iterature Review: Wal-Mart failure in German

L
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Instructor:
Date:

Literature Review
According to Jui (2011), the problems of Wal-Mart begun right after the company acquisition the collapsing German retail chain store, the Wertkauf. Prior entering the German market, Wal-Mart was one of the thriving retails stores in America since its inception in 1962 in Rogers, Arkansas. As one of the most triumphant retail chain, Wal-Mart expansion progresses rapidly affected other retail stores following its high competitive merit of low price and quality products. By 1991, Wal-Mart was the largest retail chain store globally (Jui, 2011). However, its entry in the German market faced a severe operational crisis because the company had a bad relationship with suppliers and this affected its supply chain and the ability to build a competitive advantage (Jui, 2011). With globalization, the company opened many stores across the world, and it triumphed in the new markets because it was able to sustain low prices. However, Wal-Mart lacked the bargaining power to purchase goods from German suppliers at a relatively low price to maintain its low price competitive advantage in all its stores (Jui, 2011).
Jui (2011) adds that unlike its competitors, Wal-Mart suffered a several blow because the company failed to establish a better working relationship with suppliers. Competitors such as the Metro and Rewe Groups had a better relationship with suppliers in the Germany market (Jui, 2011). Although Wal-Mart had penetrated in other markets with ease, the company did not succeed in building a friendly relationship with suppliers, a clear indication of German-America cultural difference (Jui, 2011). Cultural variation in business hindered Wal-Martin’s penetration in Europe’s large market, and this affected Wal-Mart prices. Although there are some cultural similarities about America and German businesses, there are a lot of differences that were under looked in the supply chain management. Wal-Mart competitors had an upper hand in business since they had established a positive reputation with customers, and had a better logistics system than Wal-Mart (Jui, 2011). Wal-Mart had been the leader in low price in America, but German competitors applied the very strategy Wal-Mart had been using to conquer other markets (Jui, 2011).
Competitors such as Aldi, Metro, Lidl, and Rewe among others succeeded to beat Wal-Mart in German because the company failed to consider the element of cultural difference during its expansion (Peng, 2006). The application of the “textbook approach” to enter German played a great role in the failure of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart perceived itself as the leader to the global market, and it failed to calculate its operations in Europe effectively. Venturing into a new market requires thorough research and effectively preparation about unique conditions that might affect market entry (Christopherson, 2007). German market was huge and profitable ($370 billion market) but was populated by fierce competitors with a high market share compared to the stores acquisition by Wal-Mart. These competitors had been in the German market for a long time and understood their target markets effectively. Wal-Mart had not been into such a market, and the company had to start from scratch and this affected its market penetration and success (Peng, 2006).
A management approach of culture clash affected the relationship with supply chain players due to lack of intercultural competence, and effective managerial skills (Palmer, 2008). Whether a business enters a new market through acquisition or mergers, it is imperative to acknowledge cultural difference to understand other players accordingly (Kersten & Lu¨thje, 2010). Wal-Mart failed to succeed in German because the company did not acknowledge language and culture (Christopherson, 2007). For instance, Wal-Mart appointed an American manager to lead the German branch, and the manager did not understand German language or culture (Christopherson, 2007). To make things worse, the senior manager demanded that other workers should use English as the official language of communication, and this resulted to distrust, especially among suppliers. Although Germans speak English, this is not their first language and forcing people to use a foreign language in their nation affected the relationship with internal and external players (Christopherson, 2007). The essence of understanding culture difference is to create a solution that benefits both sides while achieving the intended goals (Christopherson, 2007).
One of the characters of the German market is that wholesalers are active players since they act as a bridge between food distributors and food producers. Lack of a market power to influence suppliers to adopt a new supply system meant that Wal-Mart had to spend more money buying products from wholesalers, a cost that the company had evaded in America and elsewhere (Christopherson, 2007). America retail stores are publically owned and highly competitive and this affects the high rivalry and takeover. Nonetheless, a majority of German retail stores are privately owned, and competitors often rely on self-investment and not public funding for capital (Christopherson, 2007). Cultural difference in business highly affects many supply chain issues because privately owned retail stores are not as competitive as publically owned stores. Wal-Mart thrived by takeovers and increasing production through market power, but this was not applicable in the German market (Christopherson, 2007).
Christopherson (2007) states that Wal-Mart success in America and other global stores was as a result of market dominance that promoted price reduction compared to its competitors. However, its poor relationship with suppliers affected the direct supply of goods to its warehouse from factories to cut the cost of the final products. Elimination of middlemen in supply chain gives companies the advantage of the cost of operation and companies like Wal-Mart offer low prices in America and other markets except for German. A variation in the German and the American business culture hindered the elimination of wholesalers since these players are integral in the German supply chain (Christopherson, 2007).
According to Simon Harper (2009), the success of a supply chain lies with establishing a positive collaboration with suppliers. Through building positive collaborations, retail chain stores can be in a position to establish a better working relation with suppliers and achieve value in their business. Often, the relationship between suppliers and retail stores fail because the buyer is after getting low prices and he fails to account for quality. Wal-Mart price reduction has been its strongest point, and the inability to establish a working relation with German suppliers created a negative perception among suppliers and the market in general (Christopherson, 2007). A successful business expansion is a product of understanding the cultural difference from one nation to the other. However, globalization has affected unique cultural differences, and this has adverse effects in business expansion (Schmidt, 2001). For instance, Wal-Mart failed to acknowledge cultural differences between America and German regarding stocking wrong products that were less valuable in the German market (Jui, 2011).
David Needle (2010), states that Wal-Mart’s American and global expansions were characterized by the ability to conquer existing small retail stores by offering low prices, providing better customer services, having a superior logistic management with suppliers, and setting up numerous warehouses. In its previous markets, Wal-Mart wielded a great influence over its suppliers, and this gave the company a high bargaining power (Needle, 2010). In most of the markets where Wal-Mart operated, the company had a large market influence and owned a big share of the market. Hence, the company could manipulate suppliers and buy goods at their prices. However, Wal-Mart had a low market share of about 1.1 percent that was not sufficient to control the German supply chain system (Needle, 2010).
Wal-Mart had a market power in America and other markets, and this gave the company a say in decision making. Nonetheless, things were different in German because Wal-Mart was not in a position to influence supply chain changes that could suit its operations (Christopherson, 2007). Unlike in America, German suppliers had a different culture of business, and they had a say on their operations and not vice versa. Therefore, when Wal-Mart suggested for a change in supply chain and the adoption of a new system where suppliers would supply directly to Wal-Mart warehoused, the change could not take place due to the variation in business culture and Wal-Mart market share (Verbeke, 2009).
On the other hand, German retail stores had an upper hand over Wal-Mart because these competitors worked closely with suppliers and they had a low price advantage over Wal-Mart (Needle, 2010). Building a positive relationship with suppliers can help a company achieve competitive prices in the market (Harper, 2009). Effective collaborations can help an organization achieve high supply chain value in its logistic where both sides achieve their goals. Unlike its German competitors, Wal-Mart failed to establish a mutual relationship with suppliers whereby suppliers had an authority in logistic and not a puppet to the company. The problem of poor supplier relationship is common in America business since the same problem is affecting America automotive industry (Hedge, 2015). Just like Wal-Mart struggled with supplier relationship, companies such as General Motors, Nissan and Ford have lost about 2 billion as a result of poor supplier relationship (Hedge, 2015).
Wal-Mart experienced logistic chaos because the company failed to grow its top line sufficiently (Needle, 2010). Rather, the company responded by improving its bottom line through creating a centralized distribution channel. The rationale behind the adoption of such a system was to reduce cost by 20 percent and increase annual stock significantly (Mellahi, & Finlay, 2005). Regardless to the fact that Wal-Mart German stores and suppliers implemented a direct delivery system, this distribution approach was not applicable till 1999 (Needle, 2010). The company had to construct huge storage facilities to accommodate the new German supply chain system that involved the use of wholesalers as mediators. Construction of about 25,000 square meter storage facilities in Kempen and Hockenheim had a diverse effect on Wal-Mart’s supply chain, and cost of doing business (Mellahi, & Finlay, 2005).
The difference between the American and the German supply chain caused chaos in the distribution system (Henry, 2008). Wal-Mart’s transition to the German supply chain model was complex, and this affected service delivery and the provision of competitive prices (Del, Carayannis & Della, 2012). The company faced challenges in narrowing down where consignment came from and this also affected the company’s ability to distinguish where damaged products had initially come from (Needle, 2010). Consequently, the failure of Wal-Mart in German was caused by poor supply management. The company encountered massive workloads in the moving products from storage to stores, and employees took part in unloading Lorries and storing goods in warehouses. However, since the company had limited storage facilities, management were forced to improvised and put up temporary tents to store the delivered products (Dunne et al, 2011).
Transition to German distribution system led to delays, and the company was unable to stock its stores with all products at the same time. Most Wal-Mart stores across the German market had a high out of the stock problem, and this affected sales since customers could not find what they needed in most Wal-Mart stores (Dunne et al, 2011). The implementation of scanning products on arrival to improve the supply chain management caused high delays in unloading Lorries, and scanning goods. The entry to the German market did not give this American giant retailer high sales and profitability, and the company had to lay off many workers. With an insufficient workforce and the increased supply chain tasks, the company failed to balance the provision of goods at the store and scanning products effectively (Dunne et al, 2011). Failure to hire the right personnel to work in the backroom affected its relationship with suppliers since suppliers had to take much longer time compared to what they took delivering goods to Wal-Mart competitors (Dunne et al, 2011).
Drivers had to stay in queues for more than five hours waiting for their cargo to be unloaded, and due to a shortage of staffs, often suppliers were sent back without notice (Verbeke, 2009). Instead of improving on its supply chain management through hiring more workers to unload Lorries and scan products on arrival, Wal-Mart did not implement a better system and complaints with drivers grew louder with time (Palmer, 2008). Supply chain management achievement thrives with the ability to deliver products promptly to ensure that end users needs are met (Kersten, Blecker & Lu¨thje, 2010). As a result of long suppliers Lorries queue, the level of Wal-Mart out of stock increased to 90 percent (Palmer, 2008). Wal-Mart stores became empty with time and ironically the company had to buy some items from competitors during emergency situations (Dunne et al, 2011).
Wal-Mart has a culture of building large stores and implementing this culture in German faced severe problems following the poor supplier relation, and the zoning laws (Jui, 2011). The introduction of the zoning laws was a setback to this large retail store since the government prohibited stocking of similar products in traditional retail stores. The introduction of such laws was a severe blow to the American retail store since America and German have similar tastes, and it would be challenging to stock stores with a variety of dissimilar products that were marketable in the German market (Jui, 2011). Thus, following the effect of the zoning regulations, Wal-Mart had a challenge in adequately stocking its stores to enhance competitive advantage and establish a brand name in German (Christopherson, 2007). For instance, Wal-Mart had a difficulty in stocking its stores with fresh products such as vegetables and fruits since these products are similar to what traditional stores offer. Also, the zoning law prohibited Wal-Mart from building its large stores in areas that were not designated for retailing (Verbeke, 2009). Like in most urban communities, traditional retail stores were located within the city and towns. However, the only place the company could construct its mega stores were outside the city center. This worried the government that people would migrate away from the city to city outskirts near Wal-Mart stores (Jui, 2011). Furthermore, zoning laws affected suppliers’ profitability and relationship with the company because zoning hindered the supply of some products (Palmer, 2008).
Also, despite the construction of two distribution centers, Wal-Mart failed to meet its supply chain goals to provide about 80 percent distribution target from the storage facilities. The failure of the depot to meet its target led to enormous losses and the business was operating at a loss and it could not offer high services and low prices like in America (Palmer, 2008). In 2001, Wal-Mart asked its suppliers to deliver products directly and this led to a waste of capital since the use of Hockenheim was abandoned losing about around €5m capital. Also, the use of Kempen depot was reduced, and it ceased to store food products (Dunne et al, 2011).
Rather, Wal-Mart’s food stuff products supply was outsourced to SLS, a supplementary of Alli Logistik (Peng, 2006). Nonetheless, despite all these supply chain changes Wal-Mart’s store continued to experience high out of product until the company added a new logistic center in its supply chain (Palmer, 2008). The opening of a logistics center in Bingen helped the company solve its shortage of non-food stuff storage. However, Wal-Mart stores had a great difference in service delivery and this discouraged customers to buy from Wal-Mart stores; this affected its status as a logistic expert and brand name (Peng, 2006). The out of the stock problem created a negative reputation among customers and suppliers as well since their products were never on sale in Wal-Mart stores (Palmer, 2008).
Wal-Mart demanded high compensation from suppliers if they violated their contract. Any delay in delivering products attracted a compensation, but the company failed to honor their contracts with suppliers (Mellahi, Frynas & Finlay, 2005). The long queues led to a waste of time and this affected suppliers’ schedules. However, the company did not give any compensation to suppliers following the loss of their revenue and time, and suppliers were irritated with Wal-Mart (Peng, 2006). Antagonized suppliers failed to give Wal-Mart discounts and agree to their supply chain system, and the company was unable to cut prices like in America. Entering in a new market required the application of positive working relationship with suppliers to woo them to achieve global leader in the supply chain in Europe (Del, Carayannis & Della, 2012).
Wal-Mart also irritated suppliers and ruined their relationship because the company bullied suppliers like it did in America (Peng, 2006). To get the best services out of suppliers, a company should respect and work together with other player and not control them (Mellahi, Frynas & Finlay, 2005). The culture of supply chain players in America and German was different and vendors bullying worsen the relationship with this American retail store because it lacked market power over suppliers (Palmer, 2008). According to Scott, Lundgren & Thompson (2011), building a better supplier relationship is core to successful supply chain process, and the ability to achieve competitive price and quality services.
Wal-Mart was not used to acting in a weak position, and its plan to host suppliers’ dinner in Kempen did not receive the intended objective (Palmer, 2008). Suppliers have a big role in the German supply chain and due to lack of market power, the request of Wal-Mart only irritated suppliers (Schmidt, 2001). The new distribution system would favor Wal-Mart and not suppliers (Needle, 2010). In 1999, Wal-Mart made another mistake in suppliers meeting when the company demanded suppliers to list possible ways to save money in the supply chain process as a way of giving Wal-Mart advantage over competitors. Wal-Mart failed to establish a mutual relationship with suppliers that could benefit both sides, and help the company achieve competitive merits over its competitors (Needle, 2010).
Wal-Mart’s dominant control in America had a direct influence on suppliers since the company operated in large retail centers that attracted many customers. For instance, Wal-Mart management had access to its supplier’s infrastructure in the America and global markets. The introduction of Wal-Mart’s vendor score -cards in 1999 received negative perception among suppliers, and this further worsened the relationship between the two parties (Mellahi, Frynas & Finlay, 2005). The new standards would have given Wal-Mart the right to inspect suppliers’ warehouses without notifying the suppliers. The objective of this new supply chain standard was to ensure that suppliers delivered high -quality products and Wal-Mart was able to attain a reputation of a high -quality retailer. Wal-Mart had applied this standard in America and other international markets, but such logistic standards were not applicable in German following cultural difference in supply chain management (Needle, 2010).
According to Andreas Knorr and Andreas Arndt (2003), Wal-Mart failed in German following its company size. Owning just a few stores while its competitors had thousands of stores gave the company a great disadvantage in market dominance. Although the acquisition of Wertkauf and Interspar stores positioned Wal-Mart in position four of largest operator of hypermarkets, Wal-Mart still had a stagnant growth and a turnover of €2.9 billion (Knorr &Arndt 2003).
However, despite owning about 90 stores across German, Wal-Mart did not record high profit like in other local stores. Rather, following its poor operation and relationship with suppliers and the effect of the zoning laws, Wal-Mart faced a severe loss of about € 1 billion (Knorr &Arndt 2003). There were rumors that Wal-Mart was only recording profits from only two stores from its 15 locations (Knorr &Arndt 2003). Wal-Mart failure in German was as a result of its poor proposal since the company was unable to hit the 50 stores target it planned in 2001. Instead, Wal-Mart had closed two major outlets, and the company only managed to remodel three models into Wal-Mart Supercenter design (Knorr &Arndt 2003).
Wal-Mart’s vendor score -cards also ruined suppliers’ relationship because the contract claimed that the company had the right to return some seasonal lines goods at the cost of the supplier if the goods did not meet the required quality criteria. If such a standard were to be implemented, suppliers would lose a lot of money and time while Wal-Mart gained (Needle, 2010). By demanding to check suppliers’ premises and demanding for special prices, Wal-Mart built a negative relationship (Needle, 2010). Supply chain thrives by building a positive relationship between suppliers and customers (retail stores) to ensure effective supply of goods and services (British Institute of Facilities Management, 2015). Organizations that have a better working relationship with suppliers are likely to meet customers’ needs and wants effectively and establish a brand name. However, companies that are unable to cooperate sufficiently with suppliers stand to have difficulties in restocking their stores and meeting customers’ needs (Kersten, Blecker & Lu¨thje, 2010). However, with its 1.1 percent share in the German market, Wal-Mart was not in a position to demand such conditions (Christopherson, 2007).
Supply chain collaboration means that both the buyer and the supplier understand each other well to establish a common goal and build a working relationship (Harper, 2009). However, according to Verbeke (2009), Wal-Mart had a low market share than its competitors, and this affected its market dominance in decision making. In 2003, Wal-Mart had only 92 stores while some of the competitors such as Aldi had about 3800 stores (Verbeke, 2009). Although Wal-Mart stores were relatively larger than competitors, Wal-Mart still did not have a market power like in other nations of operation (Verbeke, 2009). Wal-Mart tried its best in a period of ten years to out-compete with competitors by lowering prices. However, its fierce competitor Aldi slashed its prices to attract customers because the company had a better working relationship with suppliers (Verbeke, 2009). Wal-mart operation in German failed because there is a great difference between the German and the America retail sector especially the food section. German food sector is characteristic by low profit and this affected Wal-Mart approach of price reduction (Christopherson, 2007). Hence, despite the attempt to reduce price shoppers bought from competitors since it was not economical to drive outside the city for only a slight price variation (Peng, 2006).
In Germany, compensation issues were dealt under various heads of agreement, and Wal-Mart could not enforce American strategies in Germany because this caused cultural conflict between suppliers and Wal-Mart (Henry, 2008). The contract was also rejected because suppliers failed to agree with the company about the definition of seasonal line products (Needle, 2010). Since 1997, Wal-Mart had encountered massive supply chain problems, and the introduction of vendors score card only worsened the relationship with suppliers. Suppliers are independent players in the supply chain, and they work best by establishing cooperation with producers and retailers (Cousins et al, 2007). Controlling suppliers functioning like issuing of vendors score cards only damages the relationship since this is a clear way of undermining other supply chain players (Scott, Lundgren & Thompson, 2011). Every player is fundamental and has to be treated as an equal partner where all players make decisions by consulting each other, and not one player enforcing new rules on others (Del, Carayannis & Della, 2012). For instance, Wal-Mart claimed that German suppliers were equal partners, but the two sides had endless and unfruitful arguments about handling costs, faulty EAN -codes and delivery efficiency (Christopherson, 2007).
Christopherson (2007), states that Wal-Mart exit in German after a decade of trying to penetrate the largest Europe retail market was as a result of applying the US lean retain style in German. A lean retailing style is characterized by market power whereby larger retail stores have the power to control the market since suppliers have no option but bend to their will or risk losing contracts. The application of the lean model had been successful in other markets since Wal-Mart had a sizable number of stores to command attention from suppliers. However, its acquisition of two failing and poorly located stores did not give the company dominance, but company adopted new problems (Christopherson, 2007).
Although a lean retailing can help an organization achieve high sales through market dominations, the application of this model has an adverse effect on the entire supply chain process (Christopherson, 2007). Following the application of a lean retail model in German, Wal-Mart affected distributors, suppliers, and manufacturers because these components are intertwined in the supply chain process. Hence, a change in one element affects others, and this damaged the supply chain relationship between Wal-Mart and its German suppliers (Christopherson, 2007). It is essentials to note that Wal-Mart problems in German begun right from the acquisition of the two weak stores that needed a lot of repairs. Unlike in its previous markets where the company was the market leader, Wal-Mart was position 11 in the German retail stores market (Christopherson, 2007). The top five German retail stores accounted for about 80 percent and had a higher influence on suppliers while Wal-Mart had a weak bargaining power position (Christopherson, 2007).
According to Price Water House Coopers, establishing a good relationship is the key to achieving competitive advantage. Establishing a positive working relationship helps a company receive better results from suppliers such as low cost and quality products to achieve competitive advantage. One of the benefits of building a positive relationship with suppliers is that suppliers become collaborative and willing to produce even better results (Price Water House Coopers, 2013). Also, building a better supplier-company relationship can help an organization achieve competitiveness by promoting suppliers competence. The success of supply relationship management is directly related to the ability of suppliers to embrace core competence in supply chain management (Price Water House Coopers, 2013).

SCM concepts
There are several supply chain management principles, concept, and theories that supply chain players must put into consideration to ensure effective logistic results. One of the common SCM concepts that can be applied in this project is risk polling (Cousins et al, 2007). This concept suggests that demand unpredictability reduces if a person can aggregate demand across time, location, and product. Risk polling means that aggregation diminishes uncertainty and variability. For instance, if demand is aggregated across various locations, there is a high probability that demand from one client will be counterbalanced by reduced demand from another customer. Thus, a reduction in uncertainty and variability permits a decline in safety stock, and this reduces regular inventory (Cousins et al, 2007). For example, the decision to build more warehouses near customers or centralizing locations should be analyzed using a risk polling factor. For instance, centralizing a product in one location can increase product aggregate demand, but the company should consider the proximity of customers and maintain more warehouses. Understanding this concept can help Wal-Mart and other companies position their products in the market effectively to achieve market growth.
SCM principles
The success of supply chain lies with the ability to implement SCM principles to build a successful supply chain system. The first significant principle is customer segmentation by unique products and services to serve each segment effectively and profitably (Kersten, & Lu¨thje, 2010). A company must customize its logistic network to facilitate effective service delivery among each segment to attain profitability. Supply chain success requires a company to manage supply sources strategically as a way of lowering costs of operations (Kersten, & Lu¨thje, 2010). Since supply chain has numerous players, it is essential for a company to adopt a supply chain technology system that promote decision making from multiple levels to give a clear flow of information, goods, and services from suppliers to the retailer and the end user. These principles will be applicable in this project since the main idea is to understand the significance of supplier-company relationships such as decision making and cooperation of supply chain players (Cousins et al, 2007).

SCM theories
One of the key supply chain theories that will be applicable in this project is the theory of supply management. This theory talks about supply strategy elements of prescription, description, and trend identification (Storey & Emberson, 2006). Consequently, this project will apply game theory to understand issues of conflicts that arise from lack of cooperation between Wal-Mart and its German suppliers. The principle -agent theory will also be useful in understanding contracts and governance to mitigate conflicts (Cousins et al, 2007). The project will also apply strategic choice theory to understand strategic issues that affected Wal-Mart in German such as political forces, zoning laws, and supplier relationship.

Primary sources
Christopherson, Susan. (2007). Barriers to ‘US style’ lean retailing: the case of Wal-Mart’s
Failure in Germany. Journal of Economic Geography. pp. 451-456. Retrieved from:http://zicklinibs9768jan11.pbworks.com/f/Christopherson-Barriers+to+’US+Style’+Lean+Retailing.pdf
Dunne, P. M., Lusch, R. F., Carver, J. R., & National Retail Federation (U.S.). (2011).
Retailing. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Henry, A. (2008). Understanding strategic management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jui, Phoebe. (2011). Walmart’s Downfall in Germany: A Case Study. Journal of International
Management. Retrieved from: https://journalofinternationalmanagement.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/walmarts-downfall-in-germany-a-case-study/
Knorr, Andreas & Arndt, Andreas. (2003).Why did Wal-Mart fail in Germany? Institute for
World Economics and International Management. Retrieved from: http://www.iwim.uni-bremen.de/publikationen/pdf/w024.pdf
Mellahi, K., Frynas, J. G., & Finlay, P. N. (2005). Global strategic management. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Needle, D. (1994). Business in context: An introduction to business and its environment.
London: Chapman & Hall.
Palmer, R. E. (2008). Ultimate leadership: Winning execution strategies for your situation.
Upper Saddle River, N.J: Wharton School Pub.
Peng, M. W. (2006). Global strategy. Australia: Thomson/South-Western.
Verbeke, A. (2009). International business strategy: Rethinking the foundations of global
corporate success. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Secondary sources
British Institute of Facilities Management. (2015). Supply chain relationship management. Pdf
Cousins, P., Lamming, R., Lawson, B., & Squire, B. (2007). Strategic supply management:
Principles, theories and practice. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Del, G. M., Carayannis, E. G., & Della, P. M. R. (2012). Cross-cultural knowledge management:
Fostering innovation and collaboration inside the multicultural enterprise. New York: Springer.
Harper, Simon et al. (2009).The Collaboration Game Building Value in the Retail Supply
Chain. Retrieved from: http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/Collaboration_Game.pdf
Hedge, Mike. (2015). Poor Supplier Relations Costing U.S. Automakers Millions. Retrieved
from: http://www.dilf.dk/dk/venstre-spalte/poor-supplier-relations-costing-u-s-automakers-millions/
Kersten, W., Blecker, T., & Lu¨thje, C. (2010). Pioneering solutions in supply chain
management: A comprehensive insight into current management approaches. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Price Water House Coopers. (2013). Supplier Relationship Management How key suppliers
drive your company’s competitive advantage. Retrieved from: http://www.pwc.no/no/publikasjoner/pwc-supplier-relationship-management.pdf
Schmidt, P. L. (2001). Understanding American and German business cultures: A manager’s
guide to the cultural context in which American and German companies operate. Montreal: Meridian World Press.
Scott, C., Lundgren, H., & Thompson, P. (2011). Guide to supply chain management. Berlin:
Springer.
Storey, John & Emberson, Caroline. (2006). Supply chain management: theory, practice and
future challenges. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Vol. 26 No.7 Retrieved from: http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-content/media/research/scrip/theorypracticeandfuturechallenges.pdf
TO HAVE YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE, PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US NOW.