See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228480309

EFFECT OF REVERSE LOGISTICS AND FLEXIBILITY ON ORGANIZATIONAL

PERFORMANCE

Article · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

10 2,213

3 authors, including:

Víctor Jesus García-Morales

University of Granada
122 PUBLICATIONS   5,786 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Educators and students: mechanisms to promote learning, entrepreneurship and innovation in university education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Víctor Jesus García-Morales on 30 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Effect of Reverse Logistics and Flexibility on Organizational Performance
Antonio Mihi Ramírez 1. Víctor Jesús García Morales 2
1
University o Granada, Spain, amihi@ugr.es, 2 victorj@ugr.es

Citated:
Ramírez, A. M., & Morales, V. J. G. (2011). EFFECT OF REVERSE LOGISTICS AND FLEXIBILITY
ON ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE. Economics & Management, 16.

This is the final version of the article published in Economics and Management

Abstract
Progressively firms give more importance to management of processes of return that supposed excess inventories,
customer returns, obsolete inventories and seasonal products ,that is to say, to the processes Reverse Logistics (Srivastava &
Srivastava, 2006). So it increases the need for information flexibility because this one helps to reduce uncertainty of these
processes (Koste & Malhotra, 1999; Swafford, 2003). This paper focuses on develop knowledge about how the Reverse
Logistics affects the flexibility of information distribution and organizational performance. We have found that due to the
company currently operates in complex, changing and highly competitive environment 1) firms with proactive attitude
towards Reverse Logistics enhance the importance of Reverse Logistics, 2) the more importance of Reverse Logistics the
more important is Flexibility of Information Distribution, 3) the Reverse Logistics and Flexibility of Information Distribution
improve organizational performance 4) firms should be proactive towards Reverse Logistics because it implies greater effects
on flexibility and organizational performance.
Keywords: Reverse Logistics, Flexibility of Information, Organizational Performance, Green Logistics, Logistics

Theoretical Framework

In recent years Reverse Logistics has become a major issue for scholarships and companies (Kotler,
1994; Rogers & Tibben-Lembke, 1999; Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000; Chang et al., 2005; Srivastava &
Srivastava, 2006; Banomyong et al., 2008; Chan & Chan, 2008). Reverse Logistics refers “the process of
planning, implementation and efficiently control of the flow of raw materials, in-process inventory, finished
goods and related information from the point of consumption to the point of origin with the purpose of
recovering the primary value or dispose of them properly " (Rogers & Tibben-Lembke, 1999, 43). Gradually
firms give more importance to this aspect, mainly due to 3 reasons (Srivastava & Srivastava, 2006): the first
one is the growing importance of environmental issues and their impact on public opinion (Kotler, 1994;
Rogers et al., 1999; Porter, 2002; De Brito, 2004), second reason is benefits that the company gains by
improving their return processes such as image enhancement, improved efficiency and effectiveness in
management of returned materials, it allows getting new profits (Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000; Stock et al.,
2002; De Brito, 2004) the third one is a new and growing environmental regulations (Stock et al., 2002; De
Brito, 2004). Thus, it is drawing a new situation for many companies, in which producers are responsible for
the entire life cycle of a product. Thus, proactive in Reverse Logistics is essential because the company
currently operates in complex, changing and highly competitive environment (Covin & Slevin, 1986, 1991;
Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Jiménez, 2009), and it expresses the attitude of anticipating
the future to act on gaps and current and future needs, establishing the advantage over competitors to be the
first to act (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Mentzer et al., 2001). This Reverse Logistics proactivity can be related
to management of inattention and to the lack of importance of Reverse Logistics in the organization (Rogers
& Tibben-Lembke, 1999). You can also link it to corporate strategy for the management of returns and the
items that are not marketable, since if the company wouldn´t want to see how these articles cannibalize its
sales or the flow of its best quality products, it could develop policies that make very difficult to return these
items (Rogers &Tibben-Lembke, 1999, 2001).
Currently the number of products returned or out of use is increasing significantly, so management of
these products from the point of collection to the origin present a high degree of additional uncertainty on the
customer service time, on the origin and the quality of the materials returned. So Reverse Logistics is critical,
and its importance increases the need of information for the proper management of material flow returned
(Day 1994; Bowersox et al., 1999; Daugherty et al., 2002; Wadhwa & Madaan, 2007). So flexibility of
information distribution is an important issue for Reverse Logistics (Barad & Sapirb, 2003) because it allows
responding to customer needs (Bowersox et al., 1989), it reduces response times (Fawcett & Clinton, 1996),
it supports a variety of delivery requirements (Sethi & Sethi, 1990) and it reduces cost of Reverse Logistics
(Banomyong et al., 2008). Flexibility has become source of competitive advantage (Koste & Malhotra 1999).
Competitive potential of flexibility are accepted by CEOs (Koste & Malhotra, 1999) and scholarships
(Kogut, 1985; Paik, 1991; Volberda, 1996; Hitt et al., 1998; Jenkins & Wright, 1998; Golden & Powell,
2000; De Koster & Warffemius, 2005; Wadhwa & Saxena, 2007). Environment changes compulsory require
the flexibility (Evans, 1991). From 80´s flexibility of firm has become an important factor of competitiveness
in nationals and internationals markets due to speed of changes in product technology, trend to free
commerce, deregulation in capital market and growing fluctuation of exchange rate (Kuo et al., 2003). Thus
flexibility allows increasing number of options, reducing uncertainty and improving the decisions process.
Flexibility would be “the ability to provoke intentionality changes, to reply continuously unexpected
changing and to adjust unexpected consequences of predictable changing” (Bahrami, 1992, 36). Also
flexibility is management task because it is related to create and to encourage capacity of control of the firm
(Volverda, 1997). Under this perspective we could talk about flexibility of operations that includes routines
based on current structure or goals of organization and it is the ability to hand fluctuations of demand,
equipment faults, complexity of production process and implement of new products and technologies
(Johnson et al., 2003). Also it refers number of products with sequential plans and heterogeneity of plans
used without big breaks or changes in final result (Sethi & Sethi, 1990; Krajewski & Ritzman, 1996).
Flexibility of operations also include flexibility of materials handing that refers number of routes between
manufacturing centers and heterogeneity of material that is carried through these routes without big breaks or
changes in final result (Chatterjee et al., 1984; Schonberger, 1986; Coyle et al., 2003). In this way we could
define flexibility of information distribution as capability of handing flow of information in manufacture
(Chatterjee et al., 1984; Sethi & Sethi, 1990; Zahran et al., 1990; Sinha & Wei, 1992; Ramaswamy, 1996;
Hope, 1997; Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 1998; Arias, 2000), and it allows variations in volume of
manufacture without higher costs (Stigler, 1939) and it increases capacity of control of the firm (Volverda,
1996). In this sense information has key role on structure of firm and managing relationships between
companies, so it is necessary to develop of new capabilities to manage this information in firm like flexibility
of information distribution. Like flexibility, flexibility of information distribution is strongly linked to
competitive advantage and the ability to get chances of market (Barney, 1991; Teece, 1998; Kenney &
Gudergan, 2006; Hicks et al., 2007) and its integration in all areas of organization (Grant, 1996; Kenney &
Gudergan, 2006). This integration implies diverse sources, types and ways of knowledge (Kogut & Zander,
2001) related to capabilities and strategic assets of firm (Reed & DeFillippi, 1990) and it could include
knowledge of client, of product and of the market (De Boer et al., 1999) what is extent along time through
staff, process, systems and other assets that are controlled by the firm (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Stokes &
Clegg, 2002). Under this context flexibility is gotten through coordination of capabilities between business
units, through cross-functional teams and through specialized departments (Kenney & Gudergan, 2006).
Additionally in this research we must take in account performance measures, because they are
essential for effective management of any organization (Griffis et al., 2007). Continuous changes in the way
of competing and technology mean that the company must maintain a customer-centric strategy and focus on
those factors that provide value to them (Johnson, 1990), which include not only low costs, but also Reverse
Logistics (Russo & Fouts, 1997; Wadhwa & Madaan, 2007) and Flexibility (Johnson, 1990; Heizer &
Render, 1997), In short, performance measures based on cost and efficiency that capture and reflect these
strategies (Macintosh, 1985; Banker et al., 1993; Abemethy & Lillis, 1995; Perera & Pool, 1997; Abernethy
et al., 2001: Lillis & Mundy, 2005). Organizations that have begun to measure their intangible assets have
obtained many benefits that could provide competitive advantage (Kannan & Aulbur, 2004).
Reverse Logistics proactivity enhance efficiency and effectiveness of the Reverse Logistics processes
(Wadhwa & Madaan, 2007). The more importance of the Reverse Logistics programs the more necessary is
for the organization to face the uncertainty in these activities (Barad & Sapirb, 2003). So it increases the
need for flexibility of information distribution because it helps to reduce this uncertainty (Koste & Malhotra,
1999; Swafford, 2003). However, few studies attempting to relate Reverse Logistics and flexibility (Sethi &
Sethi, 1990; Goldsborugh, 1992; Fawcett & Clinton, 1996; Kopczak, 1997; Swafford, 2003) do not relate to
flexibility of information distribution. Therefore we propose a model to analyse relationships between
Reverse Logistics Proactivity, the Importance of Reverse Logistics and flexibility of information distribution
with the main objective of better understand Reverse Logistics and its interactions with flexibility of
information distribution. In addition, we also examine the effects that these variables have on organizational
performance.

Theoretical background and Propositions

Due to the high degree of uncertainty regarding the timing and amount of returns existing in Reverse
Logistics activities the difficult for planning type and quantity of returned materials for each company varies
(Rogers & Tibben-Lemmbke, 1999), even in those industries less predictable, managers must be ready to
process and handle products quickly on demand. (Ketzenberg, 2004; Wadhwa & Madaan, 2007). In these
situations, exchanges of materials returned must be accurate and anticipating in Reverse Logistics activities
become fundamental (Rogers & Tibben-Lembke, 1999). Therefore, the firms must be proactive towards the
Reverse Logistics processes (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Rogers & Tibben-Lembke, 1999; Chan &Chan, 2008).
Reverse Logistics proactivity is essential because the company currently operates in complex, changing and
highly competitive environment (Covin & Slevin, 1986, 1991; Guth & Ginsberg, 1990; Lumpkin & Dess,
1996; Jiménez, 2009). A proactive attitude to Reverse Logistics allows the firms anticipate at a time when
returns are increasing significantly due to liberal return policies, direct sales channels and environmental
regulations (Wadhwa & Madaan, 2004). Also Reverse Logistics proactivity allows getting higher
productivity and profitability by improving efficiency and effectiveness of the Reverse Logistics processes
(Wadhwa & Madaan, 2007). In addition the proactive company can anticipate the current and future needs,
improving its Reverse Logistics systems and providing an advantage over competitors (Lumpkin & Dess,
1996; Carrillo et al., 2004).
Thus, we propose that:
Hypothesis 1: The Reverse Logistics proactivity will be positively related to the importance of Reverse
Logistics.
The importance of Reverse Logistics programs is growing for financial reasons (Lambert &
Burduroglu, 2000; Stock et al., 2002; De Brito, 2004,), the extension of corporate social responsibility
(Kotler, 1994; Rogers et al., 1999; Porter, 2002; De Brito, 2004) and legal requirements (Stock et al., 2002;
De Brito, 2004; Toffel, 2004). Also, the flexibility of information distribution is an important issue in
Reverse Logistics processes (Barad & Sapir, 2003) to respond to customer needs (Bowersox et al.,
1989),also to reduce response times (Fawcett & Clinton , 1996) supporting a variety of delivery requirements
(Sethi & Sethi, 1990) and to reduce costs of Reverse Logistics (Banomyong et al., 2008), especially transport
costs of central service returns, which are the increased costs of Reverse Logistics (Tibben-Lembke &
Rogers, 2002). Furthermore, the more importance of the Reverse Logistics programs the more necessary is
for the organization to face the uncertainty in these activities that is increasingly high (Barad & Sapirb,
2003). In this case it increases the need for flexibility of information distribution because it helps to reduce
this uncertainty (Koster & Malhotra, 1999; Swafford, 2003). Reverse Logistics enables the organization to
improve availability of options, reducing uncertainty and improving decision-making (Sethi & Sethi, 1990;
Goldsborugh, 1992; Fawcett & Clinton, 1996; Kopczak, 1997, Swafford, 2003). In Reverse Logistics
programs are used information for systems improve data processing operations that facilitate or help you
make better decisions (Swafford, 2003), reducing response times (Lau & Lee, 2000) and improving the
flexibility of information distribution (Chatterjee et al., 1984, Sethi & Sethi, 1990; Zahran et al., 1990, Sinha
& Wei, 1992; Ramaswamy, 1996; Hope, 1997; Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 1998).
Thus, we propose that:
Hypothesis 2: The importance of Reverse Logistics will be positively related to the flexibility of
information distribution.
Flexibility of information distribution and knowledge are much related to competitive advantage
(Barney, 1991; Teece, 1998; Kenney & Gudergan, 2006; Hicks et al., 2007) and its integration in all areas of
organization (Grant, 1996; Kenney & Gudergan, 2006). Several researches have confirmed knowledge
supports higher flexibility of information for organization adapts changing environment (D’Aveni, 1994;
Volberda, 1996; Nadler & Tushman, 1999; Kenney & Gudergan, 2006).
Flexibility of information distribution improves the decision-making by members of the organization
(Nadler & Tushman, 1999). These processes decrease uncertainty, so it also improves performance of the
firm (Ramaswamy, 1996; Hope, 1997; Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 1998). Also flexibility of information
distribution improves and facilitates data processing of operations, reducing response times and generating
new applications that improve capacity of respond of the firm (Lau & Lee, 2000; Kuo et al., 2006).
Flexibility of information distribution enhances performance (Paiva el al., 2002). Flexibility of information
distribution could be considered as intangible assets of the firm (Kuo et al., 2006). Thus organizations that
have been begun measuring these assets have obtained benefits that could support competitive advantage
(Kannan & Aulbur, 2004). Through this intangible the firm is able to increase value of its products and
service, but only when it is from knowledge expressed as information that affects different results through
reduction of respond time, higher accuracy, etc. Indeed its greater importance is greater need of information
(Daugherty et al., 2002; Smaros et al., 2003) and it is reflects on performance (Chan et al., 2005).Flexibility
of information distribution is a facilitator by mediating the relationship flexibility programs and performance
(Bowersox et al., 1989; Fawcett et al., 1996; Closs et al., 2005). Also in the context of logistics flexibility
information flow is extremely important (Bowersox et al., 1989; Fawcett et al.1996) connecting flexible
logistics program with performance (Closs et al., 2005).
Thus, we propose that:
Hypothesis 3: The Flexibility of Information Distribution will be positively related to the Organizational
Performance.
Many research works have demonstrated that Reverse Logistics is important to enhance organizational
performance (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Fawcett & Clinton, 1996; Rogers & Tibben-Lembke, 1999;
Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000; Zhao et al., 2001; Daugherty et al., 2002; Stock et al., 2002; Tibben-Lembke
& Rogers, 2002; De Brito, 2004; Griffis et al., 2007; Sols et al., 2007).
Reverse Logistics could be considered as important intangible asset of the firm (Russo & Fouts, 1997;
Wadhwa & Madaan, 2007). Thus organizations that have been begun taking account these asset have
obtained benefits that could support competitive advantage (Kannan & Aulbur, 2004). Through this
intangible the firm is able to increase value of its products and service, a much more meaningful interaction
with customers, develop new skills in workers to recover the economic value of life products and all of this
is reflected on performance (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Chan et al., 2005). Also to develop Reverse Logistics
programme is extremely important to increase organizational performance (Bowersox et al., 1989; Fawcett et
al.1996; Closs et al., 2005).
Furthermore, the growing importance of Reverse Logistics programs is that supposed advantages or
benefits for the organization, such as that it develops and maintain a beneficial customer service policy and
reducing costs, it improves the return processes, it improves image of the firm, it improves efficiency and
effectiveness in the management of returned materials (Cure et al., 2006), it provides direct and indirect
economic benefits such as decreasing costs, reduced use materials, or obtaining valuable from spare parts
(Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000).Consequently, the Reverse Logistics improves organizational performance
(Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000; Krikke et al. 2003; Cure et al. 2006).
Thus we propose that:
Hypothesis 4. The Importance of Reverse Logistics will be positively related to the Organizational
Performance.
Performance measures are essential for effective management of any organization (Griffis et al., 2007;
Savanevičienė & Stankeviciute, 2010). Continuous changes in the way of competing and technology mean
that the company must maintain a customer-centric strategy and focus on those factors that provide value to
them (Drucker, 1954; Johnson, 1998), which include not only low costs, but also Reverse Logistics (Stock et
al., 2002; Tibben-Lembke & Rogers, 2002; De Brito, 2004; Griffis et al., 2007; Sols et al., 2007). Research
of Garcia et al. (2007) has reflected the positive influence of technology proactivity to improve the value of
the firm. Also the research of Chang et al. (2005) reflects the impact of proactivity on organizational
performance. Being proactive is an important element of individual performance, team and organizational
levels so that the lack of proactivity causes failures to identify or take advantage of opportunities that will
change things, reducing organizational performance (Crant, 2000; Jiménez, 2009).The proactive nature of
the organization in Reverse Logistics activities encourages the organization to achieve a greater value (Kim,
1998; Rogers & Tibben-Lembke, 1999; Liao et al., 2003).
Thus we propose that:
Hypothesis 5. The Reverse Logistics Proactivity will be positively related to the Organizational
Performance.

Methodology
 The sample was selected by means of a stratified sampling with proportional allocation (size and
geographical location) from the database Dun & Bradstreet Spain (2008) that collected 50.000 organizations
with highest volume of operations in Spain. Choosing a sample of firms located in a relatively homogeneous
geographical, cultural, legal and political space enables us to minimize the impact of the variables that
cannot be controlled in the empirical research (Adler, 1983). The Spanish market is relatively well developed
and wholly integrated in the European Union. However, Spain is in a geographical area that has received
relatively little attention from organizational researchers.
There are significant and positive correlations among the study variables. A series of tests (e.g.
tolerance, variance inflation factor) shows the non-presence of multicolinearity (Hair et al., 1999).
Our findings show that Reverse Logistics Proactivity is highly related and affects to Importance of
Reverse Logistics (11=.44, p<.001) and is explained well by the model (R2=.72), supporting Hypothesis 1.
Also Reverse Logistics Proactivity is highly related and affects to Organizational Performance (31=.27,
p<.001) as was predicted in Hypotheses 5. Organizational Performance is explained well by the model
(R2=.23). Furthermore, we have shown an indirect effect of Reverse Logistics Proactivity on Flexibility of
Information Distribution (.12, p<.001) (.44x.28); and on Organizational Performance (.44x.28x.18) (see, for
instance, Bollen, 1989 for calculation rules). Thus, the global influence of the Reverse Logistics Proactivity
on Organizational performance is 0.27 (p<.001).
The Importance of Reverse Logistics is also highly related and affects to Flexibility of Information
Distribution (β21=.28, p<.001) supporting Hypothesis 2, and furthermore Importance of Reverse Logistics
affects the Organizational Performance (β31=.38, p<.001), supporting Hypothesis 4. Also Importance of
Reverse Logistics has an indirect effect on Organizational Performance (.28x.18). Comparing the magnitudes
of these effects indicates that the total effect of the Importance of Reverse Logistics on Organizational
Performance is larger than the effect of the Reverse Logistics Proactivity on Organizational Performance
Globally, the Organizational Performance is explained well by the model (R2=.80).
Flexibility of information distribution influences on Organizational Performance (β32=.18, p<.001),
supporting Hypothesis 3.
A structural equation modelling was performed to estimate direct and indirect effects using LISREL
with the correlation matrix and asymptotic covariance matrix as input (Bollen, 1989). This type of analysis
has the advantage of correcting for unreliability of measures and also gives information on the direct and
indirect paths between multiple constructs after controlling for potentially confounding variables. Figure 2
shows the standardized structural coefficients. The relative importance of the variables is reflected by the
magnitude of the coefficients.

Conclusions

Reverse Logistics proactivity and its importance increases flexibility of information distribution for
material flow returned (Day 1994; Bowersox et al., 1999; Daugherty et al., 2002; Barad & Sapir, 2003;
Wadhwa & Madaan, 2007). Also Reverse Logistics and Flexibility of information distribution improve
organizational performance (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Fawcett & Clinton, 1996; Fawcett et al.1996; Grant,
1996; Rogers & Tibben-Lembke, 1999; Lambert & Burduroglu, 2000; Zhao et al., 2001; Daugherty et al.,
2002; Stock et al., 2002; Tibben-Lembke & Rogers, 2002; De Brito, 2004; Closs et al., 2005; Kenney &
Gudergan, 2006; Griffis et al., 2007; Sols et al., 2007), so this research presents a structural equation model
that shows how Reverse Logistics proactivity and its importance affect flexibility of information distribution
and performance, establishing linkages between these variables.
Based on the literature, we have established a series of assumptions to bring together in an integrated
model of key relationships between research variables. Thus we have proposed that there is a positive
relationship between the Reverse Logistics Proactivity and the Importance of Reverse Logistics (H1),
between the Importance of Reverse Logistics and Flexibility of Information (H2), between Flexibility of
Information Distribution and Organizational Performance (H3), and between the Importance of Reverse
Logistics (H4) and Reverse Logistics Proactivity (H5) with Organizational Performance.
Results reveal that there is a positive relationship between Reverse Logistics Proactivity and the
Importance of Reverse Logistics that means if firm anticipates its preparation and implements proper
Reverse Logistics programs then it is ready to process and handle the current growing products returns
quickly and consequently its Reverse Logistics processes will be more accuracy, more important and
definitely better than rest of its competitors, so it supposes a very important and sustainable competitive
advantage in the current turbulent and unpredictable changing environment.
 Also flexibility of information distribution is an important issue in Reverse Logistics processes (Barad
& Sapir, 2003). Our results show the more importance of Reverse Logistics the more important is Flexibility
of Information Distribution. Reverse Logistics information systems facilitate the flexibility of information
distribution (Chatterjee et al., 1984, Sethi & Sethi, 1990; Zahran et al., 1990, Sinha & Wei, 1992,
Ramaswamy, 1996, Hope, 1997, Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 1998). Also firms should be proactive
towards Reverse Logistics because it implies greater indirect effects of flexibility of information and it
supposes greater degree of involvement in organizing, developing multiple skills of the workforce and
commitment to continue research efforts to improve processes Reverse Logistics (Chang et al., 2005).
In addition, we demonstrate how Reverse Logistics and Flexibility of Information Distribution
improve organizational performance. The proactive nature of the organization in Reverse Logistics activities
encourages the organization to achieve a greater value (Kim, 1998, Rogers & Tibben-Lembke, 1999, Liao et
al., 2003), so it is worth for the firm to make the great effort that supposes implementing Reverse Logistics
systems, achieving flexibility, since it leads the organization to limit its competitiveness, supporting a variety
of delivery requirements, reducing uncertainty and anticipating the evolving features of these activities.

References
Abemethy, M.A. & Lillis, A.M. (1995). The impact of manufacturing flexibility on management control system design.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 241-258.
Abernethy, M.A., Lillis, A.M., Brownell, P. & Carter, P.A. (2001). Product diversity and costing system design choice:
field study evidence. Management Accounting Research, 12, 3, 261-279.
Adler, N.J. (1983). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14,
44, 350-383.
Argote, L. & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 1, 150-69.
Arias, D. (2000). Estrategia de operaciones, flexibilidad y resultados en las operaciones de ingeniería. Granada: Ed.
Método.
Armstrong, J.S. & Overton, T.S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research,
14, 396-403.
Bahrami, H. (1992). The emerging flexible organization: perspectives from Silicon Valley. California Management
Review, 34, 33-51.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is no enough: Climate for Initiative and Psychological Safety, Process
Innovations, and Firm Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45-68.
Banker, R. D., Potter, G., & Schroeder, R. G. (1993). Reporting manufacturing performance measures to workers: an
empirical study. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5, 33-55.
Banomyong, R., Cook, P. & Kent, P. (2008). Formulating regional logistics development policy: the case of ASEAN”.
International Journal of Logistics, 11 (5), 359-379.
Barad, M. & Sapirb, D.E. (2003). Flexibility in logistic systems—modeling and performance evaluation. International
Journal Production Economics, 85, 155–170.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bowersox, D.J., Daugherty, P.J. Dröge, C.L., Rogers, D.S. & Wardlow, D.L. (1989). Leading Edge Logistics:
Competitive Positioning for the 1990s. The Council of Logistics Management, Illinois: Oak Brook.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. & Stank, T.P. (1999). 21st Century Logistics: Making Supply Chain Integration a Reality.
Council of Logistics Management, Illinois: Oak Brook.
Carrillo, P., Robinson, H., AlGahssani, A. & Anumba, C. (2004). Knowledge management in UK constructions:
strategies, resources, and barriers. Project Management Journal, 35 (1), 46.
Chang F.T.S. & Chan H.K. (2008). A survey on reverse logistics system of mobile phone industry in Hong Kong.
Management Decision, 46 (5), 702-708.
Chang, S.C., Ru-Jen Lin, R.J., Chen, J.H. & Huang L.H. (2005). Manufacturing flexibility and manufacturing
proactiveness: empirical evidence from the motherboard industry. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 105, 8, pp.
1115-1132.
Chatterjee, A., Cohen, M., Maxwell, W. & Miller, R. (1984). Manufacturing Flexibility: Models and Measurements.
Proceedings of the 1st ORSA/TIMS Conference on FMS, MI: Arbor, A., 49-64.
Closs, D.J., Swink, M. & Nair, A. (2005). The role of information connectivity in making flexible logistics programs
successful”. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35 (¾), 258-277.
Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1986). The development and testing of an organizational-level entrepreneurship scale.
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College Wellesley, MA, 628-639.
Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 16 (1), 7-25.
Coyle, J.J., Bardi, E. J., & Langley, C.J., (2003). The management of business logistics: A Supply Chain Perspective,
7th Edition, Mason, OH: South-Western.
Evans, J.S. (1991). Strategic Flexibility for high Technology Maneuvers: A conceptual Framework. Journal of
Management Studies, 28, 69-89.
D’Aveni, R. (1994). Hyper-competition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. New York: The Free Press.
Day, G.S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58 (4). 37-52.
De Brito M.P., Dekker R., & Flapper S.D.P. (2004). Reverse logistics: a review of case studies. En: Fleischmann M,
Flapper SD, editors. Reverse logistics. Quantitative models for closed-loop supply chains. Berlin: Springer.
De Koster, R.B.M. & Warffemius, P.M.J. (2005). American, Asian and third-party international warehouse operations
in Europe: a performance comparison. International Journal of Operations & Production Management; 25, 7/8, 762-
780.
Dutton, J. E. & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation.
Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-554.
Fawcett, S.E. & Clinton, S.R. (1996). Enhancing logistics performance to improve the competitiveness of
manufacturing organizations. Production & Inventory Management Journal, 1st Quarter, 40-46.
Fitzsimmons, J.A. & Fitzsimmons, M.J. (1998). Service Management: Operations, Strategy and Information
Technology. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Golden, W. & Powell, P. (2000). Towards a definition of flexibility: in search of the Holy Grail. Omega, 28, 373-84.
Goldsborugh, W. (1992). Global Logistics Management: Gaining a competitive edge through integrated systems.
Business Intelligence Program, SRI International.
Grant, R.M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge
integration. Organization Science, 7, 4, 375-87.
Griffis, S.E., Goldsby, T.J., Cooper, M. & Closs, D.J. (2007). Aligning logistics performance measures to the
information needs of the firm Journal of Business Logistic, 28, 2, 35-53.
Guth, W. D. & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors’ introduction: corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management
Journal, 11, 5-15.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1999). Análisis Multivariante. Prentice Hall: Madrid.
Heizer, J & Render, B. (1997). Dirección de la producción: decisiones estratégicas. Prentice Hall Iberia. In Production
and operations management: strategic and tactical decisions (1996). Prentice Hall, Inc.
Hicks, R.C., Dattero, R.D. & Galup S.D. (2007). A metaphor for knowledge management: explicit islands in a tacit sea
Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 1, 5-16.
Hitt, M.A., Keats, B.W. & Demarie, S.M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: building strategic
flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. The Academy of Management Executive, v12, 4, 22-42.
Hope, C. (1997). Service operations management: strategy, design and delivery. London: Prentice Hall.
Jenkins, G.P. & Wright, D.S. (1998). Managing inflexible supply chains International Journal of Logistics
Management, 9, 2, 83-90.
Jiménez, M.M. (2009). Influencia de la capacidad de absorber conocimiento en la capacidad estratégica
intraemprendedora: un modelo causal en empresas españolas. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Granada.
Johnson, H.T. (1990). Performance measurement for competitive excellence. In R.S. Kaplan (Ed.) Measures for
manufacturing excellence. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kannan, G. & Aulbur, W.G. (2004). Intellectual capital: measurement effectiveness. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5, 3,
389 – 413.
Kenney, J. K. & Gudergan. S. P. (2006). Knowledge integration in organizations: an empirical assessment. Journal of
knowledge Management, 10, 4, 43-58.
Ketzenberg, M.E., Van der Laan, E. & Teunter, R.H. (2004). The value of information in reverse logistics. Report
Series Research in Management. Erasmus Research Institute of Management, spring, 1-40.
Kogut, B. (1985). Designing global strategies: profiting from operating flexibility. Sloan Management Review, 27, 1,
27-38.
Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (2001). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology.
Organization Science, 3, 3, 383-97.
Konrad, A.M. & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM Structures: Coordinating Equal Employment Opportunity or
Concealing Organizational Practice?. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 787-820.
Kopczak, L.R. (1997). Logistics Partnerships and Supply Chain Restructuring: Survey Results from the U.S. Computer
Industry. Production and Operations Management, 6 (3), 226-247.
Koste, L. & Malhotra M.K. (1999). A theoretical framework for analyzing the dimensions of manufacturing flexibility.
Journal of Operations Management, 18, 75-93.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing Management. 9th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, In Kotler, P. (1994). Dirección
de marketing. 8ª Edición. Prentice Hall.
Krikke H., Le Blanc I. & Van de Velde, S. (2003). Creating value from returns. Center Applied Research working
paper, 2003-02.
Kuo, H.C., Y. Li, & Ting, M. (2003). Can flexibility improve operational performance? a risk analysis on asian
financial crisis. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 4, 4, 263-281.
Krajewski, L.J. & Ritzman, L.P. (1996). Operations management: strategy and analysis. 4th ed. Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Lambert D.M. & Burduroglu R. (2000). Measuring and selling the value of logistics. The International Journal of
Logistics Management, 1-17.
Lau, H.C.W. & Lee, W.B. (2000). On a responsive supply chain information system. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 30 (7/8), 598-610.
Lillis, A.M. & Mundy, J. (2005). Cross-Sectional field studies in management accounting research - closing the gaps
between surveys and case studies. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 17, 119-141.
Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance.
Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 135-172.
Macintosh, N.B. (1985). The Social Software of Accounting and Information Systems. New York: Wiley.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W.J., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. & Zacharia, Z.G. (2001), Defining supply
chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22, (2), 1-25.
Nadler, D. & Tushman, M. (1999). The organization of the future: strategic imperatives and core competencies for the
21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 1, 45-56.
Paik, Y. (1991). The impact of strategic flexibility on business performance in the international business environment.
Unpublished dissertation. University of Washington.
Paiva, E.L., Roth, A.V. & Fensterseifer, .A. (2002). Focusing information in manufacturing: a knowledge management
perspective, Industrial Management & Data System, 102, 381-399.
Perera, S.H, & Poole, M. (1997). Customer-focused manufacturing strategy and the use of operations-based non-
financial performance measures: a research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22, 6, 557-572.
Porter, M.E. (2002). Ventaja Competitiva. Cecsa. México. Traducción de Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage.
New York: The Free Press.
Ramaswamy, R. (1996). Design and Management of Service Processes: Keeping Customers for life. Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MS.
Reed, R. & DeFillipi, R. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage.
Academy of Management Review, 15, 1, 88-102.
Rogers, D.S. & Tibben-Lembke, R.S. (1999). Going Backwards: Reverse Logistics Trends and Practices. Pittsburgh,
PA. RLEC Press.
Russo, M. & Fouts, P. (1997). A Resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability.
Academy of Management Journal, 40 (3), 534-559.
Savanevičienė, A. & Stankeviciute , Z. (2010). The Models Exploring the “Black Box” between HRM and
Organizational Performance . Engineering Economics, 21, 4, 426-434.
Schonberger, R.J. (1986). World Class Manufacturing. New York: The Free Press.
Scott, S., & Bruce, R. (1994) Determinant of Innovative Behaviour: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the
Workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580-607.
Sethi, A.K. & Sethi, S.P. (1990). Flexibility in Manufacturing. International Journal of Flexible manufacturing Systems,
2 (4), 289-328.
Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of
environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681-697.
Sinha, D. & Wei, C. (1992). Stochastic analysis of flexible process choices. European Journal of Operations Research,
60, 2, 183–199.
Sols, A. Nowick, D. & Verma, D. (2007). Defining the fundamental framework of an effective performance-based
logistic. Engineering Management Journal, 19 (2), 40-50.
Srivastava, S.K. & R.K. Srivastava, (2006). Managing product returns for reverse logistics. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 36 (7), 524-546.
Stock, J.R., Speh, T.W. & Shear, H.W. (2002). Many happy (product) returns. Harvard Business Review, 80 (7),16-17.
Sinha, D. & Wei, C. (1992). Stochastic analysis of flexible process choices. European Journal of Operations Research,
60 (2), 183–199.
Stokes, J. & Clegg, S.R. (2002). Power, knowledge, management and bureaucratic reform. Working paper series 2302,
School of Management, University of Technology, Sydney.
Swafford, P. (2003). Theoretical development and empirical investigation of supply chain agility. Georgia Institute of
Technology.
Teece, D. J. (1998). Research directions for knowledge management. California Management Review, 40, 3, pp. 289-
92.
Volberda, H.W. (1996). Towards the flexible form: how to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments.
Organization Science, 7 (4), 359–374.
Volberda, H.W. (1996). Towards the flexible form: how to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments.
Organization Science, 7, 4, 359–374.
Volberda, H.W. (1997). Building Flexible Organizations for Fast-Moving markets. Long Range Planning, 30, 2, 169-
183.
View publication stats

Wadhwa, S. & Madaan, J. (2004). Role of Quality Management Self Assessment Model to Promote Reverse Logistics
Operations. Bangkok: International Conventions on Quality Control Circles.
Wadhwa, S. & Madaan J. (2007). Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Management in Reverse Enterprise System.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 8 (2), 1-22.
Zahran, I. M., Elmaghraby, A. & Shalaby, M.A. (1990). Evaluation of flexibility in manufacturing systems. IEEE
International Conference on System, Man and Cybernetics, 149-152.