Hugues Poissonnier
Grenoble Ecole de Management
International Sourcing and Sustainable Development through Industrial
Upgrading : The Case of Inter Organizational Control Practices developed
by French Clothing Retailers
Abstract
In this paper, the problem of sustainable development in the context of inter-organizational
relationships is investigated. To do so, we focus our analysis on the link between international
sourcing practices and industrial upgrading opportunities offered to the suppliers and study
the case of the apparel industry which is one of the most globalised ones with different
operations being spread around different locations. The importance of textiles and clothing for
the trade development of developing countries has been indeed widely described.
In a context of great competition, in which time, price and quality of the products are more
and more important, sourcing practices have evolved during the recent years. Those
evolutions can be described in terms of sourcing geography or relationships. Meanwhile, the
clothing sector in developed countries has been at the forefront of efforts to raise the social
and environmental standards of trade. We assume that, to understand and analyze those
evolutions, as well as the question of development opportunities linked to international trade,
one of the main important questions that have to be tackled is the question of interorganizational control.
Studies focused on the concept of global commodity chains (GCC) are used as a theoretical
frame of reference. The concept of GCC is indeed very useful to analyze the evolutions and
the impacts of inter-organizational relationships for distributors and producers, putting the
questions of power and control at the heart of the analysis.
The management of inter-organizational relationships by French clothing retailers is analyzed
and described as an example of the evolutions of sustainable development practices that are
implemented today.
Key words
Sustainable development, International sourcing, Industrial upgrading, Inter-organizational
control, Clothing
1
Introduction
The degree of international dispersal observable in the clothing and textile sectors explains the
interest that is given to questions linked to sustainable development in researches that have
been conducted recently (Gibbon, 2000, 2001; Gereffi, 1999; Henderson & al., 2002;
Palpacuer & Poissonnier, 2003; Palpacuer & Parisotto, 2003;…). Being an industrializing
industry, the clothing industry is frequently chosen by countries as a way to develop.
The evolution of apparel production in the East Asian Tigers could be taken as a benchmark
by producers located in developing countries. One should however remember that the East
Asian nations present specificities that, to a certain extent, explain their growth and the
upgrading of the firms. The first one is linked to their colonial and post-colonial experiences.
Because of the geopolitics of the 1950s and 1960s, they received massive foreign assistance
from the United States, while regional investments from Japan were increasing (Kessler,
1999). Moreover, historically speaking, the period in which their development occurred
coincided with a great expansion in world trade in manufactured commodities while
international competition among producers was not as important as today.
In spite of this, the way in which East Asian producers have been networked to and embedded
in GCCs has undoubtedly been a key determinant in their successful economic development.
The question that arises is then the one of the potential developing countries have to make
their developmental trajectory match the one of the East Asian countries by producing
garments.
The recent removal of the quota system (termination of the Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing) and the implementation of a quota-free environment should translate into
substantial and tangible benefits for the development of developing and least-developed
countries (Hotopp & al., 2005). However, the implications of changes in retailers’ global
sourcing practices are sometimes dramatic for suppliers (Gibbon, 2000; Agndal & Axelsson,
2002). We assume that the nature of the relationships between distributors and suppliers can
be seen as a key determinant for the industrial upgrading opportunities that are given to
suppliers. Retailers in developed countries have then an obvious responsibility in the
development of their suppliers and their countries. The way retailers use or abuse of their
power (in terms of bargaining as well as in terms of control) structures the learning
possibilities and industrial upgrading opportunities that are offered to suppliers. Cherret
(1994) explains for example how partnering can be a source of upgrading by allowing the
development of competitive advantages. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that there are
examples of negative effects linked to partnering which can notably prevent suppliers to
develop new and successful relationships (Donada, 1997).
As important actors in the globalization process, clothing distributors should then not ignore
the questions of their suppliers’ industrial upgrading opportunities and of sustainable
development. We assume that, by their decisions, retailers are able to expand or reduce
exports of “sustainable goods and services” from the developing countries and to develop
what could be called “sustainable purchasing”.
The question we will tackle in this paper is then the following:
How does the definition of inter-organizational control practices structure the industrial
upgrading opportunities that are given to suppliers?
2
The implications of globalization for the retailers and their sourcing practices have been
largely tackled in the literature (Arnold, 1989; Alguire & al., 1994; Amin, 1994; Araujo & al.,
1999, Bensaou, 1999; Cho & Kang, 2001; Clark, 2002; Trent & Monczka, 2002) but few
studies focus on these implications for the suppliers and their countries (even if we should
mention the interesting study conducted by Ernst (2000)).
We start by an analysis of the links between international trade and sustainable development
in the clothing industry, insisting on the importance of inter-organizational control and relying
on an analysis based on the global commodity chain ( I ). We then present a study of control
practices developed by French distributors drawing on a brief presentation of the French
clothing retail market that explain the dominant form of relationships and control practices
that are set on suppliers. The most important evolutions (development of outsourcing
practices, geography of sourcing, formalization of control practices,…) are addressed in this
section. We then insist on the implications of the situations described on the upgrading
opportunities offered to the suppliers ( II ).
I ) International trade and sustainable development in the clothing sector:
the importance of the question of inter-organisational control
Whether it is working conditions or environmental problems, clothing retailers are under
pressure to demonstrate responsible practices along their supply chains. This ethical
imperative is driven by the accelerating globalisation of sourcing, which is opening up new
opportunities for textile and garment producers in the developing world. We will first explain
our choice of the apparel industry which is one of the oldest and largest export industries in
the world (Dickerson, 1991) (1.1). We will then describe industrial upgrading as a privileged
way for developing countries suppliers to develop (1.2) and highlight the relevance of an
analysis based on the GCC perspective (1.3).
1.1 ) The choice of the clothing industry
The clothing industry has been long seen as a stepping-stone to industrialization. Apparel is
indeed a typical starter industry for countries engaged in export-oriented industrialization. It
has played this role of industrializing industry in Europe during the 19th century, as well as in
East Asia more recently (during the 1970s).
According to Palpacuer & al. (2005), the sector played four important roles in these countries’
economic development. The first one is linked to the fact that it absorbed large magnitudes of
unskilled labour. Secondly, the goods it produce are aimed at satisfying elementary needs for
large segments of the domestic population. Thirdly, despite low investment requirements, it
served to build capital for more technologically demanding production in other sectors. To
conclude, it financed imports for more advanced technologies by generating export earnings
(as well as by substituting imports).
Producers’ innovation capacities are also very important. Gereffi (1999) insists on the
relevance of the East-Asia suppliers’ capacity to move from the mere assembly of imported
inputs to a more domestically integrated and higher value-added form of exporting.
Several other reasons can be found to explain this historical role. One of them is linked to the
low entry barriers in terms of skills and capital requirements in the apparel industry. The ease
of transportation, due to the light and non-perishable nature of garment products is another
one, which allow many developing countries to produce for export markets. They are then
able to find abroad the customers who do not exist inside the country’s frontiers.
3
In spite of this historical role of the clothing industry, the question of its new industrializing
potential should be tackled. Since the 1990s, powerful forces are transforming clothing retail
in most of the developed countries (Bailey, 1993; Rollins & al., 2002). Fashion cycles are
shortening, new entrants are shaking established actors and e-commerce promises to deliver
further shocks. To respond to those evolutions and anticipate the next ones, retailers have
engaged themselves in a process of bringing down costs and improving quality. To do so, they
rationalise their supply base. During the recent years, externalization has developed as well as
competition in terms of price, time and quality of the products. Being globally competitive
has become a greater necessity for the producers and several authors have showed how the
clothing industry was dominated by retailers located in developed countries (Appelbaum &
Gereffi, 1994; Chacon, 2000; Gibbon, 2001). Those last ones set the terms of trade for price,
quality and delivery within the supply chain in what we could call a “buyers market”.
That is why, in spite of the historical examples we have mentioned, two questions should be
addressed: is it today as easy as in the past to succeed in the clothing industry for a producer
and is the eventual growth still a sufficient condition to serve as a means of domestic capital
accumulation and to favour sustainable development? Before answering these questions, we
will present industrial upgrading as a possible way to engage in sustainable development.
1.2 ) Industrial upgrading as a way to engage in sustainable development
The main idea we develop in this paper is that the nature of the relationships between
distributors and suppliers can be seen as a central determinant for the industrial upgrading
opportunities that are given to suppliers. Distributors in developed countries have then an
obvious responsibility in the development of their suppliers, for themselves and their
countries.
First of all, we will present the benefits of subcontracting as they are described in the
literature. We will then tackle the issue of the links between international trade and
sustainable development, insisting on the role of industrial upgrading. We will then conclude
this section by a presentation of the dimensions and conditions of industrial upgrading.
The benefits of international subcontracting
Watanabe (1971, 1978) showed how local producers could gain benefits from international
subcontracting. Working on relationships between Japanese lead firms and their
subcontractors, the author describes different kinds of benefits, in terms of accessing distant
markets and obtaining know-how. Hakansson & al. (1999) confirm the positive effects of
“learning by doing” that were described by Arrow (1962). Another way of learning results of
the “organizational transmissions” that are described by Kalika & al. (1998) which consist of
making the organizational structures evolve to be more efficient. Such transfers have been
pointed out by Kessler (1999) and Bair & Gereffi (2002) in the context of Nafta. On the other
side, Dussel & al. (1997) argue that there are several limits at considering foreign partners as
teachers, owing to the fragility of business relationships.
International trade and sustainable development
As stated in the “Brundtland Commission Report” of 1987, Our Common Future, sustainable
development is development which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. A distinction is generally made
between three great dimensions of sustainable development which are the social, the
4
environmental and the economical concerns. However, the Brundtland Report argues that
those three dimensions are linked and that the best way to fight against environmental
degradation is to facilitate the development of nations. Poverty is indeed the most important
contributor to environmental degradation, as it encourages the overuse of scarce
environmental resources to meet survival needs. That is why the reduction of trade barriers
can be seen as a good way to limit “pollution of poverty” by generating the resources needed
for environmental protection. Trade, in a way, contributes to saving people from the vicious
cycle of having to degrade their environment to survive (Sorensen, 2001). According to this,
we can consider that a strong link exists between trade, the economic growth it permits and
development from both a social and environmental point of view.
Moreover, actions carried out by NGO develop and could be analysed as a response to
problems that are linked to globalization. One of the most important problem that legitimate
NGOs’ actions is the one of sweatshops, which has been largely tackle in the literature (Firoz
& Ammaturo, 2002; Harrison & Scorse, 2006), as well as the problem of child labor
(Bachman, 2000).
Thus creating conditions for free international trade is key to raising the standard of living of
the current generation and to allowing future generations to enjoy environmental resources
which will be better protected (Sorensen, 2001). If it is a necessary condition, we assume it
should not be considered as a sufficient condition. Industrial upgrading is not that easy for
producers in the clothing industry since the diffusion of recent changes. For a better
understanding of these difficulties, several dimensions of industrial upgrading should be
distinguished.
The dimensions and conditions of industrial upgrading
Upgrading means enhancing the relative competitive position of a firm, which can be
achieved in different areas (Schmitz & Knorringa, 2000). Firms can upgrade their processes
(“doing things better”) or products (“making better things”). They can also move into higher
value added stages in the chain like design or marketing (Schmitz & Knorringa, 2000), which
is called “functional upgrading” by Humphrey & Schmitz (2000).
More generally speaking, four great dimensions of industrial upgrading have been
distinguished in the literature. The first one is called service-based upgrading and consists of
performing a broader range of services beyond simple assembly, including product design,
inventory management or management of production sourcing. The second can be called
volume-based upgrading. It gives the possibility to reduce unit production costs on the basis
of scale economies. We can then speak about process-based upgrading which allow a
reduction of inventories and waste through the adoption of lean production systems. Then, the
product-based upgrading can be defined as suppliers’ ability to manufacture higher quality
products for higher price market segments.
Several authors have tackled the question of the determinants of success in inter-firm
relationships (Ford, 1980; Ford & Hakansson, 2002) defining this success in terms of
maintenance of the relationship. The role of the nature of the relationship while explaining the
differences between learning opportunities linked to inter-firm relationships has then been
largely pointed out. As Ring & Van de Ven (1992, 1994) note, trust between partners is
essential for the structuring of cooperative relationships. Van de Ven (1976) presents trust as
the most important conditions for the maintenance of relationships among organizations.
Their findings are confirmed by several studies (Ganesan, 1994; Mohr & Spekman, 1994;
Monczka & al., 1995; Zaheer & al., 1998). Trust is also presented as having powerful effects
on performances improvement (Dyer & Chu, 2003).
5
1.3 ) The relevance of an analysis based on Global Commodity Chains (GCC)
In this section, we will present the GCC (also called Global Value Chain) approach. After a
focus on the central role of control in this approach, we will describe the main international
differences that can be seen in the clothing industry in terms of GCC.
The GCC approach
During the recent years, several transformations affected many industries. The manufacturing
process is becoming more and more trans-national (Abernathy & al., 1999). Hopkins and
Wallerstein (1994) define commodity chains as “a network of labor and production processes
whose end result is a finished commodity”. For Gereffi (1999), a commodity chain refers to
“the whole range of activities involved in the design, production, and marketing of a product”.
Gibbon (2003) confirms those approaches by describing networks of production, distribution
and marketing of particular products or groups of products. A global commodity chain could
thus be viewed as “a microcosm of the capitalist world economy” (Kessler, 1999).
The GVC approach is very useful for highlighting the role of power relations in shaping the
distribution of value across the range of countries and firms participating in GVCs
(Kaplinsky, 2000). It can also be used to assess the development potential that such chains
might offer to suppliers located in developing countries. The idea that is developed here is
that the structure and dynamics of GCCs have important implications for suppliers’ ability not
only to enter these chains, but also to engage in a process of “industrial upgrading”.
According to Gereffi (1999), developing countries producers need access to the chains’ lead
firms to upgrade (North American or Western Europe firms). These access to the world’s
main markets can be direct, by becoming a supplier, or indirect, by becoming a second-tier
supplier. Gereffi (1999) explains that producers that gain access have good prospects for
upgrading within production and then into design, marketing and branding.
The central role of control
The importance of the question of control in inter-firm relationships has been pointed out by
several authors in dyadic context as well as in network (Otley, 1994; Heide, 1994; Hopwood,
1996; Birnbirg, 1998; Van der Meer-Kooistra & Vosselman, 2000; Cox & al., 2001; Dekker,
2004). The main components of a commodity chain can be defined as comprising an inputoutput structure, a specific geography and an internal governance structure. It is the emphasis
on this last element which differentiate the GCC analysis from other analysis of international
commodity trade. The notion of “internal governance structure” was elaborated in relation to
the distinction between “buyer-” and “producer-driven” commodity chains (Gereffi, 1999).
According to this conception, the nature of specific categories of leading agents determine
both input-output structures and chain geographies (Gibbon, 2003). “Producer-driven”
commodity chains are those in which large manufacturers play the central role in coordinating
production networks whereas “buyer-driven” chains are observable in industries in which
large retailers, branded marketers, and branded manufacturers play the pivotal roles in the
coordination process.
The garment chains are governed by global buyers and supplied by local producers from
developing countries. The GCC approach is then well adapted to study the way relationships
between distributors and producers are designed and governed. This approach reveals that the
international dispersion of production across countries is predominantly organised by firms
located in developed countries (Palpacuer & Poissonnier, 2003). The GCC analysis allows
6
Gereffi (1994, 1999) to describe clothing as a sector characterized by a high concentration of
profits and control in the functions of marketing/distribution and retailing, and by the
outsourcing of production on the basis of “buyer driven” networks of independent
manufacturers, located mainly in developing countries.
Dicken (1998) gives a representation of the textiles-clothing production chain highlighting the
buyer-driven nature of the apparel commodity chain (figure 1).
Figure 1: The textiles-clothing production chain
Materials
Processes
End-users
HOUSEHOLD GOODS
Furnishings,
Carpets, etc.
25%
Natural
fibres
Raw cotton,
wool, etc.
YARN
PREPARATION
Spinning
FABRIC
MANUFACTURE
Weaving/knitting,55
finishing
DESIGN
PREPARATION
PRODUCTION
50%
Standardized
garments
Chemical
fibres
Wood, oil,
natutal gas
Clothing industry
Textile industry
Chemical plants &
petrochemical
refineries
PRODUCTION OF
ARTIFICAL
FIBRES
a. cellulosics
b. synthetics
DISTRIBUTION
Retail/wholesale
operations
Fashion
garments
25%
INDUSTRIAL GOODS
Belting,upholstery for auto
industry, etc.
Source: Dicken (1998).
The GCC approach put into evidence the asymmetry in bargaining position between leading
global buyers and manufacturers from developing countries. Doing this, it offers a good
starting point for discussing the circumstances in which buyers promote or hold back the
upgrading of local producers (Schmitz & Knorringa, 2000). The more buyer-driven the chain
is, the more the retailers are able to capture and control key segments of the chain, and the
more, doing this, they determine the way in which industrial clusters develop and production
networks are formed (Kessler, 1999).
It is then possible to explore which type of chains are more likely to allow the various type of
upgrading that would strengthen the competitiveness of producers from developing countries.
International differences between the functioning of Global Commodity Chains
Gereffi (1999) distinguishes different sourcing patterns for retailers in the US upper marketsegment (production by flexible enterprises based mainly in developed countries) and for
branded marketers of basic clothing, many of whom had own-owned factories in the US and
who were sourcing heavily from the Caribbean meanwhile.
7
Gibbon (2003) explains that deep segmentation exists between US-, EU- and Japanese endmarkets, giving the complex patchwork of international trade agreements (the Multifibre
Arrangement and its successor, the Lomé Convention, NAFTA, and the EU’s Customs Union
with Turkey, as well as its preferential trade arrangements (PTAs) with most Central and
Eastern European and North African countries,…) a strong power of explanation. Moreover,
Palpacuer & al. (2005) show that differences can be seen inside the European market between
French, UK and Scandinavian markets. According to Gibbon (2001, 2002), the EU market for
clothing is indeed itself internally segmented between member countries. This segmentation is
undoubtedly linked to differences in terms of national cultures that have been highlighted by
several authors (Black, 2001; Lane & Bachman, 1996). It can also be explained by the fact
that their consumption trends and retail structures differ greatly as Whitley (1996, 1999)
noted, insisting on the role of differences in terms of “Business Systems”.
The first part of this paper was focused on the presentation of the links between international
trade and sustainable development in the clothing industry. It allowed us to explain to what
extent industrial upgrading of the producers could be considered as a good way to engage in
sustainable development. Insisting on the importance of the question of control, we explained
the relevance of an analysis based on Global Commodity Chains. The empirical focus, that we
can now present, is the control practices developed by French retailers. The understanding of
those control practices is indeed to provide a highlighting on industrial upgrading
opportunities given to their suppliers by French retailers.
II ) A study of control practices implemented by French retailers
This study is aimed at exploring the upgrading opportunities that are given to suppliers in
relation to the evolution of sourcing and control practices that are implemented by French
retailers. After a presentation of the French clothing retail market (2.1), we will describe the
methodology used (2.2) as well as the most important results we have found (2.3).
2.1 ) A presentation of the French clothing retail market : recent evolutions and
implications for the suppliers
In this section, we will first present the industry structure which will help to the understanding
of the evolution of sourcing patterns addressed in the second time.
The industry structure: the importance of hyper-markets and the rise of specialised chains
Two major transformations can be observed in the French clothing retail sector since the mid1990s. The first one consists of a concentration of the hyper- and super-market segment
resulting from mergers and acquisitions. The second one takes the form of a great
development of specialised chains which characteristic is to sell their own branded products
on the market.
Hyper-markets entered the French clothing market during the 1960s and gained important
market shares during the following decades. Even if their main activity still remains selling
food, hyper- and super-markets have diversified their product offering to include textiles and
clothing to the point that the top ten French clothing retailers include three hyper- and supermarkets, with Carrefour and Auchan in the two first positions. In recent years, the growth of
large sports and discount chains such as Decathlon and Kiabi also boosted concentration
8
levels in the industry. In spite of these evolutions, concentration levels remains relatively low
in France compared with the situation of the UK (Gibbon, 2002).
The rise of specialized chains is the second major transformation that occurred in the French
clothing market during the recent years. Many of these chains which appeared during the
1980s have their origins in the North of France (Camaïeu, Pimkie, Promod,…), while others,
such as Naf Naf developed out of the Sentier in Paris. These specialized chains include smallstore chains such as Etam, Promod and Camaïeu in women’s wear, Celio, Brice and Jules in
men’s wear, DPAM or Jacadi in children’s wear, and large-store chains that are either
discounters such as Kiabi or La Halle, or sport chains such as Decathlon and Go Sport.
According to Palpacuer (2004), the persistence of low concentration levels in the French
clothing retail market can be explained by the importance of small specialized chains on the
one hand and of family and management controlled ownership on the other. In spite of this,
we can mention the rising concentration among the largest retailers and an important
evolution in their capital structure witnessing a strategic shift towards “financialization”
(Lazonick & O’Sullivan, 2000).
Conditions are then set for important transformations to occur in French-driven GCCs.
The evolution of sourcing patterns of French retailers
The evolutions of the French retail scene involve new patterns in terms of sourcing. The
necessity to develop specific products in terms of design, color,… has increased the need for
quick turns that favour geographical proximity (Abernathy & al., 1999). Several authors have
pointed out the effects of just-in-time purchasing both on the functioning of purchasing
departments (Droge & Germain, 1997) and on buyer-seller relationships (Gilbert & al., 1994).
Meanwhile, the increasing necessity to reduce costs involves an extent in sourcing geography
and more concretely the increase of imports from Asia at the expense of Western European
and Mediterranean countries (Monczka & Trecha, 1988).
Several dominant orientations of sourcing strategy can be described. As noted by Palpacuer &
Poissonnier (2003), the largest retailers, offering standardised products (hyper-markets and
discount chains), are seeking to develop direct relationships with garment manufacturers,
avoiding contacts with intermediaries such as importers and agents. The aim of “going direct”
is explicitly associated with the rising importance of collections in these firms’ market
strategies, and motivated their establishment of overseas buying offices in the late 1990s.
Continuing the internationalisation of sourcing and increasing “reassorts” (replenishment for
successful products) are the dominant orientations of women’s and children’s wear
specialized chains. Another dominant orientation is to centralise and rationalise sourcing
activities, witnessing the degree of informal and unstructured way of sourcing traditionally
developed by French retailers (Palpacuer & Poissonnier, 2003).
According to these strategies and to the recent shifts we have described, three buying methods
are used by French retailers, corresponding to distinct distributions of production roles
between buyers and sellers within the clothing chain:
- “traditional buying” consists of acquiring a final product that has been designed and
manufactured by an outside provider without retailer input;
- buying a final product externally manufactured according to specifications provided
by retailers;
- arranging for outside product manufacturing by providing product specifications,
fabrics and components to a “CMT” (Cut, Make and Trim) supplier.
9
The development of retailers’ own product collections and marketing strategies is associated
with a shift away from the first buying form (Palpacuer & Poissonnier, 2003). This enables
retailers to develop a better control on operations process, and on their suppliers and shape
new kinds of global chains associated, as we will see in the next part, with new kinds of
upgrading opportunities for the suppliers. As the authors note, French retailers’ sourcing
networks appear to remain simultaneously more open and less closely integrated than those
developed by leading American firms. This situation might offer greater industrial upgrading
potential for suppliers working with French retailers than for those serving Anglo-Saxon
markets, where established preferred supplier positions are protected by high entry barriers.
Palpacuer & al. (2005) give three main explanations for the differences between sourcing
practices observable in France, UK and Scandinavia, highlighting the origins of the
specificities of the French retailers’ sourcing patterns we have described. First of all, the
authors point out the role of the industrial structure. In a country in which larger firms exist,
buyers are hypothesized to have more bargaining power in relation to suppliers. Even if the
degree of concentration is not so high in France, retailers are the ones who design production
networks. Secondly, the enterprise type seems determinant. Large chain stores are indeed
characterised by the presence of a wide range of product types, many of which have short life
cycles. They are also strongly interested in establishing a common “handwriting” across
product in order to create differences in customers’ mind. These characteristics conduct these
chains to ensure a high degree of internal coordination in their sourcing. Super or hypermarkets, selling products with longer life cycles and selecting suppliers on the basis of price
rather that style, are more likely to attach less importance to ensuring such coordination. The
authors give a third great factor of explanation which is ownership structure and show that
publicly listed companies exhibit higher propensities toward out-sourcing of “non-core”
competences owing to the doctrines of “shareholder value” requirements.
After this presentation of the French clothing retail scene, we will describe the methodology
we have used in constructing configurations of control modes aimed at understanding the
different types of upgrading opportunities offered to their suppliers by French retailers.
2.2 ) Methodology: the construction of a taxonomy of inter-organisational control modes
Starting from the relevance of the nature of inter-organizational control modes in explaining
upgrading opportunities offered to suppliers, and from the existence of different types of
inter-organizational relationships, we built a methodology consisting on the construction of a
taxonomy of inter-organizational control modes. This last one is aimed at making
configurations of inter-organizational control appear. A configuration can be defined as a
constellation of variables or characteristics that commonly occur together and form a global
configuration (Miller, 1986).
The construction of the configurations of inter-organizational control draws on interviews
completed with 17 French retailers in 2002/2003. The initial sampling aimed at selecting
retailers in each retail channel category, included mail order, hyper- and super-markets,
specialised chains, and department stores, with sales above Eu. 80 mn. Interviews were
obtained with sourcing managers from 17 out of a resulting population of 30 retailers. The
sourcing managers were the persons who were the most susceptible to give us precious
information on different kinds of subjects. The wish for confidentiality, particularly important
in the clothing industry, was another argument that led us to interview the sourcing managers:
they were the only ones knowing what they were allowed to say or not say.
10
Five out of seventeen retailers interviewed belong to the top 10 category, including hypermarkets, discount chains and one mail order company. Others belong to the dynamic
subsector of specialised chains, in the men’s wear, women’s wear, children’s wear or discount
segments. Table 1 presents the firms characteristics:
Table 1: sample characteristics
______________________________________________________________________
Firm Interviewed
(retail category)
Hypermarket
Hypermarket
Mail Order
Group
Discount Chain
Discount Chain
Discount Chain
Men’s wear Chain
Women’s wear Chain
Women’s wear Chain
Women’s wear Chain
Women’s wear Chain
Women’s wear Chain
Women’s wear Chain
Children’s wear Chain
Children’s wear Chain
Children’s wear Chain
Ownership
Date
Private, family control
Public
subsidiary, public retail group
Private, family control
Private, family control
Private, family control
Subsidiary
Public, management control
Public, management control
Public
Public
Public
Private, family control
Private, family control
Public
Private, management control
Private
January 2002
October 2002
January 2002
April 2003
February 2002
January 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
April 2003
April 2003
May 2003
November 2003
March 2002
April 2002
March 2002
Clothing sales
(Meuros)
_
1.500-2.000
2.000-2.500
1.000-1.500
600-700
180-200
500-600
450-500
350-400
200-250
250-300
1000-1500
450
150-200
100-150
50-100
Interviews with sourcing managers were conducted in a non-directive way. The main topics
covered during discussions included: what we have called “demographic variables” referring
to characteristics of retailers, their suppliers’ important characteristics, the nature of
environmental pressures that existed on the retailers, in order to explain differences in terms
of control practices, and of course, control in internal context as well as in inter-organizational
relationships.
The main important results of our study are presented in the next paragraph.
2.3 ) Results: the existence of different types of inter-organizational control modes and
the upgrading opportunities associated to them
First of all, we will describe the four great control modes we have been able to distinguish.
We will then present the consequences of the four control modes in terms of industrial
upgrading for the suppliers. Finally, we will tackle the impacts of the development of a
dominant control mode implemented by French distributors.
The existence of four great control modes
A first analysis of the interviews made with sourcing managers, based on the use of the
software of lexical analysis Alceste, allowed us to determine two great dimensions for
segmenting our sample. These two dimensions are control formalism and time perspective in
which the relationship is engaged. Four control configurations can be distinguished on this
basis: “Clan”, “Rule”, “Market” and “Feel”.
11
Graph 1 presents these configurations.
Graph 1: The four main classes of inter-organizational control
Long term (partnership)
Clan
Rule
Informal
Formal
Feel
Market
Short term
The configuration of “Clan” refers to a control mode relying on trust between the retailer and
its supplier and characterise six over our seventeen retailers studied. The configuration of
“Rule” has been encountered in three cases and describes a control type between partners (in
the sense that relationships have several years of existence) that is very formalized, the
suppliers’ performances being measured with many criteria. The “Market” control is linked to
the threatening of the end of the relationship in the case of bad results and has been observed
in six cases. The configuration of “Feel” regroups two firms and refers to a great opportunism
in the supply base shaping, with a strong importance given to prices.
The creation of variables has then be a central element for the development of our knowledge
of the configurations. Several variables have thus been defined in order to make
configurations of inter-organizational control appear through the study of the links between
all these variables. We have then created variables aimed at defining control practices and
their determinants.
Table 2 presents the variables (and the cuttings aimed at studying the links between variables)
that have been constructed for the study of the links between the variables on the basis of the
Fisher exact test of independence. This test is aimed at calculating an exact probability value
for the relationship between two dichotomous variables, as found in a two by two crosstable.
It works in exactly the same way as the Chi-square test for independence, being more accurate
if there is a small value (less than five) in one of the cells, as it was the case for our study.
12
Table 2: Cuttings aimed at studying the links between variables
_
Limit value
X1
X2
n
_ _
Variables
Demographic variables
Date of creation
Starting date for international sourcing
Number of outlets
Turn-over
Place of the firm
before 80 / after 80
before 92 / after 92
< 200 / > or = 200
< 450 / > or = 450
Paris / Other places
9
10
8
9
11
8
7
9
8
6
17
17
17
17
17
Suppliers’ characteristics :
Selection mode for the suppliers
Average size of the suppliers
Closeness of the suppliers
Nature of the suppliers
Definition of the suppliers’ performance
Very formal/Less formal
Small / Big
Close / Far away
Subcontractor /Supplier
Price / Other or mix
9
9
7
7
9
8
8
10
10
8
17
17
17
17
17
Relational strategy and control :
Position/supplier sharing
Share of French fabrication
Maximal production capacity used
Indiff. Or fav. / Non fav.
Weak (< 30%)/ Strong
< 33%
11
11
7
6
6
10
17
17
17
Nature of environmental pressures :
Nature of the most important shareholder
Shareholders expectations
Competitive stability on the market segment
Price positioning
NGO interventions
Familial / Institutional
Perpetuity / Return on inv.
Stable / Unstable
High or Medium / Low
Yes / No
9
8
7
7
5
8
9
10
10
12
17
17
17
17
17
Internal structure :
Buyer competence
+ Negotiation / + Product
Integration of stylists in the sourcing structure Important / Weak
9
10
8
7
17
17
Internal control :
Buyer formation
Evaluation system
Frequency of buyer evaluation
7
10
8
10
7
9
17
17
17
important / marginal
Individual / Collective
< 6 months
The study of the links between the variables allowed us to highlight the most important
characteristics that are associated to the four control modes. Tables 3 and 4 present these
characteristics. Some of them result from the calculation of a statistical link (ST). The others,
that are not linked from a statistical point of view, have been determined in an analytical way
(AN), drawing on our knowledge and understanding of the French retail sector.
13
Table 3: The most important characteristics associated to the four control modes
Market
Rule
Clan
Flair
Frequency of buyer
evaluation
ST
High
High
Weak
Weak
Buyer formation
ST
Marginal
Important
Important
Marginal
Evaluation system
AN
Individual
Collective
Collective
Individual
« Relation and control – Buyer »
Selection mode
ST
Formal
Formal
Non Formal
Non Formal
Performance definition
ST
Price
Other or mix
Other or mix
Price
Suppliers’ proximity
ST
Far away
Far away
Close
Close
Suppliers’ size
AN
Big
Big
Small
Small
« Relation and control – Supplier »
Competitive stability
ST
Unstable
Stable
Stable
Unstable
Price positioning
AN
Low prices
Low prices
High prices
High prices
Shareholders’ nature
AN
Institutional
Institutional
Familial
Familial
Outlets number (size)
ST
> 200
> 200
< 200
< 200
Beginning of int. sourcing
AN
Before 92
Before 92
After 92
After 92
« explaining factors »
Table 3 puts into evidence the three main dimensions along which differences have emerged
between the different control modes. The first dimension concerns control that is set on the
buyers themselves. This control has been described as being coherent with the control
observable in the context of inter-organizational relationships (Poissonnier, 2005). The second
dimension reveals differences in terms of inter-organizational control. More accurately,
formalization of the selection, performance definition and especially the role of price in this
selection, suppliers’ proximity revealing the degree of adoption of lean-retailing principles
and suppliers’ size are the most important variables allowing a segmentation of the firms
investigated on the basis of the dominant control mode they develop. The third dimension
presents factors explaining differences in control practices both in intra- and interorganizational contexts. The variables presented in table 3 reveal the importance of ownership
structure (“shareholders’ nature”), factors linked to competition (competitive stability, price
positioning) and “demographics factors” (outlet number and experience in international
sourcing).
Table 4 provides another highlighting of the main differences between the four types of
control chains, being more accurate on coherence between internal and external control and
control dynamic. It also provides information about the emblematic type of firm that are more
likely to develop each type of control.
14
Table 4: Main differences between the four types of control chains
Market
Rule
Clan
Feel
Internal – external coherence
Strong
Strong
Very Strong
Weak
Previous conditions observed
Institutional
investors,
Low prices
High social
pressures
(ethics)
Director’s
culture
(family firm)
Central role
of the buying
director
Control dynamic
Strong , towards
Rule
Stable
Strong,
towards Rule
Very strong
Emblematic type of firm
Low prices
chain
Hypermarket
High quality
chain
New chain,
low or middle
quality chain.
Our first result is linked to the confirmation of the existence of several types of interorganizational controls. This result is original considering the abundant literature on interorganizational control. Rule, Market and Clan have been largely described as interorganizational control types. Celly & Frazier (1996) point out the existence of two great kinds
of coordination efforts in channel relationships: outcome-based and behaviour-based which
are very similar to what we have called “Market” and “Rule”. Several authors have described
a control mode close to what we have called “Clan”, referring to culture (Ray, 1986) or trust
(Adler, 2001). Markets, bureaucracies and clans, as they are described by Ouchi (1980) are
also very close to our three main control modes. The originality of our findings lays in the
presentation of a fourth control modes, called “Feel”. This reveal the existence of a great
social embeddedness of the industry in France in which retailers traditionally develop social
relationships. The importance of this specificity tend to decrease while rationalisation of
sourcing practices develops. We have thus noted a very strong dynamic of evolution of these
control modes.
Consequences of the four control modes on upgrading opportunities
The distinction between price- (that are associated to Market and Feel as control modes) and
quality-driven chain (associated to Rule and Clan) highlights the question of the consequences
of the implementation of each control modes on upgrading opportunities for the suppliers. As
Schmitz & Knorringa (2000) argues, the more product quality matters, the greater the buyers’
interest in upgrading the producers. Buyers more interested in quality are more aware of the
cost of changing partners for the sake of price advantages. They prefer indeed stable relations
allowing suppliers to improve the quality of their products.
“Market” and “Feel”, because of short time perspective, do not allow important upgrading
opportunities which needs time and stable relationships. They engage however suppliers in
reducing costs in order to propose a price as lowest as possible. But even if suppliers succeed
in this action, the stability of the relationship is not sure because of the fact that a small
change rate variation can largely modify sourcing portfolios, the apparel industry being an
industry in which comparative advantages as defined by Ricardo are often more important
than competitive advantages as defined by Porter. Pressures forcing suppliers to focus on
achieving greater economies of scale imply greater specialization and narrows the range of
15
opportunities for learning that are given to suppliers. Upgrading opportunities that are given
to suppliers are then more and more threatened
“Clan” and “Rule” are the control modes allowing the best upgrading opportunities for
suppliers. In addition to stable relationships, Rule rely on the transmission of requirements
engaging suppliers in learning by doing. “Clan” create a more partnership climate favouring
initiatives and innovation from suppliers. Retailers adopting this control mode are waiting
suppliers to develop innovative propositions, for instance by offering design services to their
clients. It is then possible to distinguish two different forms of learning opportunities that are
given to suppliers depending on the control mode chosen by their retailers. Rule give rise to
narrow but more structured learning experiences while “Clan” seems to favour broader but
more diffuse learning experiences that are more dependant to the supplier’s own innovative
orientation and capacities. In a way, suppliers can learn more while controlled through “Clan”
if they are “pro-active” in their learning process while “Rule” allows a more “re-active”
learning process.
The type of upgrading favoured by the development of “Rule”
Traditionally, the dominant control mode implemented by French retailers was the “Clan”
(Poissonnier, 2005). Our study shows that the more developing control mode is “Rule”. This
evolution have strong impacts on the upgrading opportunities that are given to suppliers. The
positive evolution for suppliers is linked to the creation of partnerships, which can be
explained by the necessity for retailers to wait for a return on investment after a longer
selection process. This development of “Rule” is both cause and consequence of the
implementation of a core-periphery model. More and more, lead-firms co-ordinate complex
production networks by differentiating between core suppliers with whom they maintain
stable relationships and peripheral suppliers operating on the basis of market-based, shortterm links with their clients (Palpacuer, 1997, 2000). This is coherent with the findings of
Dyer & al. (1998) who presented supplier segmentation as the next “best practice” in supply
chain management. In this situation, it becomes more and more important for suppliers to
enter the core suppliers if they are to succeed in upgrading.
Another important finding is that retailers always prefer helping their suppliers in upgrading
within the sphere of production rather than into non-production activities such as design and
marketing. The reason is clear and is linked to the fact that marketing and design are part of
the buyers’ own guarded core competence as Schmitz & Knorringa (2000) noted.
Sustainable development is then still (and even more) allowed but concerns only a few
suppliers defined as core-suppliers while the others experience more and more difficulties to
take their place in international business.
Conclusion
The main goal of our research was to identify the conditions under which trade based growth
could become a vehicle for genuine industrial upgrading and sustainable development for
suppliers’ countries. We have addressed this question using a global commodity chains
framework. According to Gereffi (1999), the linkage to a GCC is a necessary condition for
learning, and then upgrading, to occur. Our literature review confirmed that trade-based
learning mechanisms have strong effects on differences in industrial upgrading between CEE
economies (Hotopp & al., 2005).
16
In the first time, the construction of a taxonomy of inter-organizational control modes was
made to take the diversity of practices implemented by French retailers into account. Four
great control modes have been pointed out: “Market”, “Rule”, “Clan” and “Feel”. We have
then studied the characteristics of these four control modes and the dynamic of their
evolution, as well as their most important factors of explanation. It enabled us to present an
accurate view of the French retailers’ practices in terms of inter-organizational control and to
conclude on the upgrading opportunities offered to their suppliers.
Several points should receive a greater attention. First of all, we have pointed out the growing
influence of ownership structures and NGO actions on the functioning of GCCs. Institutional
investors tend to favour the setting up of “Market” control. Campaigns from development
organisations such as the American “Global Watch” or the European “Clean Clothes
Campaign” have then proved a potent force for change, particularly to tackle “sweatshop”
conditions in garment production. Jones (1999) explains that this kind of pressures are to
increase social responsibility. These new pressures favour “Rule” based control, because
retailers can not take risks any more in terms of social considerations. Doing this, they offer
new upgrading opportunities to their suppliers as we have explained.
In spite of the dominant position of retailers, suppliers could then receive advises allowing a
strengthening of their position. Gereffi & Tam (1998) explain that the “ecology” of a
commodity chain is dynamic, being dependent on the strategic actions of firms and groups of
firms. According to Gereffi (1996, 1999), commodity chains are largely “buyer-driven” in the
apparel industry. We agree these conception that gives the central role to retailers in
generating or not the conditions for sustainable development of their suppliers. However,
several examples of responses used by suppliers to improve their conditions can be
mentioned. Choi & al. (2002) explain how horizontal relationships between suppliers are
determinant for the strengthening of the suppliers’ role in the shaping of their relationships
with retailers. This idea is confirmed by Cossentino & al. (1996), showing how industrial
districts in Italy give power to participating producers.
The growing concentration of buying power in France, like in most developed countries, and
the tendency of large retailers to establish fewer but closer relationships with apparel
manufacturers has increased competition among apparel suppliers all over the world (Kessler,
1999). But if they are to succeed in developing, suppliers have to be aware of the necessity to
develop horizontal as well as vertical relationships. In a way, the answer is always interorganizational fostering the sharing of knowledge and enabling the raising of the quality of
production to world class standards which is a key determinant for success. Our findings
however confirm those of Schmitz & Knorringa (2000) arguing that suppliers face greater
obstacles in upgrading through developing design and marketing competences than in
production upgrading.
The situation of the apparel industry we have described, presenting the French retailers’
sourcing and inter-organizational control practices is probably not a-typical for labour
intensive export sectors in developing countries. Through our case study, we have tackled the
question of the trade’s potential for lifting broad swatches of people out of poverty. In so
doing, we have studied new challenges facing producers in developing countries in our more
and more globalized world. The question of the answers that could be given to those new
challenges remains an open and interesting question.
17
Bibliography
Abernathy F., Dunlop J., Hammond J. & Weil D. (1999), A stitch in time: lean retailing and the
transformation of manufacturing, New York, Oxford University Press.
Adler P. S. (2001), Market, Hierarchy and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism,
Organization Science, vol. 12, p. 215-234.
Agndal H. & Axelsson B. (2002), Internationalisation of the Firm – The Influence of Relationship Sediments,
Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of the IMP Group Asia on Culture and Collaboration in
Distribution Networks, Perth, 11-13 December.
Alguire M. S., Frear C. R. & Metcalf L. E. (1994), An Examination of the Determinants of Global Sourcing,
The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 9, n° 2, p. 62-74.
Amin A. (1994), Post Fordism, Blackwell.
Appelbaum R. & Gereffi G. (1994), Power and profits in the apparel commodity chain, in Bonacich E., Cheng
L., Chinchilla N., Hamilton N. & Ong P. (Eds.), Global production: the apparel industry in the Pacific
Rim, p. 42-62, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Araujo L., Dubois A. & Gadde L. E. (1999), Managing Interfaces with Suppliers, Industrial Marketing
Management, vol. 28, n° 5, p. 497-506.
Arnold U. (1989), Global Sourcing: An Indispensable Element in Worldwide Competition, Management
International Review, 29, n° 4, p. 14-28.
Arrow K. (1962), The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing, Review of Economic Studies, 29, June, p.
155-173.
Bachman S. L. (2000), The Political Economy of Child Labor and its Impacts on International Business,
Business Economics, 35, 3, p. 30-41.
Bailey T. (1993), Organizational innovation in the apparel industry, Industrial Relations, vol. 32, n° 1, p. 30-48.
Bair J. & Gereffi G. (2002), Nafta and the apparel commodity chain: Corporate strategies, interfirm networks,
and industrial upgrading, in Gereffi G., Spener D., & Bair J. (Eds), Free trade and uneven development:
The North American apparel industry after Nafta, p. 32-52, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Bensaou B. M. (1999), Portfolios of buyer-supplier relationships, Sloan Management Review, vol. 40, n° 4,
Summer, p. 35-44.
Birnbirg J. G. (1998), Control in interfirm co-operative relationships, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 35,
Issue 4, Juillet 1998, p. 421-428.
Black B. (2001), National culture and industrial relations and pay structures, Labour, vol. 15, n° 2, P. 257-277.
Celly K. S. & Frazier G. L. (1996), Outcome-Based and Behavior-Based Coordination Efforts in Channel
Relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 33, May, p. 200-210.
Chacon F. (2000), International Trade in Textiles and Garments : Global Restructuring of the Sources of Supply
in the United States in the 1990s, Integration and Trade, Mai-Août 2000, p. 17-45.
Cherret K. (1994), Gaining Competitive Advantage through Partnering, Australian Journal of Public Finance,
vol. 53, n° 1.
Cho J. & Kang J. ( 2001), Benefits and Challenges of Global Sourcing: Perceptions of US Apparel Retail
Firms, International Marketing Review, vol. 18, n° 5, p. 542-561.
18
Choi T. Y., Wu Z., Ellram L. & Koka B. R. (2002), Supplier-supplier relationships and their implications for
buyer-supplier relationships, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Mai 2002, p. 119-130.
Clark K. (2002), Making global sourcing right, Chain Store Age, vol. 78, Iss. 12, p. 122-124.
Cossentino F., Pyke F. & Sengenberger W. (1996), Local and regional response to global pressure: the case of
Italy and its industrial districts, Research Series 103, Geneva, International Institute for Labour Studies.
Cox A., Ireland P., Lonsdale C., Sanderson J. & Watson G. (2001), Supply Chains, Markets and Power:
mapping buyer and supplier power regions, Routledge, London.
Dekker H. C. (2004), Control of inter-organizational relationships: evidence on appropriation concerns and
coordination requirements, Accounting Organization and Society, vol. 29, p. 27-49.
Dicken P. (1998), Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy, 3 rd edn, New York and London: The
Guilford Press.
Dickerson K. G. (1991), Textiles and Apparel in the International Economy, New York : Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Donada C. (1997), Fournisseurs : pour déjouer les pièges du partenariat, Revue Française de Gestion, JuinJuillet-Août 1997, p. 94-105.
Droge C. & Germain R. (1997), Effects of just-in-time purchasing relationships on organizational design,
purchasing department configuration, and firm performance, Industrial Marketing Management, n° 26, p.
115-125.
Dussel E., Duran C. R. & Piore M. J. (1997), Learning and the limits of foreign partners as teachers’, paper
presented at “Global Production, Regional Responses, and Local Jobs : Challenges and Opportunities in
the North American Apparel Industry”, Duke University, 7-8 November.
Dyer J. H. & Chu W. (2003), The Role of Trustworthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and Improving
Performance: Empirical Evidence From the United States, Japan and Korea, Organization Science, vol.
14, n° 1, p. 57-68.
Dyer J. H., Cho D. S. & Chu W. (1998), Strategic supplier segmentation: The next “best practice” in supply
chain management, California Management Review, vol. 40, n° 2, p. 57-77.
Ernst D. (2000), Global production networks and the changing geography of innovation systems : implications
for developing countries, East-West Center Working Paper, 9, Honolulu: East-West Center.
Firoz N. M. & Ammaturo C. R. (2002), Sweatshop labour practices: the bottom line to bring change to the new
millennium case of the apparel industry, Humanomics, Patrington, vol. 18, Issue ½, p. 29-45.
Ford D. & Hakansson H. (2002), How should companies interact in business networks ?, Journal of Business
Research, 55, p. 133-139.
Ford D. (1980), The development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial market, European Journal of
Marketing, vol 14, n° 5/6, p. 339-354.
Ganesan S. (1994), Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing,
vol. 58, n° 2, p. 1-19.
Gereffi G. (1999), International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity chain, Journal of
International Economics, n°48, p. 37-70.
Gereffi G. (1996), Global Commodity Chains: New Forms of Coordination and Control Among Nations and
Firms in International Industries, Competition and Change, vol. 4, p. 427-439.
19
Gereffi G. (1994), The organization of buyer-driven global commodity chains: How US retailers shape overseas
production networks, In Gereffi G. & Korzeniewicz M. (Eds.), Commodity Chains and Global
Capitalism, Praeger Publishers.
Gereffi G & Tam T. (1998), Industrial upgrading through organizational chains: dynamics of rents, learning by
doing, and mobility in the global economy, paper presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American
Sociological Association, San Fransisco, California, 21-25 August.
Gibbon P. (2003), The African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Global Commodity Chain for Clothing,
World Development, vol. 31, n° 11, p. 1809-1827.
Gibbon P. (2002), At the cutting edge ? Financialisation and UK clothing retailers’ global sourcing patterns and
practices, Competition and Change, 6, p. 289-308.
Gibbon P. (2001), At the Cutting Edge : UK Clothing Retailers and Global Sourcing, Center for Development
Research Working Papers, August 2001, Copenhagen, p. 1-36.
Gibbon P. (2000), “Back to the Basics” through Delocalisation: The Mauritian Garment Industry at the End of
the Twentieth Century, Center for Development Research Working Papers, October 2000, Copenhague, p.
1-66.
Gilbert F. W., Young J. A. & O’Neal C. R. (1994), Buyer-seller relationships in just-in-time purchasing
environments, Journal of Business Research, vol. 29, February 1994, p. 111-120.
Hakansson H., Avila V. & Pedersen A-C (1999), Learning in Networks, Industrial Marketing Management,
vol. 28, n° 5, p. 443-452.
Harrison A. & Scorse J. (2006), Improving the Conditions of Workers? Minimum Wage Legislation and AntiSweatshop Activism, California Management Review, vol. 48, n° 2, winter.
Heide J. B. (1994), Interorganizational governance in marketing channels, Journal of Marketing, vol. 58,
January 1994, p. 71-86.
Henderson J., Dicken P., Hess M., Coe N. & Yeung H. (2002), Global production networks and the analysis of
economic development, Review of International Political Economy, 9, 3, p. 436-464.
Hopkins J. K. & Wallerstein I. (1994), Commodity Chains: Construct and Research, in Gereffi G. &
Korzeniewicz M. (eds.) Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hopwood A. (1996), Looking across rather up and down: on the need to explore the lateral processing of
information, Accounting Organizations and Society, vol. 21, p. 589-590.
Hotopp U., Radosevic S. & Bishop K. ( 2005), Trade and Industrial Upgrading in Countries of Central and
Eastern Europe, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, vol. 41, n° 4, July-August 2005, p. 20-37.
Humphrey J. & Schmitz H. (2000), Governance and Upgrading: Linking Industrial Cluster and Global Value
Chain Research, IDS Working Paper, n° 120, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex,
Brigthon.
Jones M. T. (1999), The institutional determinants of social responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, Jun 99,
vol. 20, Issue 2, p. 163-179.
Kalika M., Guilloux V. & Laval F. (1998), Structuration des entreprises et relations d’affaires internationales,
Sciences de Gestion, XXXII, n° 8, 9, Septembre 1998.
Kaplinsky R. (2000), Globalization and unequalization : what can be learned from value chain analysis ?,
Journal of Development Studies, 37, 2, p. 117-146.
20
Kessler J. A. (1999), The North American Free Trade Agreement, emerging apparel production networks and
industrial upgrading : the southern California/Mexico connection, Review of International Political
Economy, 6, 4, Winter 1999, p. 565-608.
Lane C. & Bachman R. (1996), The social constitution of trust: supplier relations in Britain and Germany,
Organization Studies, 17/3, p. 365-395.
Lazonick W. & O’Sullivan M. (2000), Maximizing shareholder value : A new ideology for corporate
governance, Economy and Society, 29, 1, p. 13-35.
Miller D. (1986), Configurations of strategy and structure : toward a synthesis, Strategic Management Journal,
vol. 7, n° 3, p. 233-249.
Mohr D. C. & Spekman R. E. (1994), Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes,
communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, p.
135-152.
Monczka R. M., Callahan T. J. & Nichols E. L. (1995), Predictors of relationships among buying and
supplying firms, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 25, n° 10,
p. 45-59.
Monczka R. M. & Trecha S. J. (1988), Cost-Based Supplier Performance Evaluation, Journal of Purchasing &
Materials Management, Spring, vol. 24, issue 1, p. 2-7.
Otley D. (1994), Management control in contemporary organizations: toward a wider framework, Management
Accounting Research, vol. 5, p. 289-299.
Ouchi W. G. (1980), Markets, Bureaucracies and Clans, Administrative Science Quarterly, March 1980, vol. 25,
p. 129-141.
Palpacuer F., Gibbon P. & Thomsen L. (2005), New Challenges for Developing Country Suppliers in Global
Clothing Chains: A Comparative European Perspective, World Development, vol. 33, n° 3, p. 409-430.
Palpacuer F. (2004), The global sourcing patterns of French clothing retailers: Determinants and implications
for suppliers’ industrial upgrading, Workshop and Conference, University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill,
October, 15-16th.
Palpacuer F. & Parisotto A. (2003), Global production and local jobs: Can global production networks be used
as levers for local development? Global Networks, 3, 2, p. 97-120.
Palpacuer F. & Poissonnier H. (2003), The global sourcing networks of french clothing retailers :
organizational patterns and opportunities for supliers’industrial upgrading, Working paper, Danish
Institure for International Studies, Center for Development Research, Copenhagen November 2003, 32p.
Palpacuer F. (2000), Competence-based strategies and global production networks: A discussion of current
changes and their implications for employment, Competition and Change, 4, p. 353-400.
Palpacuer F. (1997), Development of core-periphery forms of organizations: some lessons from the New York
garment industry, Discussion papers, International Institute for Labour Studies, 31 p.
Poissonnier H. (2005), Proposition d’un cadre d’analyse du contrôle inter-organisationnel fondé sur la chaîne de
contrôle : une étude centrée sur la filière THD, Thèse de Doctorat soutenue le 2 décembre 2005,
Université Montpellier II.
Ray C. A. (1986), Corporate Culture : The Last Frontier of Control ?, The Journal of Management Studies, Mai
1986, p. 287-298.
Ring P. S. & Van de Ven A. H. (1994), Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational
relationships, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, n° 1, p. 90-118.
21
Ring P. S. & Van de Ven A. H. (1992), Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13, p. 483-498.
Rollins R. P., Porter K. & Little D. (2002), Modelling the changing apparel supply chain, International
Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, vol. 15, n° 2, p. 140-156.
Schmitz H. & Knorringa P. (2000), Learning from Global Buyers, The Journal of Development Studies, vol.
37, n° 2, Décembre 2000, p. 177-203.
Sorensen J.-E. (2001), Trade, Environment and Sustainable Development, World Summit for Sustainable
Development, United Nations University Centre, 3-4 September.
Trent R. J. & Monczka R. M. (2002), Pursuing competitive advantage through integrated global sourcing,
Academy of Management Executive, May 2002, vol. 16, issue 2, p. 66-80.
Van de Ven A.H. (1976), On the Nature, Formation and Maintenance of Relationships among Organizations,
Academy of Management Review, vol. 1, October, p. 24-36.
Van der Meer – Kooistra J. & Vosselman G. J. (2000), Management control of interfirm transactional
relationships: the case of industrial renovation and maintenance, Accounting, Organizations and Society,
vol. 25, p. 51-77.
Watanabe S. (1978), Technological Linkages between Formal and Informal Sectors of Manufacturing Industry,
Working Paper, n° 34, Technology and Employment Programme, WEP 2-22, ILO, Geneva.
Watanabe S. (1971), Subcontracting, Industrialisation and Employment Creation, International Labour Review,
vol. 104, n° 1 & 2.
Whitley R. (1999), Divergent capitalisms : the social structuring and change of business systems, New York,
Oxford University Press.
Whitley R. (1996), Business Systems and Global Commodity Chains : Competing or Complementary Forms of
Economic Organisation?, Competition & Change, 1996 Vol. 1, p. 411-425.
Zaheer A., Mc Evily B. & Perrone V. (1998), Does trust matter? Exloring the effects of interorganizational and
interpersonal trust on performance, Organization Science, vol. 9, n° 2, March-April, p. 141-159.
22