Article

Information Development
1–14
Share if you care: the impact of ª The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
information sharing and information DOI: 10.1177/0266666918755427
journals.sagepub.com/home/idv
quality on humanitarian supply chain
performance - a social capital perspective

Mohammad S. Najjar, Laila Dahabiyeh and Mohammad Nawayseh

University of Jordan

Abstract
Although the performance of Humanitarian Supply Chain (HSC) receives considerable attention in
current literature, measuring HSC performance remains challenging. HSC performance depends largely
on the ability to meet the needs of the sufferers which contradicts with current performance measures
that focus on input metrics such as donations and expenditures rather than output metrics. In this paper,
we address this gap in the literature by examining refugee service performance as perceived by refugees
themselves. We examine the impact of information sharing and information quality on HSC service
performance. We further draw on social capital theory to investigate how the dimensions of social
capital influence information sharing and information quality. Data collected from 276 refugees in Zaatari
camp in Jordan provide support for our proposed model. Our paper makes two contributions. First,
we extend current literature on HSC performance by examining the impact of information sharing
and the quality of the information shared on the beneficiaries’ perception of HSC performance. We
therefore focus on output metrics rather than input metrics. Second, we apply a social capital theoretical
lens to investigate how social ties and relations influence information sharing and information quality
in HSC. We also offer theoretical and practical implications for academics and stakeholders in the field
of HSC.

Keywords
information sharing, information quality, social capital, refugee service performance, humanitarian supply chain,
Jordan

Submitted: 26 November, 2017; Accepted: 5 January, 2018.

Introduction
The goal of Humanitarian Supply Chain (HSC) is
providing assistance in terms of food, water, shelter,
and medicine to people suffering from a disaster.
These resources are often supplied by non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the
United Nations and World Food Program (WFP).
With the scarcity of resources, improving the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of HSC operations becomes
critical. The performance of HSC thus receives con-
siderable attention (Abidi et al., 2014). The literature
on HSC performance varies in approaching this phe-
nomenon. One stream of research examines logistic
issues and offers solutions that can improve HSC effi-
ciency. For instance, Ertem et al. (2010) zoom in on
the resource allocation problem and propose an
auction-based procurement framework to address it.
While Yang et al. (2011) recommend the use of RFID
technology to improve the operations of humanitarian
distribution centers. Another stream focuses on
Corresponding author:
Mohammad S. Najjar, Department of Management Information
Systems, School of Business, University of Jordan, Queen Rania
St., Amman, Jordan 11194.
Email: najjar@ju.edu.jo
2 Information Development XX(X)
identifying the challenges in HSC performance such
as value judgment and information validity problems
(Abrahamsson et al., 2010), cultural differences and
knowledge gap among relief agencies (Maon et al.,
2009) and coordination difficulties between cooperat-
ing actors (Akhtar et al., 2012; Balcik et al., 2010). A
third stream of research develops performance
metrics for humanitarian relief chains (Beamon and
Balcik, 2008; Lin Moe et al., 2007) such as inventory
holding costs, response time, and amount of disaster
supplies delivered to each recipient.
Despite the valuable knowledge the current lit-
erature offers on how to improve the operations
and activities of HSC, measuring its performance
continues to be challenging. This is largely due to
the complex nature of HSC and the fact that its
performance relies heavily on nontangible services
that can be difficult to quantify (Abidi, et al., 2014;
Beamon and Balcik, 2008). The literature well-
acknowledges that such complexity drove NGOs
to rely on input performance metrics such as dona-
tions and expenditures rather than output metrics to
measure performance (Beamon and Balcik, 2008;
Kaplan, 2001).
Relying on input performance metrics is proble-
matic given that the ultimate goal of HSC is to alle-
viate the suffering of those who face a certain disaster.
In such situations, performance depends on the ability
to meet the needs of the sufferers (Kaplan, 2001).
Moreover, despite scholarly efforts to identify perfor-
mance measures, in a systematic review of HSC per-
formance, Abidi et al. (2014: page 599) found that
current research has a focus on “one-dimensional
management and it ignores the beneficiaries’ perspec-
tive to measure the output.” leading to an incomplete
assessment of HSC performance (Chen and Kitsis,
2017; Kim et al., 2015). Accordingly, capturing the
targeted beneficiaries’ perspective complements
other performance evaluation methods, which, when
taken together, results in a comprehensive account
for HSC performance. In addition, beneficiaries’
perspective is essential to improve the performance
of HSC (Lin Moe et al., 2007) because it allows
NGOs to address logistical challenges by adopting
an appropriate inventory management strategy that
ensures the right amount of aid is provided at the
right time for the right people (Beamon and Kotleba,
2006). This would further ascertain fair treatment
among aid receivers, and an efficient, cost-
effective flow of goods. HSC hence becomes
demand driven rather than forecast driven, which is
perceived to be a more effective and efficient strat-
egy for HSC (Oloruntoba and Gray, 2006).
In this paper, we address this gap in the literature
by examining refugee service performance as per-
ceived by refugees themselves. We study how infor-
mation sharing between NGOs and refugees and the
quality of this shared information impact HSC service
performance in achieving its developmental purposes.
We argue that although the flow of resources in terms
of food, water, and medicine is critical for the perfor-
mance of HSC, information is an equally important
resource (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012). Information is
valuable for communicating efforts taken and relief
needed between aid givers and aid receivers. Effective
information flow enhances decision making and
ensures a rapid response that contribute to a high-
performing HSC (Day, Junglas, and Silva, 2009), and
enable NGOs to better react to uncertainties accompa-
nying disasters (Cantor et al., 2014; Wakolbinger et al.,
2013; Chen et al., 2010). Moreover, NGOs face con-
stant demand for information by funders regarding
their activities to ensure the fund is wisely spent
(Ebrahim, 2002). The information flow between NGOs
and aid receivers can help alleviate funders’ concerns
by highlighting NGOs genuine efforts in meeting suf-
ferers’ real needs. Information sharing therefore can
contribute to retaining NGOs legitimacy.
As information sharing and information quality plays
a key role in judging the performance of HSC by refu-
gees, examining factors that can increase the amount of
information shared and enhance information quality
becomes paramount. Previous research has found that
relational factors in commercial supply chains can facil-
itate interorganizational information exchange and
communication behaviors (Uzzi 1997; Li et al., 2014).
Furthermore, high levels of social capital can improve
information quality by enhancing the accuracy and tim-
ing of information (Adler and Kwon 2002).
Social capital is well identified within the supply
chain literature as a key component of buyer-supplier
relationships and it is also considered critical to
various interorganizational activities such as the
exchange of knowledge and resources (Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998; Matthews and Marzec, 2012). We
draw on social capital theory to investigate how its
dimensions; structural capital, cognitive capital, and
relational capital influence information sharing and
information quality in a HSC context.
Our paper makes two main contributions. First, we
extend current literature on HSC performance by
examining the beneficiaries’ perception of HSC
Najjar et al: Share If You Care
performance. We by this address a common criticism
in measuring HSC performance that focuses on input
measures instead of output measures. Second, to the
best of our knowledge, this is the first study that
applies social capital theory in examining the perfor-
mance of HSC. We by this shed new insights that
enrich the current literature on HSC.
Theoretical Development and Hypotheses
Refugee Service Performance
A primary goal of any supply chain is to create or
improve the value offered to its customers (Stank
et al., 2001). Innovative measures of supply chain
performance should thus be customer-oriented (De
Toni and Tonchia, 2001; Akyuz and Erkan 2010),
where customer satisfaction is seen essential for sup-
ply chain performance (Jeffers et al., 2008). In the
HSC context, we define refugee service performance
as the refugee’s perceptions of aid providers’ perfor-
mance in the HSC. This means that what becomes of
value to aid receivers defines whether or not a HSC is
well-performing. Consequently, factors such as
timely delivery and damage-free products signal good
service quality by end users (Xu et al., 2013).
Information sharing
Research in supply chains reveals that information
sharing can impact supply chain performance by
lowering total cost and enhancing service level
(Zhao et al., 2002). Higher levels of information
sharing are associated with lower total cost, higher
order fulfilment rate, and shorter order cycle time
(Lin et al., 2002).
In our HSC context, information sharing refers to
the exchange of information between refugees and
NGOs. Sharing information about aid is needed
improve HSC performance because it allows NGOs
to better plan their inventory and manage replenish-
ment schedule (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Wu et al.,
2014; Chen et al., 2010). This would facilitate deli-
vering the right quantity at the right time (Akhtar
et al., 2012). Moreover, conducting regular meetings
between aid providers and refugees increases the level
of information shared (Müller and Gaudig, 2011; Park
et al., 2014). This helps in acquiring sufficient amount
of information that covers the needs of most refugees.
Furthermore, information sharing raises awareness of
existing problems (such as lack of information about
aid delivery time) which allows offering better
3
services in the future (Monczka et al., 1998). This
dissemination of information has the potential to
impact the development of the community
(Mchombu, 2003), which will be reflected in term
of better service rendered to refugees. Thus, we
propose the following:
H1: information sharing has a positive effect on
refugee service performance
Information quality
Information sharing alone is not enough for a high-
performing supply chain. The information shared
should be of high quality not only to produce the
desired outcome, but also because low-quality infor-
mation (i.e., inaccurate or incomplete) can result in a
waste of resources that would contribute negatively to
supply chain performance (Monczka, et al., 1998).
Information quality in the supply chain measures the
degree to which the information exchanged between
supply chain parties meets their needs. Information
quality is usually defined by several dimensions that
represent, in our context, the accuracy, adequacy,
completeness, timeliness, and credibility of informa-
tion shared between NGOs and refugees (Mohr and
Spekman, 1994; Wixom and Todd, 2005). Larson and
Kulchitsky (2000) demonstrate a positive linkage
between the quality of information exchanged
between buyer and supplier in a supply chain and
delivery performance. Information quality is a signif-
icant determinant of customer service capabilities
(Setia et al., 2013). We believe that if the information
shared between the refugees and their aid provider is
high with respect to aspects of information quality,
this should enhance the service provided to refugees
in a HSC. Thus, we suggest the following:
H2. Information quality has a positive effect on
refugee service performance
As a collaborative relationship develops between
two parties, characterized by trust, open communica-
tion, and established social capital, this should
enhance the completeness of information, the percep-
tion of the reliability of information received from a
trusted partner (i.e., accuracy), the trustworthiness of
information received (i.e., credible), and the rele-
vancy of information communicated based on a
shared understanding (i.e., adequacy). Moreover, the
more frequent information sharing becomes, the time-
lier information is received. Jonsson and Gustavsson
(2008) demonstrate the impact of information
4 Information Development XX(X)
communication on information quality dimensions.
Higher levels of information sharing are important for
improving information quality since decision-makers
expect that information sharing will add to the fulfil-
ment of their information needs (Popovic et al., 2014).
We expect that the level of information sharing
between the refugees and NGOs will impact percep-
tions of information quality of the shared information;
we accordingly hypothesize:
H3. Information sharing has a positive effect on
information quality
Social Capital
Information is integral for the delivery of quality ser-
vices, and social relations constitute a valuable
resource for social action, which is the heart of social
capital theory. Social capital is seen to play an impor-
tant role in disaster response and recovery (Thapa
et al., 2017; Nakagawa and Shaw, 2004) because it
creates a flexible environment that is adaptable to
change (Widen-Wulff and Ginman, 2004). Nahapiet
and Ghoshal (1998: page 243) define social capital as
“the sum of the actual and potential resources
embedded within, and derived from the network of
relationships possessed by an individual or social
unit”. Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) view social ties as
channels for information and resource flows. It is
through social ties and interactions that actors gain
access to each other’s resources. Several studies have
found that the one or more of the dimensions of social
capital are prerequisites of information sharing (Tsai
and Ghoshal, 1998; Wu, 2008; Cheng et al., 2008; Lin
et al., 2009; Lu and Yang, 2011; Li et al., 2014; Wang
et al., 2014) and information quality (Chiu et al.,
2006; Li et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014)
The social relationships built between employees
of NGOs and refugees over time influence the pro-
pensity to share information between them. The con-
tinuous social interactions among individuals will
result in overcoming barriers between them (Ring and
Van de Ven, 1994) which should improve information
quality as well. The three interrelated dimensions of
social capital: the structural, the relational, and the
cognitive dimensions (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998)
are expected to come into play and shape information
flow and the quality of the shared information in the
context of refugees’ crisis. We contextualize the
dimensions of social capital in HSC and hypothesize
their impacts as follows:
Structural capital. Structural capital is manifested in
social interaction between refugees and employees
of the aid providers (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998)
and defines the structural means of formal and
informal social interaction between them (Tsai and
Ghoshal, 1998). It represents the network of rela-
tions as a whole. We suggest that structural capital
has an indirect effect on information sharing and
information quality through its impact on relational
capital and cognitive capital. These three dimen-
sions of social capital are not separate but interre-
lated and influence one another (Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998). For example, the accumulation of
favorable interactions leads to the formation of
trust (Moran, 2005). Moreover, the continuous
interactions among actors suggest a shared mean-
ing system among them because relationships will
breakdown if actors cannot reach a common under-
standing (Krause et al., 2007).
Cognitive capital. Cognitive capital describes the
shared understanding and interpretation of events
between refugees and employees of the aid provi-
ders. Cognitive capital also implies the presence of
shared goals that “hold people together and lets them
share what they know” (Chow and Chan, 2008: page
460). Cognitive capital is an important element in
social relations because it is through shared language
actors are able to exchange information and commu-
nicate with one another (Nahapiet and Ghoshal,
1998). By developing a shared vision about how to
interact with one another, individuals can better
exchange their ideas or resources and avoid possible
misunderstandings (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998).
Furthermore, the common goals or interests they
share help them to see the potential value of their
resource exchange and combination.
Having shared goals enables feedback to measure
the extent to which goals have been met (Tantardini
and Kroll, 2015). On the contrary, misinterpretation
results in dissatisfaction and conflict among actors
which limit information sharing (Krause et al.,
2007). Yeon et al., (2015) suggest that knowledge
contribution also needs to be underlined with a com-
mon aspiration and shared vision. Common under-
standing and shared means of communication also
improve information quality (Chiu et al., 2006; Li
et al., 2014) since it reduces risks resulting from mis-
interpretation allowing correct understanding of refu-
gees’ situation and thus the exchange of high-quality
information. We thus suggest:
Najjar et al: Share If You Care
Cognitive
Capital
H4b
Structural
Capital
H5a
Relational
Capital
Hypothesized relationship
Controlled relationship
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
H4a. Cognitive capital has a positive effect on
information sharing
H4b. Cognitive capital has a positive effect on
information quality
Relational capital. Relational capital refers to the inter-
personal relationships developed between refugees
and aid providers’ employees, which are based on
mutual trust and reciprocity. When two individuals
trust each other, their willingness to share their
resources with each other increases. Individuals tend
to favor trustworthy partners as exchange partners
without worrying that they will be taken advantage
of (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). Trust is further critical
for successful social exchange relationships (Mon-
czka et al., 1998) since it motivates engagement in
social interactions (Karahana and Preston, 2013) and
enables open communication and information sharing
(Wu et al., 2014). In addition, trust increases willing-
ness to share information (Altay and Pal, 2014; Kale
et al., 2000) even in situations that lack formal
mechanisms for information sharing (Coleman,
1988). Li et al. (2014) found that trust leads business
partners to exchange timely and relevant information.
In a HSC context, when refugees begin to trust the
employees of the aid provider, they will become more
willing to share information with those employees.
The formation of trust is an important antecedent of
sharing valuable information, especially for refugees
who may find it difficult to alleviate the fear of an
5
H4a Information
Sharing
H1
Refugee
H3 Service
Performance
H2
Information
Quality
H5b
opportunistic exchange partner (Bradach and Eccles,
1989). Reciprocity describes the mutual benefits
between aid providers and refugees, which facilitates
information sharing since both benefit from the rela-
tionship (Wu et al., 2014). As refugees perceive that
aid providers are here to help them and that can only
be done through sharing their needs and wants with
them they will be more inclined to share quality infor-
mation. Thus, we hypothesize:
H5a. Relational capital has a positive effect on
information sharing
H5b. Relational capital has a positive effect on
information quality
Figure 1 details our proposed research model and
hypotheses.
Methodology
To test the research model, we conduct a cross-
sectional field survey of Syrian refugees living in
Zaatari camp in Jordan. Zaatari, established in July,
2012, around one year after the Syrian crisis in 2011,
is one of the biggest refugee camps in the world. As of
May, 2017i, around 80,000 Syrian refugees are resid-
ing in the camp with over 461,000 refugees who have
passed through the camp. Refugee crisis is considered
a slow-onset disaster, which means that this crisis will
unfold over a long period of time. Long-term relation-
ships between refugees and NGOs staff are thus
expected to be formed.
6 Information Development XX(X)

Table 1. Demographic data of respondents (N ¼ 276).

Percentage Mean Std. Dev.

Gender Male 56.9 1.43 .50

Female 43.1
Age 18-25 38.4 2.06 1.10
26-35 31.5
36-45 20.7
46-59 8.2
60 1.2
Education Elementary School 22.5 2.30 1.03
High School 43.8
Two-Year Diploma 16.7
Undergraduate Degree 15.2
Graduate Degree 1.8
Family Members 5.73 2.19
Family Providers 1.07 .65
Years in Camp 4.40 .80
Notes: Gender (1 indicates “male” and 2 indicates “female”); Age (1–5, respectively, indicates “18-25”; “25–36”; “36-45”; “46–55” and
“50”); Education (1-5, respectively, indicates “Elementary School”; “High School”; “Two-Year Diploma”; “Undergraduate Degree”;
“Graduate Degree”).

Measures Development We employed five refugees to work with us in

Data were collected using a survey, all of our survey
items were adapted from previously validated instru-
ments (See Appendix A). Items were measured using
five-point Likert scales anchored from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree”. We also included
demographic information as possible control vari-
ables. The original items were translated to Arabic
and back-translated English by two bilingual experts
to ensure equivalency in meanings. The survey was
reviewed by academic researchers with expertise in
information systems and supply chain management
and pilot tested by interviews with refugees to check
the face validity of the items.
Survey Administration
Access to Zataari refugee camp required special per-
mits and authorization from multiple parties. Once we
had our permits issued we started our field survey. We
identified our target population as adults residing in
the camp, which represents around 21.5% of the
camp’s populationii, resulting in a total of around
17,000 refugees as our population. We attempted to
generate an adequate sample size for such a popula-
tion, which would be 376 for a 95% confidence level
and a 5% confidence interval. However, due to some
logistical, security, and financial restrictions, we were
allowed to distribute 300 surveys only.
order to smooth the data collection process and help
us better communicate with other refugees in the
camp. Respondents were asked to fill in the survey
to reflect their interaction with and assessment of
the main humanitarian aid provider in the camp; the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR). The 300 surveys were randomly and
personally distributed and collected. 24 surveys
were later discarded due to incomplete or invalid
data; yielding a total of 276 usable responses as our
sample size. This sample size is slightly greater
than the sample-to-item ratio of 10:1 suggested by
Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) and Hair et al.
(1998). The respondents’ demographic data is dis-
played in Table 1.
Results
Measurement Model Assessment
We tested the measurement and the structural models
using partial least squares (PLS) method. SmartPLS
2.0 (Ringle et al., 2005) was chosen as the modelling
software for data analysis. We used the bootstrap pro-
cedure with 400 resamples (Ringle et al., 2012) to
estimate the significance of the path coefficients and
weights. In order to enhance convergent validity, we
applied the 0.6 threshold for factor loading suggested
by Fornell and Larcker (1981). We dropped two items
Najjar et al: Share If You Care 7

Table 2. Construct internal consistency and correlations of variables.

No. of Items AVE Comp. Reliab. Cron. Alpha SC CC RC IS IQ RSP

SC 4 0.72 0.91 0.87 0.85

CC 3 0.71 0.88 0.80 0.56 0.84
RC 3 0.74 0.89 0.82 0.75 0.48 0.86
IS 4 0.70 0.90 0.85 0.81 0.51 0.79 0.84
IQ 5 0.72 0.93 0.90 0.74 0.49 0.78 0.78 0.85
RSP 6 0.70 0.93 0.91 0.64 0.29 0.69 0.64 0.71 0.84
Legend: SC: Structural Capital IS: Information Sharing
CC: Cognitive Capital IQ: Information Quality
RC: Relational Capital RSP: Refugee Service Performance
Notes: The recommended levels for the above statistics are as follows: Average variance extracted (AVE) > 0.50. Composite
Reliability > 0.60. Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.70.
The square root of AVE is shown in bold on the diagonal.

Cognitive .18*** Information

Capital Sharing
R 2 = .32 R 2 = .64 .23***

.56*** n.s
Refugee
Structural .39*** Service
Capital Performance
R 2 = .52
.75*** .70***

Relational Information .53***

Capital Quality
R 2 = .57 .44*** R 2 = .69

Figure 2. Structural model results.

***p < .001.

used to measure relational capital (RC4) and informa-
tion sharing (IS5) from further analyses because of
their relatively low loadings on their respective con-
structs (0.39 and 0.57, respectively); possibly result-
ing from ambiguity in wording after translation or
improper transfer of the items from the original con-
text (Hulland 1999).
Common Method Bias. Common method bias may pose
a threat if data were collected using the same method.
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted and the
Harman (1967) one factor extraction test was applied.
Using the 25 variables, 4 factors were revealed with
eigen values greater than 1.00 with no single factor
explaining the majority of the variance. Therefore,
common method bias was not a threat.
Construct Validity. Internal consistency of all constructs
supports convergent validity. Consistent with recom-
mended values, average variance extracted (AVE)
(>0.50, Fornell and Larcker 1981), composite relia-
bility (>0.60, Bagozzi and Yi 1988), and Cronbach’s
alpha (>0.70, Hair et al., 1998) for all constructs.
Discriminant validity was evaluated by comparing the
square root of AVE with the correlations between
constructs. The square root of AVE for a construct
should be greater than the correlations with any other
construct. All 21 correlations met this test (Table 2).
Structural Model Assessment
The results of the structural model analysis including
standardized path coefficients and their statistical sig-
nificance are listed in Figure 2. All hypotheses, except
8 Information Development XX(X)
hypothesis H4b, were supported. The controlled
predictive relationships between structural capital
and cognitive and relational capitals were signifi-
cant. Information sharing and information quality
had positive and significant effects on refugee ser-
vice performance and both explained 52% of var-
iance in refugee service performance. Information
sharing and relational capital had positive effect on
information quality and both explained 69% of var-
iance in information quality. Cognitive capital and
relational capital had positive effect on information
sharing and both explained 64% of variance in
information sharing.
All control variables, except the number of years a
refugee has been living in the camp, were found to be
insignificant, including age (b ¼ - 0.01, p > 0.1),
gender (b ¼ 0.03, p > 0.1), education (b ¼ 0.07, p >
0.1), number of family members (b ¼ - 0.10, p > 0.1),
and number of providers in the family (b ¼ 0.11, p >
0.1). The number of years living in the camp, however,
was found to be significant (b ¼ - 0.17, p < 0.01).
This might be explained by the fact that social cap-
ital is associated with the amount of time a refugee
stays in the camp. When a refugee first arrives at the
camp, he has no social capital established with
NGOs. The longer he lives there, the more social
capital is built. This, in turn, influences his percep-
tion of information sharing and information quality,
which, ultimately, impact his perception of the ser-
vice he receives from NGOs.
Most of the hypothesized relationships were sup-
ported. H1 suggests that information sharing has a
direct effect on refugees’ perception of the service
they receive from aid providers. The quality of the
shared information has been found to influence refu-
gees’ service performance as well, indicated by the
significance and support of H2. Moreover, the sharing
of information between refugees and NGOs will con-
sequently improve the quality of information shared
(H3), contributing to the enhancement of several
aspects of information quality.
Dimensions of social capital have been found to
affect information sharing. The support of H4a and
H5a demonstrate that the cognitive and relational
capitals built between refugees and NGOs will influ-
ence the degree of information sharing between refu-
gees and NGOs. The higher the social capital
embedded in the relationship between aid providers
and aid receivers, the higher the aid receivers’ percep-
tions of information sharing taking place between the
two parties. The support of H5b indicates that
Table 3. Results of mediation analysis.
IS ! IQ IQ ! RSP IS ! RSP
Path coefficients that .778*** .710*** .643***
are estimated
independently
Path coefficients that .776*** .532*** .229***
are estimated
simultaneously
Mediation Partial
***p < .001.
Note: Since all paths coefficients are significant, while coefficient
of IS ! RSP when estimated independently is larger than when
estimated simultaneously, then IQ partially mediates the impact of
IS on RSP.
relational capital plays an important role in shaping
information quality. However, the lack of support of
the insignificant relationship between cognitive capital
and information quality (H4b) can be due to the fact
that common understanding is essential to establish the
communication between refugees and NGOs’ staff. In
other words, common understanding is incorporated in
any communication. Accordingly, what follows the
establishing of communication, in terms of improving
the quality of information shared, depends more on
trust and commitment developed between refugees and
NGOs during their interactions (relational capital).
Post Hoc Analyses
We conducted the analysis suggested by Baron and
Kenny (1986) to test the mediating effect of informa-
tion quality on refugee service performance. Consis-
tent with our theoretical basis, our research model
hypothesizes that information sharing influences refu-
gee service performance partially through informa-
tion quality (partial mediation effect of information
quality). Therefore, we performed the mediation anal-
ysis to determine if full or partial mediation effects are
present. The results of our mediation analysis are pre-
sented in Table 3.
We then performed the Sobel test (Sobel 1982),
which confirmed the partial mediating role of
information quality in the relationship information
sharing and refugee service performance (Sobel test
statistic ¼ 7.837, p < 0.001).
Discussion and Implications
Recently, there have been calls within supply chain
management field to better understand HSC and its
Najjar et al: Share If You Care
operations. Our field study in one of the largest refu-
gee camps in the world revealed several important
and interesting findings. We empirically tested the
impact of information sharing and information quality
on the performance of humanitarian supply chain
from refugees’ perspective. We also recognized the
critical role of social capital in shaping information
sharing and information quality between the refugees
and the NGOs that run the humanitarian operations in
the camp.
Theoretical Implications
The paper contributes to the literature on HSC in a
number of ways. First, we examine the performance
of HSC through measuring its output rather than its
input. We illustrate how aid recipients’ view on infor-
mation quality and information sharing with their aid
provider affect their perception of whether the HSC is
performing well or not. Our research thus gives voice
to one of the key, but often least examined, stake-
holders in HSC. Information sharing was found to
have both direct effect and indirect effect, through
information quality, on refugees’ evaluation of the
service delivered to them by their aid providers. This
finding conforms with commercial supply chain liter-
ature (Fawcett et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2002; Sezen,
2008; Lin et al., 2002; Thonemann 2002) that empha-
sizes the importance of collaboration and information
sharing between stakeholders, and explains how shar-
ing enables organizations to be more responsive to
changes in customer demand. We extend this litera-
ture to show that information sharing is also critical in
non-for-profit supply chains. Specifically, we exam-
ined information sharing between downstream part-
ners in the supply chain; that is the organization and
its customers (in here, NGOs and refugees) which has
been lacking in previous literature (Cantor et al.,
2014). Through such collaboration, refugees are not
only seen as receivers of aid, rather their role trans-
cends and they become active participants in HSC.
We also built on previous commercial supply chain
literature (Forslund and Jonsson, 2007; Hartono et al.,
2010; Li et al., Rao 2006) to investigate the influence
of information quality on HSC performance. We find
that the quality of the information shared between
refugees and NGOs has a direct positive effect on
refugees’ perception of the service they receive.
Therefore, it is not enough to encourage information
sharing practices between refugees’ and NGOs; the
information shared has to be complete, accurate,
9
timely, adequate, and credible to get the best impact
on refugees’ evaluation of the service received. The
partial mediating influence of information quality in
the relationship between information sharing and
HSC service performance demonstrates that informa-
tion sharing influences information quality, a relation-
ship that has not received much attention in previous
research. Information sharing can improve the quality
of information by enhancing the aspects that define
information quality.
Second, information flows have a key role in
improving resources flow and thus HSC performance
(Day et al., 2009; Altay and Pal, 2014). By zooming in
on the social interactions between NGOs and refugees
where information sharing is taking place, we reveal
the important role of social capital in ensuring an
effective information flow among actors in the HSC
which should lead to a high performing HSC. We thus
offer a new theoretical understanding of HSC perfor-
mance and a more nuanced analysis of how social
capital can improve HSC performance. In congruence
with previous research (Wu, 2008; Lu and Yang,
2011; Li et al., 2014; Sambasivan et al., 2011), we
show how the relational dimension of social capital is
essential in stimulating information sharing between
refugees and NGOs. In addition, the information
shared is perceived to be of higher quality when the
relational capital is stronger. Mutual trust, friendship,
respect, and high reciprocity between refugees’ and
NGOs’ employees are all relational capital factors
that contribute to information sharing and information
quality in HSC. However, cognitive capital, extent to
which refugees and NGOs’ employees share a com-
mon understanding, does not have a similar effect on
information sharing and information quality. In fact,
our results show that the influence of cognitive capital
on information quality is insignificant. Furthermore,
the effect of cognitive capital on information sharing
is weaker than that of relational capital. This indicates
that when information sharing is required to improve
HSC performance, the developed relational capital
between the parties is what matters the most. This
finding is not surprising since it is acknowledged that
social capital dimensions, because of their particular
qualities, varies in their effect on information sharing
(Wu, 2008; Li et al., 2014).
Practical Implications
In terms of practical implications, our findings give
some useful insights NGOs can take into
10
consideration for designing a more effective and effi-
cient HSC. NGOs are constantly seeking ways that
can improve HSC performance. Our paper suggests
that more effective use of information is one way of
achieving that. Specifically, by increasing the level of
information shared with aid receivers along with
improving the quality of information shared. NGOs
should develop feedback mechanisms (i.e., paper and
online feedback forms, interviews) that facilitate such
sharing. This allows aid receivers to take a proactive
role and be active participants in the supply chain,
while at the same time providing NGOs with valuable
information regarding their services, how they are
seen by aid receivers, and what services are missing.
This information can be used as a basis in fund-raising
campaigns, to better allocate resources, plan inven-
tory stocks, and schedule delivery times. Addition-
ally, NGOs can improve the level of information
sharing by using bulletin boards, social media and
mobile text messages to broadcast announcements
and send personalized information in order to educate
aid receivers of updates about any available funds,
jobs, social events or meetings. The use of such tech-
nologies enhances sharing because the ubiquitous
nature of these technologies eliminates resistance and
costs arising from providing training on new systems
(Wakolbinger et al., 2013). Capitalizing on informa-
tion resources indicates that NGOs needs to leverage
their information capabilities in order to better man-
age, interpret and process the information obtained.
As our paper indicates that building social capital
facilitates information flow, NGOs should focus on
developing strong social capital with aid receivers in
order to boost information sharing and improve infor-
mation quality. This can be done by holding regular
face-to-face meetings, focusing on bi-directional
communications, and meeting commitments. More-
over, conducting informal social events provides a
friendly environment that motivates aid receivers to
communicate and build social ties with aid givers.
This all is expected to build a relationship based on
trust and respect which should ultimately result in
improving HSC performance.
Limitations and future research
Several limitations arise from this study. First, this is a
cross-sectional survey study in which data was col-
lected from one source only (i.e., refugees). This
might pose threat to the validity and generalizability
of the findings. Future research should implement
Information Development XX(X)
longitudinal studies and additional research meth-
odologies, in which data is collected from more than
one source, to better understand this phenomenon and
enhance the generalizability of our findings. Second,
this study investigates the influence of information in
terms of sharing and quality on refugees’ perception
of HSC performance. This is by no means an exhaus-
tive list of the factors that impact HSC performance.
There are possibly other factors (e.g., information
quantity and communication channel characteristics)
that might influence HSC performance that are
beyond the scope of this particular study. We invite
future research regarding additional factors that form
the perception of HSC performance. Finally, this
study was conducted in a Syrian refugee camp in
Jordan, in which some factors, especially the building
of social capital, might be unique to this specific pop-
ulation and setting. It might be interesting to see how
our findings can be extended, or perhaps contradicted,
in other HSC contexts.
Conclusion
Share if you care; a message this paper sends to aid
and care providers who run the humanitarian opera-
tions in refugee camps. Developing social relation-
ships between employees of the NGOs and the
refugees should improve information sharing between
them and enhance the quality of the information
shared. This should, ultimately, lead to a higher per-
ception of the level of service provided to the refu-
gees, one of the main compelling goals of most NGOs
in implementing HSC for the development and well-
being of those in need.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Eng. Hani Najjar and Mr.
Ahmad Shabana for their collaboration and logistic
support.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
i. ReliefWeb (2017) Zaatari Refugee Camp - Factsheet,
May 2017. Available at: http://reliefweb.int/report/jor-
dan/zaatari-refugee-camp-factsheet-may-2017
(accessed 3 June 2017).
ii. UNHCR Emergency Information Sharing Web Portal
(2017) Syria Regional Refugee Response. Available
at: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/settlement.php?
id¼176 (accessed 14 November 14 2017).
Najjar et al: Share If You Care
References
Abidi H, de Leeuw S and Klumpp M (2014) Humanitarian
supply chain performance management: a systematic
literature review. Supply Chain Management: An Inter-
national Journal 19(5/6): 592–608.
Abrahamsson M, Hassel H and Tehler H (2010) Towards a
system-oriented framework for analysing and evaluating
emergency response. Journal of Contingencies and Cri-
sis Management 18(1): 14–25.
Akhtar P, Marr N and Garnevska E (2012) Coordination in
humanitarian relief chains: chain coordinators. Journal
of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Manage-
ment 2(1): 85–103.
Adler PS and Kwon SW (2002) Social capital: prospects
for a new concept. Academy of Management Review
27(1): 17–40.
Altay N and Pal R (2014) Information diffusion among
agents: implications for humanitarian operations. Pro-
duction and Operations Management 23(6): 1015–1027.
Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 16(1): 74–94.
Balcik B, Beamon BM, Krejci CC, Muramatsu KM and
Ramirez M (2010) Coordination in humanitarian relief
chains: practices, challenges and opportunities. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 126(1): 22–34.
Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6):
1173–1182.
Beamon BM and Balcik B (2008) Performance measure-
ment in humanitarian relief chains. International Jour-
nal of Public Sector Management 21(1): 4–25.
Beamon BM and Kotleba SA (2006) Inventory manage-
ment support systems for emergency humanitarian relief
operations in South Sudan. The International Journal of
Logistics Management 17(2): 187–212.
Bradach JL and Eccles RG (1989) Price, authority, and
trust: from ideal types to plural forms. Annual Review
of Sociology 15:97–118.
Cantor DE, Blackhurst J, Pan M and Crum M (2014) Exam-
ining the role of stakeholder pressure and knowledge
management on supply chain risk and demand respon-
siveness. The International Journal of Logistics Man-
agement 25(1) 202–223.
Chen IJ and Kitsis AM (2017) A research framework of
sustainable supply chain management: the role of rela-
tional capabilities in driving performance. The Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Management 28(4):
1454–1478.
Chen IJ and Paulraj A (2004) Towards a theory of supply
chain management: the constructs and measurements.
Journal of Operations Management 22(2): 119–150.
11
Chen R, Rao HR, Sharman R, Upadhyaya SJ and Kim J
(2010) An empirical examination of IT-enabled
emergency response: the cases of hurricane Katrina and
hurricane Rita. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems 26(8): 141–156.
Cheng J-H, Yeh C-H and Tu C-W (2008) Trust and knowl-
edge sharing in green supply chains. Supply Chain Man-
agement: An International Journal 13(4): 283–95.
Chiu CM, Hsu MH and Wang ET (2006) Understanding
knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integra-
tion of social capital and social cognitive theories. Deci-
sion Support Systems 42(3): 1872–1888.
Chow WS and Chan LS (2008) Social network, social trust
and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing.
Information & Management 45(7): 458–465.
Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human
capital. American Journal of Sociology 94(Suppl.):
S95–S120.
Day JM, Junglas I and Silva L (2009) Information flow
impediments in disaster relief supply chains. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems 10(8):
637–660.
De Toni A and Tonchia S (2001) Performance measure-
ment systems-models, characteristics and measures.
International Journal of Operations & Production Man-
agement 21(1/2): 46–71.
Ebrahim A (2002) Information struggles: the role of infor-
mation in the reproduction of NGO–funder relation-
ships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
31(1): 84–114
Ertem MA, Buyurgan N and Rossetti MD (2010) Multiple-
buyer procurement auctions framework for humanitar-
ian supply chain management. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 40(3):
202–227.
Fawcett SE, Osterhaus P, Magnan GM, Brau JC and
McCarter MW (2007) Information sharing and supply
chain performance: the role of connectivity and willing-
ness. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 12(5): 358–368.
Fornell C and Larcker VF (1981) Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
surement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):
39–50.
Forslund H and Jonsson P (2007) The impact of forecast
information quality on supply chain performance.
International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 27(1): 90–107.
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL and Black WC (1998)
Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harman HH (1967) Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hartono E, Li X, Na K and Simpson J (2010) The role of
the quality of shared information in interorganizational
12
systems use. International Journal of Information Man-
agement 30(5): 399–407.
Hu Q and Kapucu N (2016) Information communication
technology utilization for effective emergency manage-
ment networks. Public Management Review 18(3):
323–348.
Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in stra-
tegic management research: a review of four recent stud-
ies. Strategic Management Journal 20(2): 195–204.
Jeffers PI, Muhanna WA and Nault BR (2008) Information
technology and process performance: an empirical
investigation of the interaction between IT and non-IT
resources. Decision Sciences 39(4): 703–735.
Jonsson P and Gustavsson M (2008) The impact of supply
chain relationships and automatic data communication
and registration on forecast information quality. Inter-
national Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 38(4): 280–295.
Kale P, Singh H and Perlmutter H (2000) Learning and
protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances:
building relational capital. Strategic Management Jour-
nal 21(3): 217–237.
Karahanna E and Preston DS (2013) The effect of social
capital of the relationship between the CIO and top
management team on firm performance. Journal of
Management Information Systems 30(1): 15–56.
Kaplan RS (2001) Strategic performance measurement and
management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit man-
agement and Leadership 11(3): 353–370.
Kim KK, Ryoo SY and Lee H (2016) Environmental uncer-
tainty and interorganizational information sharing:
accommodating manufacturer and supplier perspec-
tives. Information Development 32(5): 1485–1502.
Krause DR, Handfield RB and Tyler BB (2007) The relation-
ships between supplier development, commitment, social
capital accumulation and performance improvement.
Journal of Operations Management 25(2): 528–545.
Kumar S, Niedan-Olsen K and Peterson L (2009) Educat-
ing the supply chain logistics for humanitarian efforts in
Africa: a case study. International Journal of Produc-
tivity and Performance Management 58(5): 480–500.
Larson P and Kulchitsky J (2000) The use and impact of
communication media in purchasing and supply man-
agement. Journal of Supply Chain Management 36(3):
29–39.
Li S, Ragu-Nathan B, Ragu-Nathan TS and Rao SS (2006)
The impact of supply chain management practices on
competitive advantage and organizational performance.
Omega 34(2): 107–124.
Li Y, Ye F and Sheu C (2014) Social capital, information
sharing and performance: evidence from China. Inter-
national Journal of Operations & Production Manage-
ment 34(11): 1440–1462.
Lin F, Huang S and Lin S (2002) Effects of information
sharing on supply chain performance in electronic
Information Development XX(X)
commerce. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-
ment 49(3): 258–268.
Lin M-JJ, Hung S-W and Chen C-J (2009) Fostering the deter-
minants of knowledge sharing in professional virtual com-
munities. Computers in Human Behavior 25(4): 929–939.
Lin Moe T, Gehbauer F, Senitz S and Mueller M (2007)
Balanced scorecard for natural disaster management
projects. Disaster Prevention and Management: An
International Journal 16(5): 785–806.
Lu Y and Yang D (2011) Information exchange in virtual
communities under extreme disaster conditions. Deci-
sion Support Systems 50(2): 529–538.
Maon F, Lindgreen A and Vanhamme J (2009) Developing
supply chains in disaster relief operations through cross-
sector socially oriented collaborations: a theoretical
model. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 14(2): 149–164.
Matthews RL and Marzec PE (2012) Social capital, a the-
ory for operations management: a systematic review of
the evidence. International Journal of Production
Research 50(24), 7081–7099.
Mchombu K (2003) Information dissemination for devel-
opment: an impact study. Information Development
19(2): 111–126.
Mohr J and Spekman R (1994) Characteristics of partner-
ship success: partnership attributes, communication
behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic
Management Journal 15(2): 135–142.
Monczka RM, Petersen KJ, Handfield RB and Ragatz GL
(1998) Success factors in strategic supplier alliances: the
buying company perspective. Decision Sciences 29(3):
553–577.
Moran P (2005) Structural vs. relational embeddedness:
social capital and managerial performance. Strategic
Management Journal 26(12): 1129–1151.
Müller M and Gaudig S (2011) An empirical investigation
of antecedents to information exchange in supply
chains. International Journal of Production Research
49(6): 1531–1555.
Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual
capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of
Management Review 23(2): 242–266.
Nakagawa Y and Shaw R (2004) Social capital: a missing
link to disaster recovery. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters 22(1): 5–34.
Nunnally JC and Bernstein I (1994) Psychometric theory.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Oloruntoba R and Gray R (2006) Humanitarian aid: an
agile supply chain?” Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 11(2): 115–120.
Park J-G, Lee S and Lee J (2014) Communication effec-
tiveness on IT service relationship quality. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 114(2): 321–336.
Popovic A, Hackney R, Coelho PS and Jaklic J (2014) How
information-sharing values influence the use of
Najjar et al: Share If You Care
information systems: an investigation in the business
intelligence systems context. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems 23(4):270–283.
Prajogo D and Olhager J (2012) Supply chain integration
and performance: the effects of long-term relationships,
information technology and sharing, and logistics inte-
gration. International Journal of Production Economics
135(1): 514–522.
Ring PS and Van de Ven AH (1994) Developmental pro-
cesses of cooperative interorganizational relationships.
Academy of Management Review 19(1): 90–118.
Ringle CM, Sarstedt M and Straub DW (2012) A critical
look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS
Quarterly 36(1): iii–xiv.
Ringle CM, Wende S and Will S (2005) SmartPLS 2.0 (M3)
Beta. Hamburg, http://www.smartpls.de.
Sambasivan M, Siew-Phaik L, Abidin-Mohamed Z and
Choy-Leong Y (2011) Impact of interdependence
between supply chain partners on strategic alliance out-
comes: role of relational capital as a mediating con-
struct. Management Decision 49(4): 548–569.
Setia P, Venkatesh V and Joglekar S (2013) Leveraging
digital technologies: how information quality leads to
localized capabilities and customer service perfor-
mance. MIS Quarterly 37(2): 565–590.
Sezen B (2008) Relative effects of design, integration and
information sharing on supply chain performance. Sup-
ply Chain Management: An International Journal 13(3):
233–240.
Sobel ME (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indi-
rect effects in structural equation models. In Sociologi-
cal Methodology, edited by Leinhart S., 290–312. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stank TP, Keller SB and Daugherty PJ (2001) Supply chain
collaboration and logistical service performance. Jour-
nal of Business Logistics 22(1): 29–48.
Tantardini M and Kroll A (2015) The role of organizational
social capital in performance management. Public Per-
formance & Management Review 39(1): 83–99.
Thapa D, Budhathoki NR and Munkvold BE (2017) Ana-
lyzing crisis response through actor-network theory: the
case of Kathmandu Living Labs. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems 41(19): 414–429.
Thonemann UW (2002) Improving supply-chain perfor-
mance by sharing advance demand information. Eur-
opean Journal of Operational Research 142(1): 81–107.
Tsai W and Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital and value
creation: the role of intrafirm networks, The Academy
of Management Review 41(4): 464–476.
Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm
networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative
Science Quarterly 42(1): 35–67.
Wakolbinger T, Fabian F and Kettinger WJ (2013) IT-
enabled interorganizational information sharing under
co-opetition in disasters: a game-theoretic framework.
13
Communications of the Association for Information Sys-
tems 33(5): 67–80.
Wang Z, Ye F and Tan KH (2014) Effects of managerial
ties and trust on supply chain information sharing and
supplier opportunism. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 52(23): 7046–7061.
Widen-Wulff G and Ginman M (2004) Explaining knowl-
edge sharing in organizations through the dimensions of
social capital. Journal of Information Science 30(5):
448–458
Wixom BH and Todd PA (2005) A theoretical integration
of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Informa-
tion Systems Research 16(1): 85–102.
Wu L, Chuang C-H and Hsu C-H (2014) Information sharing
and collaborative behaviors in enabling supply chain per-
formance: a social exchange perspective. International
Journal of Production Economics 148(2): 122–132.
Wu W (2008) Dimensions of social capital and organiza-
tion competitiveness improvement: the mediating role
of information sharing. Journal of Management Studies
45(1): 122–146.
Xu JD, Benbasat I and Cenfetelli RT (2013) Integrating
service quality with system and information quality:
an empirical test in the e-service context. MIS Quarterly
37(3): 777–794.
Yang H, Yang L and Yang SH (2011) Hybrid Zigbee RFID
sensor network for humanitarian logistics centre man-
agement. Journal of Network and Computer Applica-
tions 34(3): 938–948.
Yeon K, Wong SF, Chang Y and Park M-C (2015) Knowl-
edge sharing behavior among community members in
professional research information centers. Information
Development 32(3): 1–18.
Zhao X, Xie J and Zhang WJ (2002) The impact of infor-
mation sharing and order-coordination on supply chain
performance. Supply Chain Management: An Interna-
tional Journal 7(1): 24–40.
About the authors
Mohammad S. Najjar is an assistant professor of Man-
agement Information Systems in the School of Business at
the University of Jordan, Jordan. He received his PhD in
Management Information Systems from the University of
Memphis, USA. Mohammad has around five years of prac-
tical experience in systems analysis and development. His
research interests include information systems services,
information management, data monetization, information
assurance, and the adoption of IT-enabled innovations.
He has published in MIS Quarterly Executive and interna-
tional IS conferences. Contact: Department of Management
Information Systems, School of Business, University of
Jordan, Queen Rania St., Amman 11942, Jordan. Tel:
þ962-6-5355000 Ext: 24293. Email: najjar@ju.edu.jo
14 Information Development XX(X)

Laila Dahabiyeh is an assistant professor of Management
Information Systems in the School of Business at the Uni-
versity of Jordan, Jordan. She earned her Masters and PhD
from Warwick Business School, UK. Her research interests
are in the areas of collective action, incentives, interorga-
nizational relationships, legitimacy of digital innovation, IS
security, and the role of IS in facing societal challenges.
Laila’s work has appeared in international IS conferences.
Contact: Email: laila.dahabiyeh@ju.edu.jo
Mohammad Nawayseh is an assistant professor of Man-
agement Information Systems in the School of Business at
the University of Jordan, Jordan. He has finished his PhD in
Information Systems with a specialty of logistics modeling
from Brunel University, UK. He has also finished his Bache-
lor and Master degrees in Computer Science from Mutah
University and the University of Jordan, respectively. His
research interests include Information Systems, Information
Technology, e-Services, Logistics Modeling, and Decision
Support Systems. He also has about five years of experience
in the IT industry as a programmer and an ICT trainer at the
National Information Center and Mutah University/Com-
puter Center. Contact: Department of Management Informa-
tion Systems, School of Business, University of Jordan.
Mobile: þ962-79-8173374. Email: m.nawaiseh@ju.edu.jo

Appendix A. Measurement scales and cross-loadings

Table A1. Constructs, measure sources, and items

Construct Measure Source Items and Factor Loadings

Structural Capital Adapted from Chiu et al. SC1We (refugees) maintain close social relationships with employees of
(2006) UNHCR. 0.84 (34.55)
SC2We spend a lot of time interacting with employees of UNHCR. 0.92
(30.61)
SC3 We know some employees of UNHCR at a personal level. 0.92
(53.29)
SC4 We have frequent communication with employees of UNHCR. 0.80
(58.02)
Cognitive Capital Adapted from Chiu et al. CC1 When interacting with employees of UNHCR, we use common
(2006) terms or jargon. 0.81 (30.68)
CC2 During the discussion with employees of UNHCR, we use
understandable communication pattern. 0.87 (36.50)
CC3 When communicating with employees of UNHCR, we use
understandable narrative forms. 0.86 (35.68)
Relational Capital Adapted from Kale and RC1 The relationship is characterized by mutual respect between
Perlmutter (2000) employees of UNHCR and us (refugees). 0.84 (36.52)

RC2 The relationship is characterized by personal friendship between

employees of UNHCR and us. 0.83 (47.53)
RC3 The relationship is characterized by mutual trust between
employees of UNHCR and us. 0.90 (63.35)
RC4 The relationship is characterized by high reciprocity between
employees of UNHCR and us. (Dropped)
Information Adapted from Chen and IS1 We share sensitive and personal information with UNHCR. 0.81
Sharing Paulraj (2004) (34.70)
IS2 We provide UNHCR with any information that might help. 0.80
(32.32)
IS3 We frequently exchange information between us. 0.88 (63.99)
IS4 We keep each other informed about events or changes that may
affect the other party. 0.84 (45.15)
IS5 We have frequent face-to-face communication with UNHCR.
(Dropped)
(continued)
Najjar et al: Share If You Care 15

Table A1. (continued)

Construct Measure Source Items and Factor Loadings

Information Adapted from Mohr and IQ1 Our communication with UNHCR is timely. 0.83 (37.49)
Quality Spekman (1994) IQ2 Our communication with UNHCR is accurate. 0.85 (38.83)
IQ3 Our communication with UNHCR is adequate. 0.86 (43.56)
IQ4 Our communication with UNHCR is complete. 0.86 (47.66)
IQ5 Our communication with UNHCR is credible. 0.85 (46.18)
Refugee Service Adapted from Jeffers RSP1 I am pleased with UNHCR’s record of delivering aid on time as
Performance et al. (2008) promised.0.81 (33.66)
RSP2 I am pleased with UNHCR’s record of delivering aid on time as
requested. 0.80 (31.82)
RSP3 I am pleased with UNHCR’s record of completing tasks or projects.
0.86 (48.85)
RSP4 I always receive aid from UNHCR in good condition. 0.94 (147.94)
RSP5 UNHCR efficiently resolves errors, disputes, and complaints from
me. 0.82 (38.15)
RSP6 I think UNHCR’s personnel are responsive. 0.78 (29.42)
Notes: Factor loading t-values are reported in parentheses.

Table A2. Matrix of cross-loadings

SC CC RC IS IQ RSP

SC1 0.82 0.47 0.69 0.70 0.66 0.62

SC2 0.84 0.45 0.58 0.64 0.57 0.52
SC3 0.87 0.49 0.64 0.67 0.61 0.51
SC4 0.87 0.50 0.64 0.73 0.65 0.55
CC1 0.49 0.81 0.35 0.43 0.33 0.17
CC2 0.46 0.87 0.41 0.44 0.40 0.27
CC3 0.47 0.86 0.44 0.43 0.50 0.32
RC1 0.57 0.39 0.84 0.59 0.65 0.61
RC2 0.72 0.42 0.83 0.74 0.64 0.52
RC3 0.65 0.41 0.90 0.68 0.72 0.67
IS1 0.66 0.42 0.61 0.80 0.57 0.45
IS2 0.64 0.46 0.59 0.80 0.65 0.52
IS3 0.73 0.44 0.72 0.88 0.67 0.59
IS4 0.67 0.40 0.69 0.85 0.69 0.59
IQ1 0.68 0.50 0.70 0.71 0.83 0.57
IQ2 0.55 0.34 0.64 0.61 0.85 0.58
IQ3 0.65 0.47 0.64 0.64 0.86 0.60
IQ4 0.64 0.42 0.67 0.69 0.86 0.61
IQ5 0.60 0.36 0.67 0.64 0.85 0.67
RSP1 0.48 0.26 0.52 0.49 0.56 0.82
RSP2 0.45 0.18 0.48 0.46 0.52 0.80
RSP3 0.53 0.22 0.64 0.55 0.62 0.86
RSP4 0.57 0.23 0.62 0.58 0.64 0.94
RSP5 0.61 0.30 0.59 0.57 0.61 0.81
RSP6 0.57 0.27 0.58 0.55 0.60 0.78