Is what you say what you do? Analyzing and comparing the effect of buyer-supplier relationship in the Brazilian and Chinese supplier selection criteria

Choosing properly and efficiently a supplier has been challenging practitioners and academics since 1960’s. Since then, countless studies had been performed and relevant changes in the business scenario were considered such as global sourcing, quality-orientation, just-in-time practices. It is almost consensus that quality should be the selection driver, however, some polemical findings questioned this general agreement. Therefore, one of the objectives of the study was to identify the supplier selection criteria and bring this discussion back again. Moreover, Dickson (1966) suggested existing business relationship as selection criterion, then it was reviewed the importance of business relationship for the company and noted a set of potential negative effects that could rise from it. By considering these side effects of relationship, this research aimed to investigate how the relationship could influence the supplier selection and how its harmful effects could affect the selection process. The impact of this phenomenon was investigated cross-nationally. The research strategy adopted was a controlled experiment via vignette combined with discrete choice analysis. The data collections were performed in China and Brazil. By examining the results, it could be drawn five major findings. First, when purchasers were asked to declare their supplier selection priorities, quality was stated as the most important independently of country and relationship. This result was consistent with diverse studies since 60’s. However, when purchasers were exposed to a multi-criteria trade-off situation, their actual selection priorities deviate from what they had declared. In the actual decision-making without influence of buyer-supplier relationship, Brazilian purchasers focused on price and Chinese buyers prioritized delivery then price. This observation reinforced some controversial prior studies of Verma & Pullman (1998) and Hirakubo & Kublin (1998). Second, through the introduction of the buyer-supplier relationship (operationalized via relational capital) in the supplier selection process, this research extended the existing studies and found that Brazilian buyers still focused on price. The relationship became just another criterion for supplier selection such as quality and delivery. However, from the Chinese sample, the results suggested that quality was totally discarded and the decision was majorly made through price and relationship. The third finding suggested that relational capital could legitimate the quality and sustainability of the supplier and replaces these selection criteria and made the decisional task less complex. Additionally, with the relational capital, the decision-makings were associated to few biases such as availability cognition, commitment, confirmatory and perceived biases. By analyzing the purchasers’ behavior, relational capital inducted buyers of both countries to relax in their purchasing requirements (quality, delivery and sustainability) leading to potential negative effects. In the Brazilian sample, the phenomenon of willing to pay a higher price for a lower quality offer demonstrated to be a potential counterproductive and suboptimal decision. Finally, the last finding was associated to the cultural effect on the buyers’ decisions. From the outcome, it is possible to observe that if a purchaser’s cultural background is more relation-oriented, the more he will tend to use relational capital as a decision heuristic, thus, the purchaser will be more susceptible to the potential relationship’s side effects

The drivers for entry and expansion modes of U.S.- based MNES in Brazil

The drivers for entry and expansion modes of multinational enterprises (MNEs) have been studied by several authors over the last decades but empirical results have been historically mixed. More recently, Hennart (2009) argued that the reason for the inconsistent results to date resided in the fact that prior theories assumed that local markets could be freely accessed based on a unilateral decision by the MNEs, and then proposes an alternative framework in which the entry and expansion modes of MNEs in foreign countries are a solution based on the relative efficiency of both markets. In this study, the proposed framework is tested against the prior theories based on investments made by U.S.-based MNEs in Brazil from 2005 to 2010. The results suggest that the local market characteristics, more specifically the concentration ratio at the firm and asset levels, are indeed important to influence the entry and expansion mode of U.S.-based MNEs in Brazil, reinforcing the argument against MNEs-centric theories. However, differently from Hennart’s proposition, we were not able to confirm the hypotheses that the MNEs skills are relevant to influence the final solution. We have also tested whether the difference in growth rate between the two countries could be a driver for MNEs to favor acquisition over greenfield given the opportunity cost of postponing the investments. The test result, based on our sample, was not able to confirm this hypothesis.

Exclusivity contracts and competition : the case of the Brazilian fuels market

Exclusivity contracts can help stations by providing brand-value that allows them to obtain higher profits, relative to unbranded retailers. However, branded retailers may have a stronger negative effect over its competitors’ profits. It is not clear which one of these two effects dominates (brand-value vs competition effect). Therefore, the impact of exclusivity over the number of participants in the downstream market is not determined. In this paper, I empirically study the effects of exclusivity agreements on competition in the Brazilian gasoline sector. In order to do so, I estimate an entry model of endogenous product-type choices using data of retailers’ locations and contract choices along with data from the 2010 Brazilian Census. I use my estimates to simulate entry decisions under two counterfactual scenarios: i) mandatory exclusivity and ii) no exclusivity.