e00
20004300720065006100740065006400200062007900200054007
2006f00790020004f007400730020006100740020005300610067
00650020005500530020006f006e002000310031002f003100300
02f0032003000300036002e000d000d0032003000300050005000
49002f003600300030005000500049002f004a005000450047002
0004d0065006400690075006d002f004300430049005400540020
00470072006f0075007000200034>
>>
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(Common)
(1.0)
]
/OtherNamespaces [
<<
/AsReaderSpreads false
/CropImagesToFrames true
/ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue
/FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false
/IncludeGuidesGrids false
/IncludeNonPrinting false
/IncludeSlug false
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(InDesign)
(4.0)
]
/OmitPlacedBitmaps false
/OmitPlacedEPS false
/OmitPlacedPDF false

/SimulateOverprint /Legacy
>>
<<
/AllowImageBreaks true
/AllowTableBreaks true
/ExpandPage false
/HonorBaseURL true
/HonorRolloverEffect false
/IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false
/IncludeHeaderFooter false
/MarginOffset [
0
0
0
0
]
/MetadataAuthor ()
/MetadataKeywords ()
/MetadataSubject ()
/MetadataTitle ()
/MetricPageSize [
0
0
]
/MetricUnit /inch
/MobileCompatible 0
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(GoLive)
(8.0)
]
/OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false
/PageOrientation /Portrait
/RemoveBackground false
/ShrinkContent true
/TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors

/UseEmbeddedProfiles false
/UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true
>>
<<
/AddBleedMarks false
/AddColorBars false
/AddCropMarks false
/AddPageInfo false
/AddRegMarks false
/BleedOffset [
9
9
9
9
]
/ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB
/DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/DestinationProfileSelector /UseName
/Downsample16BitImages true
/FlattenerPreset <<
/ClipComplexRegions true
/ConvertStrokesToOutlines false
/ConvertTextToOutlines false
/GradientResolution 300
/LineArtTextResolution 1200
/PresetName ([High Resolution])
/PresetSelector /HighResolution
/RasterVectorBalance 1
>>
/FormElements true
/GenerateStructure false
/IncludeBookmarks false
/IncludeHyperlinks false
/IncludeInteractive false
/IncludeLayers false
/IncludeProfiles true

/MarksOffset 9
/MarksWeight 0.125000
/MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(CreativeSuite)
(2.0)
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK
/PageMarksFile /RomanDefault
/PreserveEditing true
/UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UseDocumentBleed false
>>
]
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [288 288]
/PageSize [612.000 792.000]
>> setpagedevice

Article Discussions1. What ar.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Article Discussions1. What ar.docx (20)

More from joyjonna282 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Article Discussions1. What ar.docx