International Journal of Logistics Research and

Applications
A Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cjol20

How does supply chain learning influence supply

chain innovation performance? A survey based
on strategy-structure-capabilities-performance
perspective

Qingyun Yang, Suicheng Li & Jianqi Qiao

To cite this article: Qingyun Yang, Suicheng Li & Jianqi Qiao (2024) How does supply chain
learning influence supply chain innovation performance? A survey based on strategy-
structure-capabilities-performance perspective, International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications, 27:10, 1819-1842, DOI: 10.1080/13675567.2023.2192913

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2192913

Published online: 22 Mar 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 389

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjol20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
2024, VOL. 27, NO. 10, 1819–1842
https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2023.2192913

How does supply chain learning influence supply chain

innovation performance? A survey based on strategy-structure-
capabilities-performance perspective
Qingyun Yang, Suicheng Li and Jianqi Qiao
School of Economics and Management, Xi’an University of Technology, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Supply chain learning is a key factor influencing supply chain innovation Received 7 March 2022
performance, but the path between them is unclear. This research Accepted 6 March 2023
introduced a strategy-structure-capability-performance (SSCP)
KEYWORDS
framework to explore the mechanism through which supply chain Supply chain learning; social
learning as a firm’s strategy to improve supply chain innovation capital in firm-supply chain
performance. Based on the questionnaire survey data of 303 Chinese partner; dynamic supply
machinery manufacturing firms, we established a structural equation chain capability; supply
model to verify our hypothesis. The results show that implementing a chain innovation
supply chain learning strategy is conducive to promoting the performance
accumulation of social capital of supply chain partners to form dynamic
supply chain capability, thereby improving supply chain innovation
performance. This study will also provide theoretical extensions and
empirical evidence for supply chain innovation management.

1. Introduction
In the context of open innovation, firms no longer rely solely on their high-intensity research and
development (R&D) accumulation to achieve product or service innovation. The supply chain has
become the most significant ‘resource pool’ for firms. Recent studies have shown that firms explore
solutions to these innovative matters by seeking close collaboration in the supply chain (Goffnett
and Goswami 2016; Barbara, Huo, and Zhao 2010; Jao-Hong, Mu-Chung, and Huang 2014;
Gupta and Narain 2012; Malacina and Teplov 2022). The supply chain is regarded as an important
source of knowledge resources to expand the firm’s knowledge base by providing complementary
knowledge (Malacina and Teplov 2022). It helps firms predict and find creative ways to solve pro-
blems and develop effective new processes (Yang, Jia, and Xu 2018). These are the key factors that
enhance the speed and quality of new products or services, and help firms gain a better reputation
and awareness in the industry. Therefore, the level of innovation in the supply chain in developing
new products or services becomes a powerful competitive weapon for firms in the market (Jao-
Hong, Mu-Chung, and Huang 2014) and determines the extent of the innovation "assistance"
that firms receive. Accordingly, having a supply chain that can frequently launch a high-quality pro-
duct or service with a good reputation and visibility in that area is the key to firm success. Firms
need a successful supply chain with higher innovation performance to meet changing customer
needs and to be competitive in the innovation of new products or services (Jao-Hong, Mu-
Chung, and Huang 2014; Chong et al. 2013).
However, the predominant perspective toward innovation performance remained on a single-
organisation level, which focused on the firm’s performance in innovation (Jajja et al. 2017;

CONTACT Qingyun Yang [email protected] Xi ’an, Shaanxi Province, China

© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1820 Q. YANG ET AL.

Mazzola, Bruccoleri, and Perrone 2015; Liu, Fan, and Shao 2021). Although there are scholars like
Jao-Hong, Mu-Chung, and Huang (2014) who study the improvement mechanism of inter-organ-
isational innovation performance as a critical aspect of improving supply chain innovation per-
formance, there are also scholars like Goffnett and Goswami (2016) who consider supply chain
innovation performance as a research mediator to demonstrate its improvement effect indirectly.
However, few studies have focused directly on this topic. The proactive strategies to jointly achieve
innovation performance by interacting with a core supply chain partner are not prevalent in the
practice of firms (Jao-Hong, Mu-Chung, and Huang 2014; Jajja et al. 2017). The inability/unwill-
ingness of supply chain partners to share relevant information has been viewed as the primary
barrier to the lack of shared responsibility in meeting changing customer needs (Thomas 2009;
Willis, Genchev, and Chen 2016). Many managers are struggling with where to focus the available
resources to develop state-of-the-art, innovative supply chains with high levels of innovation. The
apparent gap between the perceived importance of developing innovative supply chains and poor
implementation calls for further research from academics and practitioners.
An organisation’s ability to accumulate knowledge from its external environment (including
customers, suppliers, and other core supply chain members) and to better predict and respond
to changing market innovation needs and requirements has become an important research
theme (Willis, Genchev, and Chen 2016; Jean, Kim, and Bello 2017; Yang, Jia, and Xu 2018). In
the supply chain management practice, IBM emphasised the influence of the learning ability of
supply chains by introducing the ‘Smarter Supply Chain of the Future’ concept (Butner 2010). In
academia, scholars also highlighted the important role of supply chain learning (Massimo, De
Toni, and Nonino 2012; Bessant, Kaplinsky, and Lamming 2003; Zhu, Krikke, and Caniels
2018). Firms operate in a value stream that involves many firms in supply chains, and the competi-
tive performance of the value stream depends on the whole supply chain learning and development
(Willis, Genchev, and Chen 2016; Haq 2020). Therefore, supply chain learning may be a critical
driver of supply chain innovation performance. Previous studies have shown that supply chain
learning is a desirable extension of inter-organisational learning, which can broaden the knowledge
base of supply chain members, and provide fresh insights for innovation (Zhu, Krikke, and Caniels
2018; Mohr and Sengupta 2002; Wang and Hu 2020), and improve supply chain innovation per-
formance (Bessant, Kaplinsky, and Lamming 2003; Flint, Larsson, and Gammelgaard 2008). How-
ever, some studies propose that supply chain learning will lead to unintended and undesirable
knowledge transfer, interfering with firms’ innovation decisions and eroding competitive advantage
(Zhu, Krikke, and Caniels 2018; Van Wijk, Jansen, and Lyles 2008). This lack of consistency may be
due to the unexplored mechanisms by which supply chain learning works. However, there is limited
empirical evidence exploring how supply chain learning influences supply chain partner learning
and subsequently contributes to supply chain innovation performance. So, further research is
urgently needed.
The Strategy-structure-capability-performance (SSCP) framework proposed by Chen, Daugh-
erty, and Landry (2009) provided us inspiration for fresh exploration. In this framework, the
resource-based view (RBV) of the firm and the strategy-structure-capability-performance (SSCP)
framework are combined. It emphasises that performance can only be achieved when matching
strategy and structure leads to forming capabilities (Dai, Cantor, and Montabon 2017). Numerous
scholars have cited this framework when exploring how corporate strategy affects performance
(Dai, Cantor, and Montabon 2017; Chen, Daugherty, and Landry 2009; Galunic and Eisenhardt
1994; Li et al. 2020) and have interpreted the content of structure and capability differently for
different research contexts. These researchers show us the applicability of the SSCP framework
in addressing such issues. And in their research, the strategy and structure are mutually comp-
lementary and constraining, providing complete insight into the mechanisms by which strategy
affects performance. In this paper, we cited this framework for providing new theoretical and
empirical insights into the mechanisms through which supply chain learning affects supply chain
innovation performance. Applying the SSCP framework in a supply chain innovation management
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1821

context, we examine how supply chain learning as a proactive strategy of the firm influences supply
chain innovation performance through social capital firm-supply chain partner and dynamic supply
chain capability. We believe that social capital in firm-supply chain partner and dynamic supply
chain capability can better reveal how supply chain learning affects supply chain innovation per-
formance. This study helps understand what firms can do to improve the innovation performance
of the supply chains in which they operate and enriches the relevant literature on supply chain inno-
vation management.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section two presents the relative concepts and theor-
etical framework of this research and then derives our theoretical model and formulates hypotheses
based on the relevant literature. In Section three, we describe the methodology used for empirical test-
ing. In section four, we conclude our study. We discuss our findings and describe our theoretical con-
tributions, managerial implications, and future research directions in section five.

2. Theoretical framework and research hypothesis

2.1. Supply chain learning
Learning is defined as the process of improving action through better knowledge and understand-
ing (Fiol and Lyles 1985; Ojha et al. 2018). Learning not only allows firms to develop core compe-
tencies and better control operational processes but also helps them absorb new knowledge and
then maintain a broader knowledge base (Fiol and Lyles 1985; Willis, Genchev, and Chen 2016).
At the organisational level, organisational learning is the process of acquiring, disseminating, inter-
preting, utilising, and storing information within an organisation to generate new knowledge or
insights that impact organisational strategy (Mohr and Sengupta 2002). Flint, Larsson, and Gam-
melgaard (2008) extended the concept of learning to inter-organisational learning, arguing that
learning is not limited to within the firm but should occur and be coordinated between different
supply chain members (Haq 2020). This type of practice is called supply chain learning (Bessant,
Kaplinsky, and Lamming 2003; Manuj, Omar and Yazdanparast 2013; Zhu, Krikke, and Caniels
2018). The company will take into account the overall situation and its learning while encouraging
supply chain partners to learn together. Supply chain learning is defined as the process of ensuring
one’s own firms, suppliers, and customers are actively managing the learning process aimed at
supply chain management issues (Flint, Larsson, and Gammelgaard 2008). We refined this concept
to supply chain innovation learning and considered it a process of ensuring one’s own firms as well
as supply chain partners actively manage the learning process aimed at supply chain innovation
issues.
Supply chain learning is a strategy of the firm (Yang 2016). It is related to a series of actions based
on driving the learning of supply chain partners. Spekman, Spear, and Kamauff (2002) summarised
six-core preconditions that drive supply chain learning: trust, communication, the type of relation-
ship, decision-making style, culture, and win-win orientation. This result is further confirmed by
Sambasivan, Loke, and Abidin-Mohamed (2009). Ojha, Shockley, and Acharya (2016) emphasised
the importance of developing trust to drive supply chain learning. Trust may act as a lubricant for
relationships (Ireland and Webb 2007), encouraging supply chain members to transfer knowledge,
engage in joint learning, collaborate, and share revenue (Ojha, Shockley, and Acharya 2016). Flint,
Larsson, and Gammelgaard (2008), on the other hand, they emphasised the importance of com-
munication and stated that the more cross-organisational discussions about customers (the degree
to which organisations engage in cross-functional dialogue about customer value insights) are, the
more effective a firm’s supply chain learning management efforts will be. High-quality communi-
cation is based on a broad pattern of inter-firm linkages (Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011; Yang,
Jia, and Xu 2018). Lambrechts et al. (2012) found that learning occurs in a range of social inter-
actions, leading facilitator actor orientations, competencies, and behaviour play a significant role
in enhancing the relationships between SC actors, thereby shaping in-depth joint learning. In
1822 Q. YANG ET AL.

summary, establishing relationship resources between supply chain partners is the core of driving
supply chain learning.

2.2. Social capital in firm-supply chain partner

Social capital is defined as a valuable asset that arises from resources acquired through social
relationships (Granovetter 1992; Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011), and it captures the dimensions
of the relational environment with which firms co-create value and exchange resources (Nahapiet
and Ghoshal 1998; Jääskeläinen, Schiele, and Aarikka-Stenroos 2020). Social capital can be regarded
as goodwill rooted in social relationships, which can be accessed by both individuals and businesses
(Alghababsheh and Gallear 2020). It promotes interaction and operation between actors and
increases efficiency (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Ozgun et al. 2022). The difficulty of emulating
social relationships will increase the ability of social capital to promote competitive advantage
(Edelman et al. 2004). Research shows that social capital can be used to analyze firm-supply
chain partner relationships, including complex social processes such as communication, infor-
mation exchange, joint problem-solving, and building interdependent relationships.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) synthesised social capital in terms of cognitive, relational, and
structural. Among them, the structural dimension refers to the objective formation of links and
the existence of interactions in the social structure (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Verónica, Revilla,
and Choi 2011; Jääskeläinen, Schiele, and Aarikka-Stenroos 2020). It comprehensively measures the
density of interactions and the number of linkages between firms and supply chain partners that
facilitates the exchange of resources (Jääskeläinen, Schiele, and Aarikka-Stenroos 2020). The rela-
tional dimension refers to the trust, friendship, respect, and reciprocity developed by the partici-
pants during their interaction history and is an essential indication of the strength of the
relationship (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011; Jääskeläinen, Schiele,
and Aarikka-Stenroos 2020). This dimension focuses on the emotional support between the firm
and the supply chain partner. High-strength relational capital indicates that the firm and supply
chain partner feel good about each other. It will act as the ‘glue’ of the relationship to provide
the foundation for the flow of core resources (Setini et al. 2021). Relational capital transforms a
firm self-centered partner into members of a relationship with a sense of common interest and
craft (Portes 1998; Jean, Kim, and Bello 2017). The cognitive dimension represents participants’
shared meaning and understanding (Andrew 2005; Zhang et al. 2019). It provides a shared vision
with a shared culture and consistent goals through which the parties can better understand the
norms of behaviour and common goals in the relationship (Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011;
Alghababsheh and Gallear 2021).

2.3. Dynamic supply chain capability

Dynamic capability is the ability of a firm to purposefully integrate, construct and reconfigure
internal and external resources (Teece 1997). It describes the ability of a firm to modify its unique
and co-specialised resources to respond to a changing environment (Augier and Teece 2009). It
manifests in the firm through knowledge creation and dissemination, continuous modification of
organisational processes (Easterby-Smith, Lyles, and Peteraf 2009), the transformation of business
processes, reorganisation of resources, and operations, etc (Teece 2007).
But in fact, firms do not compete with each other but rather their end-to-end supply chains fight
for a competitive position in the market (Christopher and Towill 2000; Li et al. 2020). Scholars have
begun to challenge the conceptualisation that dynamic capabilities are bounded by the firm,
expanding our understanding beyond firm boundaries and acknowledging the existence of dynamic
supply chain capabilities (Swafford, Ghosh, and Murthy 2006; Eckstein et al. 2015; Dubey et al.
2018; Aslam et al. 2018). Dynamic supply chain capability acts on the supply chain level, emphasis-
ing member firms’ consistency and representing their ability to integrate or reconstruct knowledge
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1823

resources within and outside the supply chain to ensure responsiveness to customer needs (Jao-
Hong, Mu-Chung, and Huang 2014; Swafford, Ghosh, and Murthy 2006). As a collaborative capa-
bility, it facilitates interaction and is closely related to accessing, processing, and utilising knowledge
resources embedded in the relational tie of supply chain members, allowing them to sense and seize
opportunities (Aslam, Blome, and Roscoe 2020; Swafford, Ghosh, and Murthy 2006), ensuring
flexible supply chain response (Gligor and Holcomb 2014). This capability also allows supply
chain members to continuously modify their own and even inter-firm existing processes to
adapt to each other and then respond flexibly to changes (Jao-Hong, Mu-Chung, and Huang
2014). A dynamic supply chain capability not only helps improve a firm’s innovation endowment
but also emphasises the joint progress of the firm and its supply chain partner (Jao-Hong, Mu-
Chung, and Huang 2014). It creates such an environment that firms and supply chain partners
interrelate innovation projects and benefit from innovation learning.

2.4. Theoretical framework

The Strategy-Structure-Performance theoretical framework was first widely used in the field of stra-
tegic management (Ellinger 2015). Strategic management scholars have realised that strategy is the
core action plan of a firm and the key factor that drives the development of organisational structures
and processes (Dai, Cantor, and Montabon 2017; Galunic and Eisenhardt 1994; Chow, Heaver, and
Henriksson 1995). The structure is regarded as the firm’s resource allocation, providing the necess-
ary system and process for successfully implementing the strategy. The matched strategy and struc-
ture will lead to better performance. As competition gradually shifts from the enterprise level to the
supply chain level, supply chain managers have applied this framework to the supply chain context
(Chen, Daugherty, and Landry 2009; Dai, Cantor, and Montabon 2017; Li et al. 2020). Researchers
have suggested that the success of the supply chain depends on whether the firm can find and confi-
gure the appropriate supply chain structure to match the strategy (Chen, Daugherty, and Landry
2009; Li et al. 2020). Based on theoretical studies of supply chain learning, we proposed that in
the context of supply chain innovation management, the social capital in firm-supply chain partner
(related to a shared vision, trusting relations, and social ties) (Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011), is
an essential element that matches supply chain learning, and can serve as a structure.
We understand the matching of strategy and structure as the degree of consistency between
supply chain learning and supply chain structure. The structure is considered a response to the
firm’s resource allocation to supply chain learning (Habib and Victor 1991) to help them facilitate
the knowledge resource transfer with supply chain partners. Supply chain learning provides positive
priorities for firms. Firms prioritise supply chain innovation issues which makes them go beyond
self-interested learning behaviours and promote supply chain partner learning as a behavioural
focus (Willis, Genchev, and Chen 2016). Developing relationship resources with supply chain part-
ners is an essential element of this behaviour. Firm-supply chain partner relationship is a valuable
resource for facilitating collective action among participants (Ozgun et al. 2022; Ellis, Henke, and
Kull 2012). This guides the resource allocation of the firm. A good firm-supply chain partner
relationship is the inevitable result of the process, which composites the supply chain structure.
Kim, Choi, and Skilton (2015) state that the ideal relationship between a firm and its partners
contains two levels: relational and structural. They argue that while the quality of the relationship
is essential, the intensity, quantity, and organisation of interactions between the firm and suppliers
also affect the behaviour of both parties. Among them, the relational level represents the extent to
which both parties consider each other’s needs and goals, and their behaviours, such as trust (Jones,
Hesterly, and Borgatti 1997; Kim, Choi, and Skilton 2015). The relational dimension determines the
quality of information shared and the provision of emotional support in the relationship (Uzzi
1996). The structural level represents actors’ frequency and the number of interactions in direct
exchange relationships (Simsek, Lubatkin, and Floyd 2003; Swierczek 2019). The structural dimen-
sion determines the firms’ communication pattern and efficiency (Sobrero and Roberts 2001;
1824 Q. YANG ET AL.

Alghababsheh and Gallear 2020). In fact, social capital also measures the state of inter-firm relation-
ships (Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011; Alghababsheh and Gallear 2020), helping to explain and
theorise the characteristics and nature of ties and cooperation in the relationship. Similar to
(Kim, Choi, and Skilton 2015), some studies synthesise social capital in three dimensions: cognitive,
relational, and structural (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998; Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011; Zhang
et al. 2019). The structural dimension includes the way actors are connected and determines the
intensity of interaction between firms. The difference is that these studies isolate two dimensions
from the relational level: cognitive capital and relational capital. They argue that cognitive capital
reflects the extent to which both parties to a relationship recognise each other’s needs and goals.
This represents one aspect of the relational level in Kim, Choi, and Skilton (2015) study, while rela-
tional capital represents another. Thus, social capital in firm-supply chain partner provides a clear
and complete portrayal of the set of relationships between the firm and its supply chain partners
(Tsai 2001), showing the supply chain structure.
Social capital in firm-supply chain partner is the sum of the actual or potential resources in and
derived from the firm-supply chain partner relationship (Alghababsheh and Gallear 2020) that cre-
ates value for them. With the accumulated goodwill between firms and supply chain partners, social
capital in firm-supply chain partner explains and predicts many vital behaviours and outcomes in
their relationship (Alghababsheh and Gallear 2020; Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011). It demon-
strates a good state of the relationship between the two parties and provides a good platform for
two-way transfer, reorganisation, and transformation of knowledge (Tsai 2001). Firms build social
capital with their supply chain partners, allowing them to access and leverage the knowledge
resources within their relationship (Jean, Kim, and Bello 2017).
But in fact, resources may not provide value on their own or have low barriers to replication
when they create value independently and only increase in value when they are integrated and
then used to develop capabilities (Fang et al. 2006; Dai, Cantor, and Montabon 2017). Chen, Daugh-
erty, and Landry (2009), in the context of the supply chain, explored how a firm’s strategic priorities
affect its market and financial performance and found that the matching of strategy and structure is
only the baseline requirement for performance. The firms can only improve performance when the
matched strategy and structure lead to the development of capabilities. Therefore, the strategy-
structure-capability-performance research framework was introduced. We endorsed and followed
this perspective, based on the SSCP framework, to explore some supply chain capability that drives
maximum value from the social capital of the firm and supply chain partners (matched with the
supply chain learning strategy). There is no doubt that supply chain capability supports the efficient
and effective integrated use of knowledge resources. In this process, the dark side of the social capi-
tal in firm-supply chain partner draws our attention. Past research has also shown that balancing
and overcoming the negative effects of relational resources can contribute to better innovation per-
formance (Schiele and Vos 2015; Ellis, Henke, and Kull 2012).
The firm-supply chain partner relationship shows the gradual integration of a firm and supply
chain partners, meaning that the firm and supply chain partners learn together (Sukoco et al. 2018)
to enhance the competitive advantage of supply chain innovation (Jean, Kim, and Bello 2017; Ver-
ónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011). But we cannot ignore the dark side of the relationship and need to
consider further the possible negative effects of social capital (Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011).
Firms invest a lot of resources in building social capital with supply chain partners, and the dark
side of social capital in firm-supply chain partner has important management implications
(Autry and Griffis 2008; Spekman, Spear, and Kamauff 2002; Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011).
First, hard-won social capital may lead to a loss of objectivity (Locke et al. 1999) and opportunistic
behaviour (Granovetter 1985), inhibiting flexibility in decision-making (Gargiulo and Benassi
1999). Second, the routine and mental models that emerge from high-level social capital can lead
to rigidities that hinder creativity in firm-supply chain partner relationship (Autry and Griffis
2008; Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011). As a result, collective blindness in all forms is generated.
Finally, the great extent of social capital causes the incremental value of additional knowledge to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1825

Figure 1. Theoretical framework.

decrease, and the knowledge exchanged may become redundant. Exceeding the knowledge proces-
sing capabilities of the firm and supply chain partners will cause stress, hinder the identification of
critical knowledge, and then reduce the effectiveness of decision-making (Grover, Lim, and Ayya-
gari 2006). Thus, blindly building high-extent social capital with supply chain partners can lead to
the waste of resources, while indiscriminate promotion of social capital may inherently be detri-
mental to supply chain innovation performance. We need to consider some kind of supply chain
capability that can simultaneously balance and overcome such problems.
The dynamic supply chain capability proposed by Aslam et al. (2018) best portrays the supply
chain capability view, which is formed by matching supply chain learning and social capital in
firm-supply chain partner. It becomes the key capability to support the efficient and effective use
of knowledge resources while balancing or overcoming the above disadvantages. On the one
hand, dynamic supply chain capability supports the firm and supply chain partner to explore, ident-
ify and communicate with new knowledge (internal knowledge and external knowledge), as well as
to be efficiently and effectively transformed and utilised to ensure the generation of new knowledge
and the effectiveness of decision making. On the other hand, dynamic supply chain capability
enables the firm and supply chain partners to achieve a win-win situation in innovation learning,
effectively balances opportunistic risks, conflicts, and other relationship drawbacks, and enhances
the objectivity of decision-making. The dynamic nature of the dynamic supply chain capability also
creates conditions for the flexible flow of knowledge resources between the firm and supply chain
partners and promotes the flexibility of innovation decisions.
In summary, based on the research framework of SSCP, it is suggested that supply chain learning
leads to improved supply chain innovation performance when it is matched with social capital in
the firm-supply chain partner and then leads to dynamic supply chain capability. The framework of
the proposed model is shown in Figure 1.

2.5. Supply chain learning and social capital in firm-supply chain partner
Supply chain learning is the key to accumulating social capital in firm-supply chain partner. Firms
that establish supply chain learning strategies have a strong intent to learn and the spirit of revolution,
actively check their connections with supply chain partners (Chen, Daugherty, and Landry 2009), and
are also willing to allocate resources to establish learning and communication platforms with supply
chain partners (Johnson and Sohi 2003). Firms develop communication channels with supply chain
partners through learning behaviours such as holding seminars, social events, and business visits to
facilitate the knowledge resources flow and then create conditions for extensive and deep joint learn-
ing (Onofrei et al. 2020; Zhu, Krikke, and Caniels 2018). Satisfaction with the learning benefits will
stimulate a broader motivation for interaction and promote two-way learning inputs between the
firm and supply chain partners, laying the foundation for expanding the connections.
1826 Q. YANG ET AL.

Relational capital refers to the ‘goodwill’ between firms and arises from repeated historical inter-
actions (Alghababsheh and Gallear 2020). Firms that establish supply chain learning strategies tend
to cultivate deep relationships with their supply chain partners (Santos-Vijande et al. 2005). On the
one hand, firms with high levels of supply chain learning will actively question their organisational
processes and change them to improve external learning results (Ellinger 2015; Aslam et al. 2018).
Improving relationships with supply chain partners to create a mutually valued learning atmos-
phere is vital to supply chain learning practices, such as knowledge transfer, learning assistance,
and collaborative learning (Yuan et al. 2018). At the same time, supply chain learning behaviour
will promote collaboration between firms (Yuan et al. 2018), enabling the firm and supply chain
partners to participate together and share resources such as knowledge, technical information,
and equipment in collaboration. It is conducive to developing mutual support and trust (Yuan
et al. 2018) and then accumulating relationship capital.
Cognitive capital provides a shared vision among firms that embodies their goals and ambitions
(Verónica, Revilla, and Choi 2011). Firms that establish supply chain learning strategies are willing
to communicate ideas and evaluate multiple options to facilitate efficient external interactions
(Yuan et al. 2018). Based on interactions, firms assess the value of supply chain partner resources,
identify learning opportunities and then select partners willing and able to learn with the firm.
These partners are characterised by complementary knowledge, similar culture, and development
philosophy with the firm (Pulles and Veldman 2016), laying the foundation for developing a shared
language, code, and system of meanings among them. At the same time, firms intending to supply
chain learning can interact effectively with supply chain partners to promote collaboration and
positive conflict resolution (Yuan et al. 2018). These help to develop and optimise inter-firm col-
laboration norms and routines, increase common understanding, and thus enhance the cognitive
capital in firm-supply chain partners. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis.
H1a: Supply chain learning is positively associated with structure capital in firm-supply chain partners.

H1b: Supply chain learning is positively associated with relational capital in firm-supply chain partners.

H1c: Supply chain learning is positively associated with cognitive capital in firm-supply chain partners.

2.6. Social capital in firm-supply chain partner and dynamic supply chain capability
Social capital in firm-supply chain partner is rooted in social relationships that foster collective action,
providing a more dynamic resource for acquiring new capabilities (Sukoco et al. 2018). The structure
capital in firm-supply chain partner is their relationship bond and communication bridge, providing a
platform for interaction (Zhang et al. 2019). Interaction improves knowledge resource visibility and
facilitates visits, integration, and utilisation of knowledge resources between the firm and supply chain
partners. And frequent and efficient interactions support real-time communication between the firm
and supply chain partners on the insights results of the external products, market demand, experience,
and other information to ensure efficient knowledge utilisation and then improve dynamic supply
chain capability (Zhang et al. 2019). Knowledge resource interactions will also stimulate the gener-
ation of new knowledge, abilities, processes, etc. between the firm and supply chain partners, improv-
ing relationship satisfaction (Inemek and Matthyssens 2013), facilitating them to continually broaden
the scope of knowledge interactions, assist each other, and even adjust to adapt each other to create
higher value and then improve dynamic supply chain capability.
Relational capital in firm-supply chain partner creates mutual trust, respect and a friendly
relationship atmosphere (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998), which can effectively balance knowledge
power and inhibit opportunistic behaviour, thereby reducing risk, and potential conflict (Onofrei
et al. 2020). In this context, the deeper knowledge sharing will improve the learning effectiveness
of the firm and supply chain partners, facilitating them to progress together in a joint value-creating
manner and then improving dynamic supply chain capability. At the same time, relational capital
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1827

stimulates a strong sense of belonging between the firm and supply chain partners (Cappiello, Gior-
dani, and Visentin 2020), causing both parties to proactively lower their knowledge resource bar-
riers and make specific investments and adjustments to meet each other’s innovation requirements.
This helps the firm and supply chain partners improve simultaneously while expanding their inno-
vation capabilities.
Cognitive capital in firm-supply chain partner supports mutual learning, sensing, filtering, and
calibration to capture new opportunities (Teece 2007). Cognitive capital demonstrates the degree of
common understanding between the firm and supply chain partners (Alghababsheh and Gallear
2020). These help the firm and supply chain partners to more thoroughly and accurately understand
each other’s unique needs in innovation, thus reducing knowledge resource transfer errors, pro-
moting the integrated use of knowledge resources to obtain new knowledge, new products, and
new capabilities, etc., and then enhancing dynamic supply chain capability. Cognitive capital will
also facilitate knowledge integration, enabling the firm and supply chain partners to quickly deduce
future issues from the successes and failures of existing collaborations, reach common insights on
response decisions, and then develop unified operational plans (Onofrei et al. 2020), such as develop
standardised processes to use each other’s knowledge, or lick each other’s innovation activities to
respond to changes in the external environment. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis.
H2a: Structure capital in firm-supply chain partner is positively associated with dynamic supply chain
capability.

H2b: Relational capital in firm-supply chain partner is positively associated with dynamic supply chain
capability.

H2c: Cognitive capital in firm-supply chain partner is positively associated with dynamic supply chain
capability.

2.7. Dynamic supply chain capability and supply chain innovation performance
Innovation can be broadly understood as the implementation of new ideas to enhance the value
creation of an organisation, expressed through product, service, or process enhancements (Schmel-
zle 2017). Scholars have studied how to improve organisational innovation performance (Liu, Fan,
and Shao 2021; Wang and Hu 2020), inter-organisational innovation performance (Jao-Hong, Mu-
Chung, and Huang 2014; Jajja et al. 2017), and supply chain innovation performance (Goffnett and
Goswami 2016), respectively, involving the measurement of product, service, or process innovation
performance. We define supply chain innovation performance as a reputed culmination that
reflects the recognised output and magnitude of product and service innovations in the supply
chain (Brettel and Cleven 2011; David, Gove, and Hitt 2008; Goffnett and Goswami 2016). Supply
chains with good performance in innovation are likely to have a reputable track record of inno-
vation output and collectively productive in introducing new products, services, processes, or sys-
tems (Goffnett and Goswami 2016). This collective productivity is the key to accelerating product or
service development and helping firms build a good reputation.
Dynamic supply chain capability is the key to improving supply chain innovation performance.
Dynamic supply chain capability supports the firm and supply chain partners to sense and seize
opportunities by changing supply chain design and infrastructure to ensure the response to antici-
pated market changes (Aslam et al. 2018). This helps launch more products with novel functions to
improve market share and then improve the innovation performance of the supply chain (Aslam
et al. 2018). Supply chains with good dynamic capabilities, whose members also can quickly and
accurately respond to customer demand in terms of new products, services, or functions, reducing
the cost of demand uncertainty and then improving supply chain innovation performance
(Swafford, Ghosh, and Murthy 2008).
H3:Dynamic supply chain capability is positively associated with supply chain innovation performance.
1828 Q. YANG ET AL.

3. Research method
3.1. Sample selection
To test the conceptual model, a structured questionnaire was used to collect primary data on the
Chinese machinery manufacturing industry. There are many reasons why we chose the Chinese
machinery manufacturing industry. First, China is in the era of independent innovation, which
emphasises the creation of novel and high-value-added products, providing a good background
for our investigation (Liu et al. 2017; Liefner and Losacker 2020). Second, the idea of driving inno-
vation by technology and user needs consists with the concept of independent innovation in Chi-
nese machinery manufacturing industry (Zang et al. 2014; Liefner and Losacker 2020). Finally,
outsourcing has become a common form of innovation in the industry due to the high innovation
complexity and product functionality requirements. As an essential source of innovation assistance
for this type of firm, supply chain partners share the prosperity with the firm. Therefore, strategies
and behaviours related to enhancing the competitive advantage of supply chain innovation are fre-
quently generated. Diversified market demand and competition within the industry also put high
demands on the innovation speed of Chinese machinery manufacturing firms. However, the
improvement of core competencies does not well sustainably shorten the new product innovation
cycle. The effort to promote supply chain partner innovation to ensure their own competitiveness
has also become the firm’s focus.

3.2. Survey instrument

To ensure the accuracy of the questionnaire, a strict procedure was followed to develop the scale.
First, we drew on mature constructs applied in the literature based on extensive literature reading.
Second, we use the back-translation method. We translated the initial English constructs into Chi-
nese and then invited native English bilinguals to retranslate the Chinese constructs we got in the
previous step into English to compare with the initial constructs and correct the inconsistent parts.
We formed the initial scale after several revisions to ensure that possible measurement errors due to
cultural and understanding differences were eliminated. Finally, before the large-scale survey, we
held face-to-face discussions with managers of 20 firms to modify ambiguous statements in the
questionnaire to ensure that the questionnaire’s content reflected the firm’s reality and was accu-
rately understood by the respondents. The constructs of supply chain learning, social capital in
firm-supply chain partner (structure capital, relational capital, and cognitive capital), dynamic
supply chain capability, and supply chain innovation performance are mainly obtained from
prior research (Appendix A). All items were scored using a five-point Likert scale when 1 corre-
sponded to "strongly disagree" and 5 to "strongly agree". The four constructs were as follows:
Supply chain learning: Willis, Genchev, and Chen (2016) offered a complete view on the supply
chain learning measurement item, which describes the supply chain learning from the firm’s inten-
tion to promote the learning both themselves and supply chain partners. However, the scale lacks
relevant descriptions to measure the firm’s emphasis on supply chain partner learning. Based on the
research context, we draw on the description of the firm innovation strategy proposed by Jajja et al.
(2017) to adjust the description of supply chain learning. Finally, after contrasting the items with
the actual situation of firms, six items were retained to reflect supply chain learning.
Dynamic supply chain capability: This construct is based on the connotation of the capability
possessed by the firm and supply chain partners to capture, integrate and reconstruct knowledge
resources from the internal and external supply chain. The nine measurement items adapted by
Jao-Hong, Mu-Chung, and Huang (2014) fit the context of our research, accurately interpret this
construct, and have high explanatory power.
Social capital in firm-supply chain partner: Drawing on Zhang et al. (2019) for the structural
capital measurement items, Zhang et al. (2019) for the relational capital and cognitive capital
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1829

measurement items, respectively. Among them, the structural capital items adopted by Zhang et al.
(2019) are consistent with this study context and more accurately reflect the link state. Considering
our research context, we identified four items to reflect this construct. The relational capital and
cognitive capital items adapted by Verónica, Revilla, and Choi (2011) are consistent with this
study. Relationship capital focuses on the intensity of the relationship between the firm and the
supply chain partner, asking respondents to perceive the level of trust, friendship, respect, and reci-
procity that the firm has developed with the supply chain partner. Cognitive capital asks respon-
dents to perceive the extent to which the firm and supply chain partner understand each other
in terms of innovation philosophy, innovation goals, and business development. Considering our
research context, we respectively identified four items for relational capital and cognitive capital,
which accurately reflect these two constructs.
Supply chain innovation performance: This variable is designed to measure the innovation out-
comes of the supply chain from a macro perspective, such as the rate and volume of new product
launches. In conducting the research, we invited respondents to perceive the reputation, volume,
speed, and visibility of their firm’s supply chain in introducing new products or services. Goffnett
and Goswami (2016) measurement of supply chain innovation performance fitted our view and was
eventually adopted. Based on the study context, we made appropriate adjustments to the wording of
the question items. Finally, we identified three-question items that more accurately reflect the
characterisation of this variable.
Control variables: The relationship length between the firm and supply chain partners will affect
the efficiency of knowledge resource integration and utilisation. Thus, we selected relationship length
as a control variable and measured the difference in years from the year the relationship was estab-
lished between the firm and supply chain partner to 2020 (Sukoco et al. 2018). Geographic distance
may impact innovation in different ways (e.g. more difficult face-to-face communication and slower
rates of resource interaction). Therefore, we also chose geographical distance as the control variable
and used the natural logarithm of the linear distance between the geographic locations of the firm-
supply chain partners as the measure (Schiele 2006; Pulles, Veldman, and Schiele 2014).

3.3. Data collection

Based on the information on manufacturing firms provided by the 2020 China Top 500 Manufac-
turing Companies List and the China Manufacturing Directory, a random sample of 500 machinery
manufacturing firms distributed in Xi’an, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and so on of China was
selected to generate the initial list of respondents. Their products involve automobiles, ships,
machine tools, instruments, various power machines, etc. We distributed formal questionnaires
by telephone interviews, combined with a field survey, sending Email and post-paper question-
naires, which also included an introduction letter for this research.
A two-step process was designed to ensure that respondents understood the survey topic. First,
respondents are required to have a good grasp of firm strategy, supply chain management situation,
and relevant expertise. Second, contact the managers of the firm’s purchasing management, market-
ing department, or their immediate higher-level managers and determine if they are willing to be
surveyed. Finally, the questionnaire includes a question about the length of time the respondent has
worked in the firm to ensure they know well about the actual situation of the firm.
The survey lasted from January 2021 to May 2021, and from July 2021 to November 2021, 500
questionnaires were distributed, and 375 were returned, excluding invalid questionnaires due to
incomplete information and similarities; 303 were validly returned. The effective response rate
was 60.60%. The main characteristics of the sample firms are shown in Table 1. Among these
sample firms, 14.2% were established less than 5 years ago, 34.6% were established between 5
and 10 years ago, 30.2% were established between 11 and 15 years ago, and 21.0% were established
more than 15 years ago. Among the sample firms, 21.2% belong to equipment manufacturing,
26.3% belong to the automobile manufacturing industry, 25.4% belong to the instrumentation
1830 Q. YANG ET AL.

Table 1. Characteristic of sample firms.

Sample characteristic Category Number Percent
Firm age Less than 5 year 43 14.2%
5–10 year 105 34.6%
11–15 year 92 30.2%
More than 15 year 63 21.0%
Industry Equipment manufacturing 65 21.2%
Automobile manufacturing 80 26.3%
Instrumentation manufacturing 77 25.4%
Ship manufacturing 75 24.6%
Other 6 2.5%
Firm location Northeast China 59 19.5%
Southeast China 92 30.5%
Central China 72 23.7%
Western China 80 26.3%

manufacturing industry, 24.6% belong to the ship manufacturing industry, and 6% belong to others.
Regarding firms’ location, the northeast region accounts for 19.5%, the southeast region accounts
for 30.5%, the central region accounts for 23.7%, and the western region accounts for 26.3%. The
sample distribution is relatively even.

4. Analysis finding
4.1. Non-response bias and common method bias
Non-response bias was tested using three firm attributes such as firm age, product type, and
relationship length. A t-test was used to check if there was a difference between the respondent-
s’early 25% and late 25%. It is assumed that the characteristics of respondents are similar to
those of non-respondents (Armstrong and Overton 1977). The results indicated that there were
no significant differences between early and late respondents in terms of firm age (p = 0.926), pro-
duct type (p = 0.343), and relationship length (p = 0.542). Therefore, no response bias was not an
issue in this study.
The possibility of common method bias (CMB) exists because the independent and dependent
variables are from the same respondent. To reduce the likelihood of CMB, all respondents were
managers with extensive experience in supply chain management. We tested CMB using Harmon
single-factor tests and controlling for the effect of an unmeasured latent methods factor. Harmon
single-factor tests showed that the eigenvalues of the six factors were larger than one, and the
explainable variance was 69.759%, of which the main factor explained only 22.586% of the variance
(less than 40%). No single factor explained most constructs (Yu and Huo 2019). When using an
unmeasured latent methods factor, CMB is added as a latent variable in the study model (Kave
2003). If the model’s fit is significantly different from the non-inclusion case when the latent vari-
ables are included (the increase of CFI and TLI exceeds 0.1), there is a severe problem with CMB
(Kave 2003; Williams and McGonagle 2016). When the CMB factor was included, the results
showed no significant difference between the two models in terms of χ 2/df, CFI, TLI, and
RMESA (Table 2). Based on the above two methods, this study has no CMB problem.

4.2. Reliability and validity

The reliability was mainly measured by Cronbach’s α (CA). As shown in Table 3, the CA values of
all constructs were above 0.700, indicating a high level of internal consistency of the scale. Validity
testing is achieved by examining the scale’s discriminant and convergent validity. The combined
reliability of each construct was higher than 0.80 (Table 3), and the average variance extracted
was more than 0.50 (Table 3). Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the AVE for
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1831

Table 2. Controlling for effects of an unmeasured latent methods factor method.

Model χ2 df χ 2/df CFI TLI RMESA
Six factor model 566.546 535 1.306 0.919 0.908 0.022
Six factor model with common method factor 554.224 535 1.036 0.996 0.995 0.018

Table 3. Convergent validity and reliability.

Standardised Composite Average variance
Variables Items loadings Cronbach’sα reliability extract
Supply chain learning (SCL) SCL1 0.859 0.938 0.939 0.721
SCL2 0.823
SCL3 0.802
SCL4 0.879
SCL5 0.846
SCL6 0.881
Structure capital (SC) SC1 0.820 0.910 0.912 0.721
SC2 0.896
SC3 0.855
SC4 0.823
Relational capital (RC) RC1 0.848 0.892 0.897 0.685
RC2 0.820
RC3 0.836
RC4 0.805
Cognitive capital (CC) CC1 0.878 0.910 0.912 0.722
CC2 0.798
CC3 0.869
CC4 0.852
Dynamic supply chain capability DSCC1 0.859 0.956 0.958 0.716
(DSCC) DSCC2 0.859
DSCC3 0.878
DSCC4 0.828
DSCC5 0.824
DSCC6 0.871
DSCC7 0.848
DSCC8 0.795
DSCC9 0.849
Supply chain innovation SCIP1 0.859 0.914 0.890 0.730
performance (SCIP) SCIP2 0.860
SCIP3 0.844

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and discriminant validity.

Construct Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
Supply chain learning 4.170 0.388 0.849
Structure capital 4.280 0.360 0.360** 0.849
Relational capital 4.230 0.461 0.288** 0.228* 0.828
Cognitive capital 4.280 0.432 0.333** 0.385** 0.386** 0.849
Dynamic supply chain capability 4.300 0.312 0.358** 0.376** 0.400** 0.451** 0.846
Supply chain innovation performance 4.270 0.293 0.198* 0271** 0.411** 0.396** 0.389** 0.854
Notes: Diagonal entries (in bold) are the square root of the average variances extracted, entries below the diagonal are corre-
lations; ** p < 0.01.

each construct with the square of the correlation between all possible pairs of constructs (Li et al.
2020). In all cases, the AVE was greater than the square of the correlation between all possible pairs
of constructs (Table 4). Overall, the results support convergence validity and discriminant validity
among the constructs.

4.3. Hypothesis tests

When examining the interactions between variables, the structural equation model provides a more
intuitive and comprehensive picture of the path of influence between variables than multiple
1832 Q. YANG ET AL.

Figure 2. Hypothesised model.

Table 5. Original model test.

Hypothesis Standardised path coefficient p-values Results
SCL→SC 0.598 0.000 H1a Supported
SCL→RC 0.715 0.000 H1b Supported
SCL→CC 0.518 0.000 H1c Supported
SC→DSCC 0.370 0.000 H2a Supported
RC→DSCC 0.323 0.000 H2b Supported
CC→DSCC 0.396 0.000 H2c Supported
DSCC→SCIP 0.470 0.000 H3 Supported
Model fit: χ /df = 1.309, CFI = 0.919, TLI = 0.908, RMESA = 0.056
2

regression analysis. Therefore, we use AMOS 24.0 to test the hypothetical model. The path analysis
results are shown in Figure 2 and Table 5. These seven impact paths, supply chain learning-struc-
ture capital, supply chain learning-relational capital, supply chain learning-cognitive capital, struc-
ture capital-dynamic supply chain capability, relational capital-dynamic supply chain capability,
cognitive capital-dynamic supply chain capability, and dynamic supply chain capability-supply
chain innovation performance all reached the 0.001 significance level. The standardised path coeffi-
cients were 0.598, 0.619, 0.602, 0.370, 0.323, 0.396, and 0.470, respectively. H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a,
H2b, H2c, and H3 were all supported. Relationship length had a significant impact on supply
chain innovation performance. Geographic distance had no significant impact on supply chain
innovation performance. All fit indices of the model met the corresponding criteria (χ 2/df =
1.953, CFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.918, RMESA = 0.062).

4.4. Mediation analysis

We draw the approach that Sobel (1982) adopted to test the importance of indirect effects in this
study. Assessing the significance of indirect effects is consistent with recommendations by several
scholars (Shrout and Bolger 2002; Dai, Cantor, and Montabon 2017). All indirect effects are signifi-
cant at the p = 0.001 level. We further tested the statistical significance of the bootstrapping
approach (n = 5000). Results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Indirect effects test.

Boot 95%CI
Predictor Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
SCL→SC→DSCC→SCIP 0.015 0.011 0.002 0.054
SCL→RC→DSCC→SCIP 0.032 0.022 0.003 0.096
SCL→CC→DSCC→SCIP 0.017 0.012 0.002 0.056
Total 0.064 0.045 0.007 0.206
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1833

Following the SSCP framework, the relationship between supply chain learning and supply chain
innovative performance is mediated by social capital in firm-supply chain partner (structure capital,
relational capital, cognitive capital) and dynamic supply chain capability. All indirect effects are sig-
nificant at p = 0.05 using a 95% confidence interval. Thus, a chained mediation relationship exists in
our model.

4.5. Robustness test

Since the data in this paper are from cross-sectional data, which limits the degree of inference of
causality, we conducted a series of robustness tests to provide reliable evidence for our study. Firstly,
we also include the firm’s research and development expenditures (R&D) as a control variable. Dai,
Cantor, and Montabon (2017) figured out, that firm with greater R&D expenses has the absorptive
capacity to implement innovative and high-quality operational practices. The new analysis results
have no significant difference from our previous conclusion. Following their view, R&D expendi-
tures are measured using the total expenses of the firm in conducting research and development
activities. In addition, we expanded the measurement conditions of the dependent variable. Supply
chain innovation performance is measured primarily based on the supply chain’s performance in
introducing new products and services. Consider that supply chain innovation performance
improves when overall profitability increases, the time required to adapt or enhance products is
reduced, and the speed of production technology or process innovation increases (Song and Mon-
toya-Weiss 2001; Jao-Hong, Mu-Chung, and Huang 2014). We draw on the measurement items
adopted by (Jao-Hong, Mu-Chung, and Huang 2014), which aim to measure inter-organisational
innovation performance. We identify an improved supply chain innovation performance will
also reflect on success in the new product or service development plan (quick introduction of
new products, overall profitability, good reputation, etc.), a reduction in the time required to adjust
or improve products, or an increase in the speed of production technology or process innovation.
Measured using a five-point scale, the test results were consistent with our findings, with no signifi-
cant differences. In summary, the results of the robustness tests are consistent with our main results.

5. Discussion and conclusions

5.1. Main findings
The main purpose of this study is to reveal how firm-driven supply chain learning affects supply chain
innovation performance. To achieve this goal, a strategy-structure-capability-performance framework
was introduced to explore the relationship between supply chain learning and supply chain innovative
performance. The results show that supply chain learning can affect the supply chain capability and
improve supply chain innovation performance by positively influencing the relationship resources
between the firms and supply chain partners. Specifically, first, supply chain learning improves supply
chain innovative performance by promoting the social capital in firm-supply chain partner (structure
capital, relational capital, cognitive capital) and dynamic supply chain capability. The study found that
learning in the supply chain context is associated with higher quality, more frequently launched, and
more market-recognised supply chain innovation products, social capital in firm-supply chain part-
ner, and dynamic supply chain capability acting as chain intermediaries. When a firm acts as a bench-
mark and facilitates supply chain partners to learn together, it will generate a series of relational
resources (social capital in firm-supply chain partner), which is based on knowledge interaction,
such as trust, association patterns, and norms (Ellinger 2015; Yuan et al. 2018; Willis, Genchev,
and Chen 2016). But only when strategy and structure are matched to form capabilities can higher
performance be achieved (Chen, Daugherty, and Landry 2009). Social capital in firm-supply chain
partner represents the sum of relational resources between the business and supply chain partners
(Alghababsheh and Gallear 2020), and its integrated use contributes to the development of dynamic
1834 Q. YANG ET AL.

capability (Golgeci and Kuivalainen 2020). Dynamic supply chain capability effectively balances or
overcomes the negative effects brought about by social capital in firm-supply chain partner, promotes
the effective use of knowledge resources, and provides the impetus to sustainability improve supply
chain innovation performance.
Second, supply chain learning helps accumulate the social capital in firm-supply chain partner
structure capital, relational capital, cognitive capital. Supply chain learning is characterised by
initiative and is associated with a series of supply chain partner-oriented interactions (Yang, Jia,
and Xu 2018; Ellinger 2015). Behaviours such as cooperation, collaborative learning, and building
relationship norms directly lead to the accumulation of social capital in firm-supply chain partner
(Alghababsheh and Gallear 2020).
Third, social capital in firm-supply chain partner (structure capital, relational capital, cognitive
capital) helps establish the dynamic supply chain capability. Research shows that efficient and effec-
tive use of relational resources leads to the development of competence (Jean, Kim, and Bello 2017;
Inemek and Matthyssens 2013; Golgeci and Kuivalainen 2020). Social capital in firm-supply chain
partner creates conditions for co-learning, allowing knowledge to flow more flexibly and seamlessly
(Sukoco et al. 2018) and can be used efficiently to facilitate the formation of dynamic supply chain
capability.
Finally, the dynamic supply chain capability is vital in improving the supply chain innovation
performance. Dynamic supply chain capability that supports flexible sensing, identification, trans-
fer, and transformation of knowledge resources to generate new knowledge, new products, and new
services is key to improving performance. Dynamic supply chain capability enables all supply chain
members to benefit from learning and strengthen their innovation endowment (Jao-Hong, Mu-
Chung, and Huang 2014). And the innovation endowment of supply chain members is directly
related to the quality of their innovation interactions, which is the key to improving the innovation
performance of the supply chain.

5.2. Theoretical contributions

First, while many studies recognise the importance of supply chain learning, only a few have
focused directly on this topic. For example, Bessant et al. (2012) only note that formally configured
organisational groups, such as the supply chain, have increasingly become important learning and
innovation channels. Silvestre (2015) only reveals that the occurrence of supply chain learning relies
on learning loops. Gong et al. (2018) explored how multinational companies coordinate internal
and external resources to achieve knowledge related to multi-layered supply chain learning.
Recently, Silvestre et al. (2020) argued that supply chain learning helps firms to use both develop-
ment and exploration capabilities, which in turn helps to improve supply chain performance.
Throughout these studies, the concept and connotation of supply chain learning have not been
fully interpreted. Therefore, this concept is still immature. Although a few scholars have explored
the connotation of supply chain learning based on the context of inter-organisational learning
(e.g.(Bessant, Kaplinsky, and Lamming 2003; Manuj, Omar and Yazdanparast 2013; Zhu, Krikke,
and Caniels 2018)), and also scholars like Flint, Larsson, and Gammelgaard (2008) have defined
their concepts. Still, these views are not fully applicable to all studies and need to be explored
further.
Existing research has focused on regarding supply chain learning as a strategic resource in the
supply chain (Massimo, De Toni, and Nonino 2012; Ojha et al. 2018) or as a dynamic capability
deeply embedded in the supply chain (Defee and Fugate 2010). Only a few studies consider supply
chain learning as a strategy of the firm but do not highlight the firm’s initiative (Flint, Larsson, and
Gammelgaard 2008; Willis, Genchev, and Chen 2016). This research suggested that supply chain
learning is an initial strategy for the firm and argued that the firm often drives supply chain mem-
bers to learn proactively in their interests is expected to achieve better innovation outcomes. To a
certain extent, this paper expanded on the research on supply chain learning.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1835

Second, although the impact of organisational learning on performance has been proposed and
confirmed by other researchers (e.g. (Spekman, Spear, and Kamauff 2002)), the actual mechanisms
still have not been thoroughly studied and resolved (Flint, Larsson, and Gammelgaard 2008; Willis,
Genchev, and Chen 2016). And previous studies have focused on discussing the positive effects of
supply chain learning on firms’ performance (Chen, Daugherty, and Landry 2009) or on how
supply chain learning influences supply chain performance when it acts as a norm among supply
chain members (Ojha, Shockley, and Acharya 2016). Little attention has been paid to the mechan-
ism of supply chain learning as a strategy affecting supply chain innovation performance. Introdu-
cing social capital in firm-supply chain partner and dynamic supply chain capability into our model
can make us better understand how supply chain learning improves supply chain innovation per-
formance. In addition, this research result will also expand the research on supply chain innovation
management.
Finally, although the reasonableness of the strategy-structure-capability-performance frame-
work has been validated in related literature on supply chain management, it is relatively new
(Dai, Cantor, and Montabon 2017), so that has been rarely applied in the field of supply chain inno-
vation management. Based on the SSCP framework proposed by Chen, Daugherty, and Landry
(2009), and echoed their views that performance can only be improved when strategy and structure
are matched to each other to form capability, this research demonstrated the chain mediating role of
firm-supply chain partner social capital and dynamic supply chain capability between supply chain
learning and supply chain innovation performance. In contrast, most studies viewed the matching
of structure and strategy as an echo of resource allocation method and strategy and tended to reveal
a behaviour (Willis, Genchev, and Chen 2016; Li et al. 2020; Chen, Daugherty, and Landry 2009).
And we have done new thinking that the structure matching with supply chain learning is more
inclined to be a state that focuses on the display of the resources allocation results of firms. It creates
conditions for deeper learning among supply chain members.
Importantly, in considering the capability based on the SSCP framework, we not only ensure that
the capability is appropriate to supply chain learning and social capital in firm-supply chain partner
but also subtly consider the dark side of social capital. We were surprised to find that dynamic
supply chain capability based on knowledge utilisation is not only a reasonable outcome in the con-
text of matching supply chain learning and social capital in firm-supply chain partner, but also a
powerful way to balance or overcome the possible negative effects of social capital of firm-supply
chain partner. On the one hand, we follow part of the research based on the resource-based
view, which holds that inter-firm relationship resources are a vital factor contributing to the for-
mation of unique capabilities (Inemek and Matthyssens 2013; Golgeci and Kuivalainen 2020).
This research examined that an environment conducive to the flow and utilisation of knowledge
resources created by the social capital in firm-supply chain partner is the soil for cultivating the
dynamic capability based on knowledge utilisation. And when echoing the view of Plaza-Úbeda
et al. (2009) that win-win can improve the loyalty of partners to the relationship, this research
found that learning interests gained from dynamic supply chain capability will facilitate win-win
and can improve balance or overcome the possible drawbacks of social capital in firm-supply
chain partner. This is a new way of thinking about the appropriateness of the capability in the
SSCP framework. On the other hand, we adopted the concept of dynamic supply chain capability,
which is regarded as the ability to flexibly integrate and utilise knowledge resources. From the view-
point of dynamic capability, previous studies have focused on the relationship between dynamic
supply chain capability, market perception capability, supply chain agility, and supply chain adap-
tability (Aslam, Blome, and Roscoe 2020; Swafford, Ghosh, and Murthy 2006; Ketchen and Hult
2007; Bharadwaj and Dong 2014; Aslam, Blome, and Roscoe 2020), and portrayed the ability of
supply chain members to sense, capture and integrated utilisation of resources. Based on integrating
relevant viewpoints, we concluded and expanded that dynamic supply chain capability is the ability
of supply chain members to flexibly facilitate the transfer, reorganisation, and transformation of
knowledge resources to perceive and seize new opportunities. A straightforward picture of dynamic
1836 Q. YANG ET AL.

supply chain capability based on the utilisation of knowledge resources is portrayed. These findings
are significant to the related research on dynamic supply chain capabilities.

5.3. Managerial implications

These research conclusions provide guidance to help business managers implement supply chain
innovation management. Firstly, firms should take full advantage of the behavioural guidance
offered by supply chain learning strategies to raise awareness of their learning and actively manage
the learning of their supply chain partners to prove a positive attitude towards supply chain inno-
vation management practices. Secondly, a proactive supply chain learning strategy can directly
drive the development of a firm’s relationship with supply chain partners. Therefore, firms should
focus on establishing relational ties with supply chain partners when holding supply chain learning
behaviours, such as organising seminars, social events, and conducting business visits, which help
create a good platform for integrating the use of knowledge resources. Thirdly, deep relations
between firms and supply chain partners will improve the dynamic supply chain capability.
Dynamic supply chain capability allows for a win-win situation in the integrated use of knowledge
resources, which will go some way to eliminating the possible dark sides of the relational tie and
then improving the sustainable flow and utilisation of knowledge resources. Therefore, firms should
fully motivate their supply chain partners to use their relational ties, such as cooperation and col-
laborative learning, to facilitate the development of dynamic supply chain capability. Finally,
dynamic supply chain capability directly contributes to supply chain innovation performance.
Firms should consider other factors contributing to dynamic supply chain capability, such as
relationship inducements and information sharing.

5.4. Limitations and future research

First, this study focuses on how supply chain learning can improve supply chain innovation per-
formance. We believe that firms that actively implement supply chain learning initiatives can
improve their supply chain innovation performance by building relationships with supply chain
partners and then developing dynamic supply chain capability. Some scholars have also studied
supply chain innovation management in terms of joint learning capability, proactive customer
orientation, and supply management innovativeness (Jean, Kim, and Bello 2017; Lintukangas, Kah-
konen, and Hallikas 2019). In the future, we will further investigate whether there are other possible
pathways and explore other ways to enhance supply chain innovation performance to extend this
study. Second, to empirically test the suggested model, we surveyed 301 mechanical manufacturers
in China. Still, differences exist between China and other developed manufacturing industries, such
as those in Europe, North America, and Japan, in terms of their awareness and practice in supply
chain innovation management. Future studies should discuss whether our conclusions are appli-
cable in other areas. A comparative study in this field between China and the other regions
could also be conducted. Third, the sample data of this study only comes from machinery manu-
facturing firms, which limits the generalisability of the study’s findings. The applicability of the
study’s findings in other industries can be further verified in the future. Finally, we introduced
the strategy-structure-capability-performance framework into supply chain innovation manage-
ment. However, further research is needed to apply the SSCP to solving more issues in supply
chain innovation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1837

Funding
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 71872148].

Data availability statement

The data that support the finding of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References
Alghababsheh, M., and D. Gallear. 2020. “Social Capital in Buyer-Supplier Relationships: A Review of Antecedents,
Benefits, Risks, and Boundary Conditions.” Industrial Marketing Management 91: 338–361. doi:10.1016/j.
indmarman.2020.10.003.
Alghababsheh, M., and D. Gallear. 2021. “Socially Sustainable Supply Chain Management and Suppliers’ Social
Performance: The Role of Social Capital.” Journal of Business Ethics 173 (4): 855–875. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-
04525-1.
Andrew, E. W. K. T. 2005. “Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer.” The Academy of Management Review
30: 146–165. doi:10.5465/amr.2005.15281445.
Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys.” Journal of Marketing
Research 14 (3): 396–402. doi:10.1177/002224377701400320.
Aslam, H., C. Blome, and S. Roscoe. 2020. “Determining the Antecedents of Dynamic Supply Chain Capabilities.”
Supply Chain Management. doi:10.1108/SCM-02-2019-0074.
Aslam, H., C. Blome, S. Roscoe, and T. M. Azhar. 2018. “Dynamic Supply Chain Capabilities: How Market Sensing,
Supply Chain Agility and Adaptability Affect Supply Chain Ambidexterity.” International Journal of Operations &
Production Management. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-09-2017-0555.
Augier, M., and D. J. Teece. 2009. “Dynamic Capabilities and the Role of Managers in Business Strategy and
Economic Performance.” Organization Science 20 (2): 410–421. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0424.
Autry, C. W., and S. E. Griffis. 2008. “Supply Chain Capital: The Impact of Structural and Relational Linkages on
Firm Execution and Innovation.” Journal of Business Logistics 29 (1): 157–173. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2008.
tb00073.x.
Barbara, B. F., B. Huo, and X. Zhao. 2010. “The Impact of Supply Chain Integration on Performance: A Contingency
and Configuration Approach.” Journal of Operations Management. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.06.001.
Bessant, J., A. Alexander, G. Tsekouras, H. Rush, and R. Lamming. 2012. “Developing Innovation Capability
Through Learning Networks.” Journal of Economic Geography 12 (5): 1087–1112. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbs026.
Bessant, J., R. Kaplinsky, and R. Lamming. 2003. “Putting Supply Chain Learning Into Practice.” International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 23 (2): 167–184. doi:10.1108/01443570310458438.
Bharadwaj, N., and Y. Dong. 2014. “Toward Further Understanding the Market-Sensing Capability–Value Creation
Relationship.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (4): 799–813. doi:10.1111/jpim.12124.
Brettel, M., and N. J. Cleven. 2011. “Innovation Culture, Collaboration with External Partners and NPD
Performance.” Creativity and Innovation Management 20 (4): 253–272. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00617.x.
Butner, K. 2010. “The Smarter Supply Chain of the Future.” Strategy & Leadership 38 (1): 22–31. doi:10.1108/
10878571011009859.
Cappiello, G., F. Giordani, and M. Visentin. 2020. “Social Capital and its Effect on Networked Firm Innovation and
Competitiveness.” Industrial Marketing Management 89. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.03.007.
Chen, H., P. J. Daugherty, and T. D. Landry. 2009. “Supply Chain Process Integration: A Theoretical Framework.”
Journal of Business Logistics 30 (2): 27–46. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2009.tb00110.x.
Chow, G., T. D. Heaver, and L. E. Henriksson. 1995. “Strategy, Structure and Performance: A Framework for
Logistics Research.” Logistics Transport 31: 285. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&uthType=
cookie,ip,shib&db=edsbig&AN=edsbig.A18050682&lang=zh-cn&site=eds-live.
Christopher, M., and D. R. Towill. 2000. “Supply Chain Migration From Lean and Functional to Agile and
Customised.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 5 (4): 206–213. doi:10.1108/
13598540010347334.
Chong, A., F. Chan, K. B. Ooi, and J. J. Sim. 2013. “Can Malaysian Firms Improve Organizational/Innovation
Performance via SCM?” Industrial Management & Data Systems 111 (3): 410–431. doi:10.1108/
02635571111118288.
Dai, J., D. E. Cantor, and F. L. Montabon. 2017. “Examining Corporate Environmental Proactivity and Operational
Performance: A Strategy-Structure-Capabilities-Performance Perspective Within a Green Context.” International
Journal of Production Economics 193: 272–280. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.07.023.
1838 Q. YANG ET AL.

David, G. Sirmon, Steve Gove, and Michael A. Hitt. 2008. “Resource Management in Dyadic Competitive Rivalry:
The Effects of Resource Bundling and Deployment.” The Academy of Management Journal. doi:10.5465/amj.
2008.34789656.
Defee, C. C., and B. S. Fugate. 2010. “Changing Perspective of Capabilities in the Dynamic Supply Chain Era.” The
International Journal of Logistics Management. doi:10.1108/09574091011071915..
Dubey, R., N. Altay, A. Gunasekaran, C. Blome, T. Papadopoulos, and S. J. Childe. 2018. “Supply Chain Agility,
Adaptability and Alignment: Empirical Evidence From the Indian Auto Components Industry.” International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 38 (1): 129–148. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-04-2016-0173.
Easterby-Smith, M., M. A. Lyles, and M. A. Peteraf. 2009. “Dynamic Capabilities: Current Debates and Future
Directions.” British Journal of Management 20: S1–S8. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00609.x.
Eckstein, D., M. Goellner, C. Blome, and M. Henke. 2015. “The Performance Impact of Supply Chain Agility and
Supply Chain Adaptability: The Moderating Effect of Product Complexity.” International Journal of Production
Research 53 (10): 3028–3046. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.970707.
Edelman, L. F., M. Bresnen, S. Newell, H. Scarbrough, and J. Swan. 2004. “The Benefits and Pitfalls of Social Capital:
Empirical Evidence From Two Organizations in the United Kingdom.” British Journal of Management 15 (S1): 59–
69. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00406.x.
Ellinger, A. E. C., Haozhe Chen, Yu Tian, and Craig Armstrong. 2015. “Learning Orientation, Integration, and Supply
Chain Risk Management in Chinese Manufacturing Firms.” International Journal of Logistics Research &
Applications, 476–493. doi:10.1080/13675567.2015.1005008.
Ellis, S. C., J. W. Henke, and T. J. Kull. 2012. “The Effect of Buyer Behaviors on Preferred Customer Status and Access
to Supplier Technological Innovation: An Empirical Study of Supplier Perceptions.” Industrial Marketing
Management 41 (8): 1259–1269. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.10.010.
Fang, W., S. Yeniyurt, D. Kim, and S. T. Cavusgil. 2006. “The Impact of Information Technology on Supply Chain
Capabilities and Firm Performance: A Resource-Based View.” Industrial Marketing Management 35 (4): 493–504.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.05.003.
Fiol, C. M., and M. A. Lyles. 1985. “Organizational Learning.” Academy of Management Review 10 (4): 803–813.
doi:10.2307/258048.
Flint, D. J., E. Larsson, and B. Gammelgaard. 2008. “Exploring Processes for Customer Value Insights, Supply Chain
Learning and Innovation: An International Study.” Journal of Business Logistics 29 (1): 257–281. doi:10.1002/j.
2158-1592.2008.tb00078.x.
Galunic, D. C., and K. M. Eisenhardt. 1994. “Renewing the Strategy-Structure-Performance Paradigm.” Research in
Organizational Behavior 16: 215–215.
Gargiulo, M., and M. Benassi. 1999. “The Dark Side of Social Capital.” Corporate Social Capital and Liability, 298–
322. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5027-3_17.
Gligor, D. M., and M. Holcomb. 2014. “The Road to Supply Chain Agility: An RBV Perspective on the Role of
Logistics Capabilities.” The International Journal of Logistics Management. doi:10.1108/IJLM-07-2012-0062.
Goffnett, S. P., and A. Goswami. 2016. “Supply Chain Transformational Leadership, Supply Chain Innovation
Performance, and Satisfaction With Relationships and Results: Moderating Role of Supply Chain Innovativeness.”
Golgeci, I., and O. Kuivalainen. 2020. “Does Social Capital Matter for Supply Chain Resilience? The Role of
Absorptive Capacity and Marketing-Supply Chain Management Alignment.” Industrial Marketing Management
84: 63–74. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.05.006.
Gong, Y., F. Jia, S. Brown, and L. Koh. 2018. “Supply Chain Learning of Sustainability in Multi-Tier Supply Chains: A
Resource Orchestration Perspective.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management. doi:10.1108/
IJOPM-05-2017-0306.
Granovetter, M. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of
Sociology 91 (3): 481–510. doi:10.1086/228311.
Granovetter, M. 1992. “Economic Institutions as Social Constructions: A Framework for Analysis.” Acta Sociologica
35 (1): 3–11. doi:10.1177/000169939203500101.
Grover, V., J. Lim, and R. Ayyagari. 2006. “The Dark Side of Information and Market Efficiency in e-Markets.”
Decision Sciences 37 (3): 297–324. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5414.2006.00129.x.
Gupta, M., and R. Narain. 2012. “A Survey on Supplier Relationship in e-Procurement in Indian Organisations.”
International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 12 (1): 89–121. doi:10.1504/IJLSM.2012.047060.
Habib, M. M., and B. Victor. 1991. “Strategy, Structure, and Performance of US Manufacturing and Service MNCs: A
Comparative Analysis.” Strategic Management Journal 12 (8): 589–606. doi:10.1002/smj.4250120803.
Haq, M. Z. U. 2020. “Supply Chain Learning and Organizational Performance: Evidence from Chinese
Manufacturing Firms.” Journal of Knowledge Management. doi:10.1108/JKM-05-2020-0335.
Inemek, A., and P. Matthyssens. 2013. “The Impact of Buyer–Supplier Relationships on Supplier Innovativeness: An
Empirical Study in Cross-Border Supply Networks.” Industrial Marketing Management 42 (4): 580–594. doi:10.
1016/j.indmarman.2012.10.011.
Ireland, R. D., and J. W. Webb. 2007. “A Multi-Theoretic Perspective on Trust and Power in Strategic Supply
Chains.” Journal of Operations Management 25 (2): 482–497. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.004.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1839

Jääskeläinen, A., H. Schiele, and L. Aarikka-Stenroos. 2020. “Getting the Best Solution From a Supplier – A Social
Capital Perspective.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (5): 100648. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2020.
100648.
Jajja, M., V. Kannan, S. A. Brah, S. Z. Hassan, S. Brown, and A. Hill. 2017. “Linkages Between Firm Innovation
Strategy, Suppliers, Product Innovation, and Business Performance: Insights From Resource Dependence
Theory.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-09-2014-0424.
Jao-Hong, Cheng, Chen Mu-Chung, and Chung-Ming Huang. 2014. “Assessing Inter-Organizational Innovation
Performance Through Relational Governance and Dynamic Capabilities in Supply Chains.” Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 19: 2. doi:10.1108/SCM-05-2013-0162.
Jean, R. J. B., D. Kim, and D. Bello. 2017. “Relationship-Based Product Innovations: Evidence From the Global Supply
Chain.” Journal of Business Research 80: 127–140. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.008.
Johnson, J. L., and R. S. Sohi. 2003. “The Development of Interfirm Partnering Competence: Platforms for Learning,
Learning Activities, and Consequences of Learning.” Journal of Business Research 56 (9): 757–766. doi:10.1016/
S0148-2963(01)00260-0.
Jones, C., W. S. Hesterly, and S. P. Borgatti. 1997. “A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Conditions
and Social Mechanisms.” Academy of Management Review 22 (4): 911–945. doi:10.2307/259249.
Kave, L. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Ketchen, D. J., and G. T. M. Hult. 2007. “Bridging Organization Theory and Supply Chain Management: The Case of
Best Value Supply Chains.” Journal of Operations Management 25 (2): 573–580. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.010.
Kim, Y., T. Y. Choi, and P. F. Skilton. 2015. “Buyer-Supplier Embeddedness and Patterns of Innovation.”
International Journal of Operations & Production Management. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-05-2013-0251.
Lambrechts, F., T. Taillieu, S. Grieten, and J. Poisquet. 2012. “In-Depth Joint Supply Chain Learning: Towards a
Framework.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. doi:10.1108/13598541211269238.
Li, S., J. Qiao, H. Cui, and S. Wang. 2020. “Realizing the Environmental Benefits of Proactive Environmental Strategy:
The Roles of Green Supply Chain Integration and Relational Capability.” Sustainability 12 (7): 2907. doi:10.3390/
su12072907.
Liefner, I., and S. Losacker. 2020. “Low-Cost Innovation and Technology-Driven Innovation in China’s Machinery
Industry.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 32 (3): 319–331. doi:10.1080/09537325.2019.1656333.
Lintukangas, K., A. K. Kahkonen, and J. Hallikas. 2019. “The Role of Supply Management Innovativeness and
Supplier Orientation in Firms’ Sustainability Performance.” Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 25: 4.
doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2019.100558.
Liu, H., L. Fan, and Z. Shao. 2021. “Threshold Effects of Energy Consumption, Technological Innovation, and Supply
Chain Management on Enterprise Performance in China’s Manufacturing Industry.” Journal of Environmental
Management 300: 113687. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113687.
Liu, X., S. Schwaag Serger, U. Tagscherer, and A. Y. Chang. 2017. “Beyond Catch-Up – Can a New Innovation Policy
Help China Overcome the Middle Income Trap?” Science and Public Policy 44 (5): 656–669. doi:10.1093/scipol/
scw092.
Locke, E. A., N. G. Noorderhaven, J. P. Cannon, P. M. Doney, and M. R. Mullen. 1999. “Some Reservations About
Social Capital.” Academy of Management Review 24 (1): 8–11. doi:10.5465/amr.1999.15873796.
Malacina, I., and R. Teplov. 2022. “Supply Chain Innovation Research: A Bibliometric Network Analysis and
Literature Review.” International Journal of Production Economics, 108540. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108540.
Manuj, I., A. Omar, and A. Yazdanparast. 2013. “The Quest for Competitive Advantage in Global Supply Chains: The
Role of Inter–organizational Learning.” Transportation Journal 52 (4): 463–492. doi:10.5325/transportationj.52.4.
0463.
Massimo, Biotto, Alberto F. De Toni, and Fabio Nonino. 2012. “Knowledge and Cultural Diffusion Along the Supply
Chain as Drivers of Product Quality Improvement The Illycaffe Case Study.” International Journal of Logistics
Management. doi:10.1108/09574091211265369.
Mazzola, E., M. Bruccoleri, and G. Perrone. 2015. “Supply Chain of Innovation and New Product Development.”
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 21 (4): 273–284. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2015.04.006.
Mohr, J. J., and S. Sengupta. 2002. “Managing the Paradox of Inter-Firm Learning: The Role of Governance
Mechanisms.” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. doi:10.1108/08858620210431688.
Nahapiet, J., and S. Ghoshal. 1998. “Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Orgnanizational Advantage.”
Academy of Management Review 23 (2): 242–266. doi:10.2307/259373.
Ojha, D., J. Shockley, and C. Acharya. 2016. “Supply Chain Organizational Infrastructure for Promoting
Entrepreneurial Emphasis and Innovativeness: The Role of Trust and Learning.” International Journal of
Production Economics 179: 212–227. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.011.
Ojha, D., E. Struckell, C. Acharya, and P. C. Patel. 2018. “Supply Chain Organizational Learning, Exploration,
Exploitation, and Firm Performance: A Creation-Dispersion Perspective.” International Journal of Production
Economics 204: 70–82. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.025.
1840 Q. YANG ET AL.

Onofrei, G., H. M. Nguyen, M. Zhang, and B. Fynes. 2020. “Building Supply Chain Relational Capital: The Impact of
Supplier and Customer Leveraging on Innovation Performance.” Business Strategy and the Environment 6. doi:10.
1002/bse.2586.
Ozgun, A. H., M. Tarim, D. Delen, and S. Zaim. 2022. “Social Capital and Organizational Performance: The
Mediating Role of Innovation Activities and Intellectual Capital.” Healthcare Analytics 2: 100046. doi:10.1016/j.
health.2022.100046.
Plaza-Úbeda, J., J. Burgos-Jiménez, D. Vazquez, and C. Liston-Heyes. 2009. “The ‘Win–Win’ Paradigm and
Stakeholder Integration.” Business Strategy and the Environment 18 (8): 487–499. doi:10.1002/bse.593.
Portes, A. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 24
(1): 1–24. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1.
Pulles, N. J., and J. S. H. Veldman. 2016. “Winning the Competition for Supplier Resources: The Role of Preferential
Resource Allocation From Suppliers.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 36: 11.
doi:10.1108/IJOPM-03-2014-0125.
Pulles, N. J., J. Veldman, and H. Schiele. 2014. “Identifying Innovative Suppliers in Business Networks: An Empirical
Study.” Industrial Marketing Management 43 (3): 409–418. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.009.
Sambasivan, M., S. P. Loke, and Z. Abidin-Mohamed. 2009. “Impact of Knowledge Management in Supply Chain
Management: A Study in Malaysian Manufacturing Companies.” Knowledge and Process Management 16 (3):
111–123. doi:10.1002/kpm.328.
Santos-Vijande, M. L., M. J. Sanzo-Perez, L. I. Alvarez-Gonzalez, and R. Vazquez-Casielles. 2005. “Organizational
Learning and Market Orientation: Interface and Effects on Performance.” Industrial Marketing Management 34
(3): 187–202. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.08.004.
Schiele, H. 2006. “How to Distinguish Innovative Suppliers? Identifying Innovative Suppliers as New Task for
Purchasing.” Industrial Marketing Management 35 (8): 925–935. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.05.003.
Schiele, H., and F. G. Vos. 2015. “Dependency on Suppliers as a Peril in the Acquisition of Innovations? The Role of
Buyer Attractiveness in Mitigating Potential Negative Dependency Effects in Buyer–Supplier Relations.”
Australasian Marketing Journal 23 (2): 139–147. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2015.04.009.
Schmelzle, Ulrich. 2017. “Supply Chain-Driven Innovation: The Influence of Supply Chain Resource Orchestration
on Organizational Performance.”
Setini, M., N. Yasa, I. Supartha, and I. Giantari. 2021. “The Effects of Knowledge Sharing, Social Capital and
Innovation on Marketing Performance.” International Journal of Data and Network Science 5 (3): 257–266.
doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.6.008.
Shrout, P. E., and N. Bolger. 2002. “Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and
Recommendations.” Psychological Methods 7 (4): 422. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.
Silvestre, B. S. 2015. “Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Emerging Economies: Environmental Turbulence,
Institutional Voids and Sustainability Trajectories.” International Journal of Production Economics 167: 156–
169. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.05.025.
Silvestre, B. S., M. E. Silva, A. Cormack, and A. M. T. Thome. 2020. “Supply Chain Sustainability Trajectories:
Learning Through Sustainability Initiatives.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
doi:10.1108/IJOPM-01-2020-0043.
Simsek, Z., M. H. Lubatkin, and S. W. Floyd. 2003. “Inter-Firm Networks and Entrepreneurial Behavior: A Structural
Embeddedness Perspective.” Journal of Management 29 (3): 427–442. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00018-7.
Sobel, M. E. 1982. “Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models.” Sociological
Methodology 13: 290–312. doi:10.2307/270723.
Sobrero, M., and E. B. Roberts. 2001. “The Trade-Off Between Efficiency and Learning in Interorganizational
Relationships for Product Development.” Management Science 47 (4): 493–511. doi:10.1287/mnsc.47.4.493.9828.
Song, M., and M. M. Montoya-Weiss. 2001. “The Effect of Perceived Technological Uncertainty on Japanese New
Product Development.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (1): 61–80. doi:10.2307/3069337.
Spekman, R. E., J. Spear, and J. Kamauff. 2002. “Supply Chain Competency: Learning as a Key Component.” Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal. doi:10.1108/13598540210414373.
Sukoco, B. M., H. Hardi, A. Qomariyah, and I. Phau. 2018. “Social Capital, Relational Learning, and Performance of
Suppliers.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. doi:10.1108/APJML-02-2017-0022.
Swafford, P. M., S. Ghosh, and N. Murthy. 2006. “The Antecedents of Supply Chain Agility of a Firm: Scale
Development and Model Testing.” Journal of Operations Management 24 (2): 170–188. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2005.
05.002.
Swafford, P. M., S. Ghosh, and N. Murthy. 2008. “Achieving Supply Chain Agility Through It Integration And
Flexibility.” International Journal of Production Economics 116 (2): 288–297. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.09.002.
Swierczek, A. 2019. “Manufacturer Structural Embeddedness and the Network Rent: The Intervening Role of
Relational Embeddedness in the Triadic Supply Chains.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.
doi:10.1108/SCM-06-2018-0232.
Teece, D. J. A. P. 1997. “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.” Strategic Management Journal 18: 24.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:73.0.CO;2-Z.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 1841

Teece, D. J. 2007. “Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise
Performance.” Strategic Management Journal 28. doi:10.1002/smj.640.
Thomas, E. Johnsen. 2009. “Supplier Involvement in New Product Development and Innovation: Taking Stock and
Looking to the Future.” Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2009.03.008.
Tsai, W. 2001. “Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive
Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (5): 996–1004.
doi:10.2307/3069443.
Uzzi, B. 1996. “The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations:
The Network Effect.” American Sociological Review, 674–698. doi:10.2307/2096399.
Van Wijk, R., J. J. Jansen, and M. A. Lyles. 2008. “Inter-and Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer: A Meta-
Analytic Review and Assessment of its Antecedents and Consequences.” Journal of Management Studies 45 (4):
830–853. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00771.x.
Verónica, H. Villena, Elena Revilla, and Thomas Y. Choi. 2011. “The Dark Side of Buyer–Supplier Relationships: A
Social Capital Perspective.” Journal of Operations Management 29 (6): 561–576. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.09.001.
Wang, C., and Q. Hu. 2020. “Knowledge Sharing in Supply Chain Networks: Effects of Collaborative Innovation
Activities and Capability on Innovation Performance.” Technovation 94: 102010. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.
2017.12.002.
Williams, L. J., and A. K. McGonagle. 2016. “Four Research Designs and a Comprehensive Analysis Strategy for
Investigating Common Method Variance with Self-Report Measures Using Latent Variables.” Journal of
Business and Psychology 31 (3): 339–359. doi:10.1007/s10869-015-9422-9.
Willis, G., S. E. Genchev, and H. Chen. 2016. “Supply Chain Learning, Integration, and Flexibility Performance: An
Empirical Study in India.” International Journal of Logistics Management 27 (3): 755–769. doi:10.1108/IJLM-03-
2014-0042.
Yang, C.-C. 2016. “Leveraging Logistics Learning Capability to Enable Logistics Service Capabilities and Performance
for International Distribution Center Operators in Taiwan.” The International Journal of Logistics Management.
doi:10.1108/IJLM-09-2014-0157
Yang, Y., F. Jia, and Z. Xu. 2018. “Towards an Integrated Conceptual Model of Supply Chain Learning: An Extended
Resource-Based View.” Supply Chain Management 24: 1. doi:10.1108/SCM-11-2017-0359.
Yu, Y., and B. Huo. 2019. “The Impact of Environmental Orientation on Supplier Green Management and Financial
Performance: The Moderating Role of Relational Capital.” Journal of Cleaner Production 211: 628–639. doi:10.
1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.198.
Yuan, Y., B. Feng, F. Lai, and B. J. Collins. 2018. “The Role of Trust, Commitment, and Learning Orientation on
Logistic Service Effectiveness.” Journal of Business Research 93: 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.020.
Zang, J., C. Zhang, P. Yang, and Y. Li. 2014. “How Open Search Strategies Align With Firms’ Radical and Incremental
Innovation: Evidence From China.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 26 (7): 781–795. doi:10.1080/
09537325.2014.899345.
Zhang, Q., J. Pan, Y. Jiang, and T. Feng. 2019. “The Impact of Green Supplier Integration on Firm Performance: The
Mediating Role of Social Capital Accumulation.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 26 (2): 100579.
doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2019.100579.
Zhu, Q., H. Krikke, and M. C. Caniels. 2018. “Supply Chain Integration: Value Creation Through Managing Inter-
Organizational Learning.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-06-
2015-0372.

Appendix A
Table A. Measurement scales.
Supply chain learning (SCL)
SCL1 You believe that supply chain partner is the key source of product/service innovative knowledge
SCL2 You strives to make our supply chain partner learns how to operate and serve us better
SCL3 You encourage customers to learn continuously to better manage their business and cooperate with you
SCL4 You believe that the learning result of all supply chain partner should be shared across the organisation
SCL5 You encourage managers and employees to change their behaviour and process based on the new knowledge from
supply chain partner
SCL6 You believe that all supply chain partner should be proactive in learning and satisfying the changing need of customer
Social capital in firm-supply chain partner
Structure capital (SC)
SC1 You and your supply chain partner have multiple interaction
SC2 You and your supply chain partner regularly communicate openly on key issues
SC3 You and your supply chain partner share the latest knowledge and know each other well
SC3 Formalised communication exists between you and your supply chain partner’s different functions

(Continued )
1842 Q. YANG ET AL.

Table A. Continued.
Supply chain learning (SCL)
SCL1 You believe that supply chain partner is the key source of product/service innovative knowledge
SCL2 You strives to make our supply chain partner learns how to operate and serve us better
SCL3 You encourage customers to learn continuously to better manage their business and cooperate with you
SCL4 You believe that the learning result of all supply chain partner should be shared across the organisation
SCL5 You encourage managers and employees to change their behaviour and process based on the new knowledge from
supply chain partner
SCL6 You believe that all supply chain partner should be proactive in learning and satisfying the changing need of customer
Social capital in firm-supply chain partner
Structure capital (SC)
SC1 You and your supply chain partner have multiple interaction
SC2 You and your supply chain partner regularly communicate openly on key issues
SC3 You and your supply chain partner share the latest knowledge and know each other well
SC3 Formalised communication exists between you and your supply chain partner’s different functions
Relational capital (RC)
RC1 You and your supply chain partner trust with each other
RC2 You and your supply chain partner respect with each other
RC3 You reciprocity with your supply chain partner
RC4 Employees have personal friendships with your supply chain partner
Cognitive capital (CC)
CC1 You and your supply chain partner have similar corporate culture/values and management style
CC2 You and your supply chain partner have similar philosophies/approaches to business dealings
CC3 You and your supply chain partner have compatible goals and objectives
CC4 You and your supply chain partner have the same vision of business in the relationship
Dynamic supply chain capability (DSCC)
DSCC1 You and your supply chain partner are quick to discuss changes in customers’ product preferences
DSCC2 You and your supply chain partner are successful in learning new things within this group
DSCC3 You and your supply chain partner are effective in developing new knowledge or insights that have the potential to
influence product development
DSCC4 You and your supply chain partner have effective routines to identify, value, and import new information and
knowledge
DSCC5 You and your supply chain partner can successfully integrate each other’s existing knowledge with the new information
and knowledge acquired
DSCC6 You and your supply chain partner are effective in transforming existing information into new knowledge
DSCC7 You and your supply chain partner are effective in utilising knowledge into new products
DSCC8 You and your partner ensure that there is compatibility between group members expertise and work processes
DSCC9 You and your partner effectively interrelate each other’s activities to manage rapidly changing conditions
Supply chain innovation performance (SCIP)
SCIP1 In the market, your supply chain is known for the products/services it provides
Relational capital (RC)
RC1 You and your supply chain partner trust with each other
RC2 You and your supply chain partner respect with each other
RC3 You reciprocity with your supply chain partner
RC4 Employees have personal friendships with your supply chain partner
Cognitive capital (CC)
CC1 You and your supply chain partner have similar corporate culture/values and management style
CC2 You and your supply chain partner have similar philosophies/approaches to business dealings
CC3 You and your supply chain partner have compatible goals and objectives
CC4 You and your supply chain partner have the same vision of business in the relationship
Dynamic supply chain capability (DSCC)
DSCC1 You and your supply chain partner are quick to discuss changes in customers’ product preferences
DSCC2 You and your supply chain partner are successful in learning new things within this group
DSCC3 You and your supply chain partner are effective in developing new knowledge or insights that have the potential to
influence product development
DSCC4 You and your supply chain partner have effective routines to identify, value, and import new information and
knowledge
DSCC5 You and your supply chain partner can successfully integrate each other’s existing knowledge with the new information
and knowledge acquired
DSCC6 You and your supply chain partner are effective in transforming existing information into new knowledge
DSCC7 You and your supply chain partner are effective in utilising knowledge into new products
DSCC8 You and your partner ensure that there is compatibility between group members expertise and work processes
DSCC9 You and your partner effectively interrelate each other’s activities to manage rapidly changing conditions
Supply chain innovation performance (SCIP)
SCIP1 In the market, your supply chain is known for the products/services it provides
SCIP2 In total, your supply chain brings innovative products and services to market more frequently than its competitors
SCIP3 Your supply chain has a good track record of launching new products and services