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

International civil society actors in Genetically Modificied Organisms as a field of struggle: a neo-gramscian study in Brazil and the United Kingdom

Since the international financial and food crisis that started in 2008, strong emphasis has been made on the importance of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) (or “transgenics”) under the claim that they could contribute to increase food productivity at a global level, as the world population is predicted to reach 9.1 billion in the year 2050 and food demand is predicted to increase by as much as 50% by 2030. GMOs are now at the forefront of the debates and struggles of different actors. Within civil society actors, it is possible to observe multiple, and sometime, conflicting roles. The role of international social movements and international NGOs in the GMO field of struggle is increasingly relevant. However, while many of these international civil society actors oppose this type of technological developments (alleging, for instance, environmental, health and even social harms), others have been reportedly cooperating with multinational corporations, retailers, and the biotechnology industry to promote GMOs. In this thesis research, I focus on analysing the role of “international civil society” in the GMO field of struggle by asking: “what are the organizing strategies of international civil society actors, such as NGOs and social movements, in GMO governance as a field of struggle?” To do so, I adopt a neo-Gramscian discourse approach based on the studies of Laclau and Mouffe. This theoretical approach affirms that in a particular hegemonic regime there are contingent alliances and forces that overpass the spheres of the state and the economy, while civil society actors can be seen as a “glue” to the way hegemony functions. Civil society is then the site where hegemony is consented, reproduced, sustained, channelled, but also where counter-hegemonic and emancipatory forces can emerge. Considering the importance of civil society actors in the construction of hegemony, I also discuss some important theories around them. The research combines, on the one hand, 36 in-depth interviews with a range of key civil society actors and scientists representing the GMO field of struggle in Brazil (19) and the UK (17), and, on the other hand, direct observations of two events: Rio+20 in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and the first March Against Monsanto in London in 2013. A brief overview of the GMO field of struggle, from its beginning and especially focusing in the 1990s when the process of hegemonic formation became clearer, serves as the basis to map who are the main actors in this field, how resource mobilization works, how political opportunities (“historical contingencies”) are discovered and exploited, which are the main discourses (“science” and “sustainability” - articulated by “biodiversity preservation”, “food security” and “ecological agriculture”) articulated among the actors to construct a collective identity in order to attract new potential allies around “GMOs” (“nodal point”), and which are the institutions and international regulations within these processes that enable hegemony to emerge in meaningful and durable hegemonic links. This mapping indicates that that the main strategies applied by the international civil society actors are influenced by two central historical contingencies in the GMO field of struggle: 1) First Multi-stakeholder Historical Contingency; and 2) “Supposed” Hegemony Stability. These two types of historical contingency in the GMO field of struggle encompass deeper hegemonic articulations and, because of that, they induce international civil society actors to rethink the way they articulate and position themselves within the field. Therefore, depending on one of those moments, they will apply one specific strategy of discourse articulation, such as: introducing a new discourse in hegemony articulation to capture the attention of the public and of institutions; endorsing new plural demands; increasing collective visibility; facilitating material articulations; sharing a common enemy identity; or spreading new ideological elements among the actors in the field of struggle.