SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT (SCM) IN THE
SPANISH GROCERY SECTOR
CRISTINA GIMÉNEZ THOMSEN
Escola Universitària del Maresme (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)
Universitat de Barcelona
cgimenez@eum.es
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to explore the current state of Supply Chain Management
(SCM) in the Spanish grocery sector and, in the case of a SCM approach, to establish what
have been the main benefits achieved and the main barriers found. Firstly, a review of the
Spanish grocery sector and SCM concept are presented. After this review, a multiple case
study analysis based on interviews to important manufacturers and retailers is shown. And,
finally based on the case study findings, some conclusions, limitations and further research
needs of this study are pointed out.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The analysis presented in this paper is part of my MSc thesis at Cranfield University
and, therefore, I would like to thank my supervisor at Cranfield University, Mark Barratt,
for all his guidance and valuable advice throughout the thesis. I would also want to thank
you my PhD thesis supervisor at Universitat de Barcelona, José Mª Castán, for all his
valuable comments. Finally, I would also like to express my thanks to all manufacturers
and retailers that have been open to participate in this study, as well as to Asociación
Española de Codificación Comercial (AECOC).
1. INTRODUCTION
The grocery sector in Spain, as it is happening in other countries around the world, is
characterised by suffering important concentration movements and by having a very
competitive environment. In this highly competitive environment companies need to look
for competitive advantages that enable them to have a better customer service and/or a
lower cost by eliminating existing inefficiencies. Many of these inefficiencies are due to the
fact of not managing the supply chain as a whole. Each member of the chain tries to
optimise its part of the supply chain without taking into account the effects of its actions in
the rest of the supply chain members.
The management of the supply chain is very important because today, it is not one
firm competing against another firm; instead, it is a supply chain competing against another
supply chain (Christopher, 1998, p16). What creates value for the end-user is not the last
firm in the chain; instead, it is all the members in the chain who create value for the end
user. Therefore, it is a key aspect to contemplate the chain as a whole and not each of its
members individually.
The management of the supply chain is “the management of upstream and
downstream relationships in order to deliver superior customer value at less cost to the
supply chain as a whole” (Christopher, 1998, p4). As Supply Chain Management (SCM) is
based on the management of supply chain relationships it becomes evident that the
management of supply chain relationships is a key aspect to achieve competitive advantage.
1
A company must strategically segment its relationships and establish closer relationships
with key members of its supply chain in order to minimise inefficiencies by working all of
them as one unit. These closer relationships are characterised as being longer-term
relationships, the sharing of information and benefits, the collaboration and co-ordination
of activities and planning, etc. (Gardner, Cooper & Noordewier, 1994; Spekman, Kamauff
& Myhr, 1998; Macbeth & Ferguson, 1994).
In the grocery sector, the concept of Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) has
evolved. This concept is based upon an initiative of manufacturers and retailers working
together in order to eliminate supply chain inefficiencies and create a higher value for the
end customer.
2. THE SPANISH GROCERY SECTOR
During the last twelve years the Spanish grocery sector has evolved and modernised
considerably: There has been a growth in the implementation of new technologies and the
development of new commercial formats, such as hypermarkets and supermarkets.
The most important characteristics of the Spanish grocery retailing sector are:
Market concentration, considerable presence of foreign capital, overcapacity, the increase
of the modern commercial formats (hypermarkets and supermarkets) and the decrease in
the traditional establishments’ market share. However, with respect to the modern
commercial formats, it has to be pointed out that the hypermarkets segment is showing
signs of exhaustion while the supermarkets segment is growing. Another important
characteristic of the grocery sector is the long payment terms imposed by big retailers that
have allowed them to have considerable financial benefits.
With respect to manufacturers-retailers relationships, there have been developments
of very big and important purchasing centres, which have increased the retailers’ power.
Medium and small retailers use these centres in order to obtain their supplies with better
commercial conditions and discounts. On the other hand, big grocery retailers do not use
these purchasing centres because they have enough power to impose prices and other trade
conditions.
During recent years, despite the recognition of the need for increasing efficiency in
the retailing sector, mainly through a higher co-operation and co-ordination between the
different members in the channel, few actions have succeeded. This is mainly due to (1) the
scarcity of a general culture of co-operation and (2) the existing relationships
characterised as being adversarial (Múgica, 1999, p48). Also, the co-operation and coordination efforts contrast with two prevailing industry views (Múgica, 1999, p48): (1)
“The dominance of the production perspective: The main concern of each company in the
channel is in its particular goods or services and not in the final consumer service that
creates the whole channel” and (2) “incompatibility of information systems and differences
in the logistics standards; the information and materials flows are broken up and interrupted
as many times as companies exist in the channel.”
However, at the end of 1995, the executive Committee of ECR Spain was created.
ECR Spain is a non profit organisation whose mission is to promote solutions based on
collaboration among agents involved in satisfying demand (Efficient Replenishment) and
generating demand (Efficient Store Assortments, Efficient Promotions and Efficient
Product Launches). Within the ECR Spain forum some ECR pilots have been implemented
(CRP, supply chain reengineering, unitary loads, etc.). The results of these pilots have been
satisfactory in terms of improved service and reduced total costs. And, with respect to
manufacturers-retailers relationships it has to be said that the pilot schemes proved to be a
landmark in the establishment of alliances between manufacturers and retailers because
they have demonstrated the viability of the solutions tested.
2
3. SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
3.1. Supply Chain Management
Logistics have existed since the first wars created the need to move enormous
quantities of people and supplies to equip them. However, logistics first appeared in the
academic literature in the early 1900s (Kent & Flint, 1997). And, it has evolved in
techniques and in concept. Logistics is defined today as: “The process of strategically
managing the procurement, movement and storage of materials, parts and finished
inventory (and the related information flows) through the organisation and its marketing
channels in such a way that current and future profitability are maximised through the costeffective fulfilment of orders” (Christopher, 1998, p4).
The main characteristics of each one of the different stages of the logistics’ concept
evolution are:
• 1950’s – early 1970’s: Logistics was defined as a distribution function, where
controlling finished goods, transportation and warehousing was the companies’
mission (Bowersox & Daugherty, 1987, p47).
• Mid 1970’s - 1980’s: “The 1980s saw a major growth in the logistics area, with
the recognition of the potential savings from integrating the management of the
various components of logistics throughout the organisation as a whole”
(Bowersox, 1987, p233). “The traditional structure for manufacturing firms is to
have three separate segments within the material flow system. The first segment is
the procurement loop and extends from source of raw material to production site.
The second segment extends from production site to the end of the production line.
The third segment or loop extends to the end of the production line to the
consumer or user of the finished product. Traditionally, these three segments have
been treated as separate in both a managerial and organisational design sense ...
The restructuring that is well underway in many firms is aimed at co-ordinating
these three segments of the materials flow system” (La Londe, 1983, p4).
• Late 1980’s - 1990’s: “In the last ten years the term supply chain management
has risen to prominence … And it has been defined as an integrative philosophy to
manage the total flow of a channel from earliest supplier of raw materials to the
ultimate customer, and beyond, including the disposal process” (Cooper, Ellram,
Gardner & Hanks, 1997, p68).
This evolution in the logistics concept is shown in figure 1. Nowadays there are
companies at these different stages. There are firms that are still considering logistics as a
distribution function; others that have already internally integrated and therefore,
Procurement, Manufacturing and Distribution are co-ordinated. Finally, there are other
companies that have adopted the SCM approach and have internally and externally
integrated. These later companies have integrated key business processes from end user
through original suppliers to provide products, services and information that add value for
customers and stakeholders ( Lambert, Cooper & Pagh, 1998).
“The supply chain is the network of organisations that are involved, through
upstream and downstream linkages, in the different processes and activities that produce
value in the form of products and services in the hands of the ultimate consumer”
(Christopher, 1998, p15). And, therefore, SCM is “the management of upstream and
downstream relationships with suppliers and customers to deliver superior customer value
at less cost to the supply chain as a whole” (Christopher, 1998, p4).
3
Figure 1. Logistics evolution: From distribution logistics to supply chain
CUSTOMER SERVICE
MATERIALS FLOW
STAGE I: DISTRIBUTION LOGISTICS
Purchasing
Materials
control
Production
Sales
Distribution
STAGE II: INTERNAL INTEGRATION OF MATERIALS FLOWS
! INTEGRATED LOGISTICS OR INTRA-FIRM LOGISTICS
Materials
Manufacturing
Management
Management
Distribution
STAGE III: EXTERNAL INTEGRATION
! SUPPLY CHAIN
Internal
Suppliers
Supply
Customers
Chain
Adapted from STEVENS, G.C. (1989): “Integrating the Supply Chain”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, vol. 19, no. 8, 3-8.
Until recently SCM has been viewed as not different from the contemporary
understanding of logistics management (as defined by the Council of Logistics
Management in 1986): “from point of origin” to “point of consumption”.
The members of The Global Supply Chain Forum redefined SCM in 1998 as: “The
integration of key business processes from end user through original suppliers which
provides products, services, and information that add value for customers and other
stakeholders” (Lambert, Cooper & Pagh, 1998, p1).
And, the CLM announced in 1998 a modified definition of logistics: “Logistics is
that part of the supply chain process that plans, implements, and controls the efficient,
effective flow and storage of goods, services, and related information from the point-oforigin to the point-of-consumption in order to meet customers’ requirements” (CLM,
1998i).
3.2. Why to adopt Supply Chain Management?
There are some main motivators or drivers that have led firms to adopt SCM; but
there have also been some facilitators that have contributed to its implementation and
development.
The drivers: “Houlihan (1985) and Jones and Riley (1985) stated that the objective
of SCM is to lower the total amount of resources required to provide the necessary level of
customer service to a specific segment” (Cooper, Lambert, & Pagh, 1997, p3). “Other
writers have indicated other objectives supportive of this overall goal, including
synchronising the requirements of the customer with the flow of materials from suppliers
(Stevens, 1989), reducing inventory investment in the chain, increasing customer service,
building competitive advantage for the supply chain (Cooper,1993; Cooper & Ellram,
1993), and value (La Londe, 1997; Langley & Holcomb, 1992 )” (Cooper, Lambert, &
Pagh, 1997, p3).
The enablers: Information systems and technology developments have played an
important role in facilitating an efficient management of the supply chain. Information
technology is a key enabler to the development of an integrated supply chain. “Leading
organisations have long recognised that the key to success in SCM is the information
system” (Christopher, 1998, p271). Information systems allow to link the customer directly
to the supplier, enabling the supplier to react, sometimes in real-time, to changes in the
4
market. Some new technological tools that have been implemented to manage the supply
chain are data standards, bar codes and information networking capabilities.
3.3. Supply chain relationships
SCM is more than the management of upstream and downstream relationships along
the supply chain; however, the performance of the supply chain is considerably based on
this management of relationships. With respect to these relationships, it has to be pointed
out that firms very often strategically segment them and establish different type of
relationships with their supply chain members (Kraljic,1983; Dyer, Cho & Chu, 1998).
These relationships between organisations range from arm’s length relationships to
vertical integration. Each one of these two extreme approaches has its advantages and
disadvantages. Partnerships appear as the type of relationship that can lead a company to
benefit from both the advantages of the arm’s length relationship and vertical integration
and, moreover minimise the problems related to these types of relationship (arm’s length
and vertical integration).
As pointed out before, companies strategically segment their relationships with their
supply chain members and, with some they establish a more arm’s length type/style of
relationship and with others a more partnership type. Also, within the more partnership
type/style of relationship there can be different degrees of partnership: There is one type of
partnership where firms only co-ordinate activities and planning on a limited basis and, on
the other hand, there is another type of partnership where there is such a significant level of
operational integration that each firm sees the other as an extension of its firm.
In the grocery sector there is a new relationship framework between manufacturers
and grocery retailers. This relationship framework is based on a joint and co-ordinated
work . This new philosophy is called Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) and its aim is to
eliminate inefficiencies, generate economies, benefit both parties in the relationship (winwin) and offer higher value to customers. Apart from these main objectives, which are
important drivers for implementing ECR practices, there can also be structural factors that
contribute to the spread of the ECR practices, such as higher competition due to
concentration and the entry of hard discounters, decrease in interest rates, etc.
4. METHODOLOGY
The research question to be answered by this study is: To determine the extent of
SCM development in the Spanish grocery sector. A multiple case study analysis has been
used to answer this question. The process followed to design and implement the case study
methodology has been adopted from Yin (1994).
In order to increase the reliability of the case study analysis, it was decided to create
an interview protocol and a case study database. Also, other sources of evidence such as
newspapers clippings and other articles have been used to corroborate and amplify evidence
from other sources. With respect to “how to link the data to the research questions”, a chain
of evidence has been established in order to allow any external observer to follow the
derivation of any evidence from initial research question to ultimate case study conclusions.
Due to the time constraints it has not been possible to cover all the various facets of
this supply chain in the context of this study. The focus of this paper is primarily on the
manufacturer-retailer relationship, not considering any other type of relationship within the
grocery supply chain.
When focusing on manufacturer-retailer relationship, the most appropriate method
would be to analyse particular relationships. However, in view of the time constraints
relating to data collection (i.e. approaching a retailer for an interview, carrying out the
interview, and then asking to interview ones of the retailer’s suppliers), such an approach
5
has not been possible. As an alternative, the data collection method has been redesigned.
Interviews have been undertaken with non-specific relationships between retailers and
manufacturers, thereby facilitating data collection within the constraints of this study. The
consequences of such an approach is discussed in the analysis and presentation of results.
The units of analysis chosen are manufacturers and retailers from the Spanish
grocery sector. For the research, interviews with fifteen companies (nine manufacturers and
six retailers) were conducted. Manufacturers are leading companies or among the leaders in
different product categories and retailers have been selected from the top-12 Spanish
retailers (retailers interviewed had a market share of 18% in 1997, while the top-10
companies had a market share of 45%). Among both samples there were companies
participating in the ECR forum and pilots and companies that were not. Initially, ten
manufacturers and ten retailers were contacted to ask if they wanted to participate in the
study; one manufacturer and four retailers declined.
A structured guide was used to initiate the interview through the meetings, which
typically lasted one to two hours. The meetings were generally held with the logistics
directors or supply chain directors of manufacturers and retailers. Purchasing directors of
some retailers were also interviewed in order to achieve more in depth information about
supply chain relationships. Interviews with key accounts managers in manufacturers
companies were more difficult to establish, but in some cases it was possible to interview a
customer service manager. All interviews were (subject to the permission of the
interviewed person) tape recorded (there were very few cases were the interview could not
be recorded).
5. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
5.1. Introduction
The aim of the research question is to determine at which stage of supply chain
integration are each one of the companies, taking into account Stevens’ (1989)
classification (see figure 1).
In order to determine if a company was internally integrated some factors needed to
be present. The most important one is the integration of the following functions:
Purchasing, Manufacturing and Distribution. If for example, Manufacturing was not linked
to actual Sales or/and Purchasing to Manufacturing or Sales, then, the firm was considered
not to be internally integrated. Finally, in some cases the organisational structure has also
helped to determine if the company was internally integrated or not. For example, a fact
showing internal integration in some companies was the existence of a “Customer Service”
department responsible for the following process:
Order ! Commercial conditions ! Logistics ! Invoices ! Payment
On the other hand, in order to determine if a company was externally integrated,
either upstream or downstream, the variables analysed were: (1) what it understands for
SCM and what is the firm doing with respect to it; (2) its participation in ECR pilots and (3)
its interfaces with other supply chain members. If the definition of SCM was right and the
firm was implementing it at least with some supply chain members, then the firm was
considered to be externally integrated. There were some cases in which the person
interviewed knew the SCM concept but the firm was not really externally integrated but
initiating this integration process through its participation for example in some CRP pilots.
In these later cases firms were said to be at the beginnings of external integration.
6
5.2. Manufacturers’ perspective
The findings from the case studies are: Four of the nine companies interviewed have
adopted SCM (internal and external integration of its logistics, at least with some supply
chain members); two other companies have achieved the internal integration stage and are
in the initials of the external integration; one company shows signals of being internally
integrated but not taking action with respect to the external integration and, finally, the last
two companies are not internally integrated yet.
Companies that are not fully externally integrated and/or not internally integrated
know, however, the benefits that SCM can bring to them. Some have not achieved the
internal integration stage basically due to internal reticence (reticence at some levels of
their organisations). Others have not externally integrated yet or are at their first steps
because they have preferred to prepare internally first. Concluding, it is suggested that
manufacturers are making efforts to achieve the SCM stage in the near future, but first
some are internally restructuring their organisations.
When asked about the benefits that SCM can bring, most of them agreed in the
general objectives of stocks and costs reductions and service improvements. Also, some of
them recognised that a very important benefit that SCM and specially ECR has brought was
to create collaboration between manufacturers and retailers. With respect to the
improvements in stock levels and costs, it has to be said that manufacturers state that they
have not seen these benefits in the CRP projects in which they have been involved,
basically due to a lack of critical mass. However, all agree that improvements in service
levels have been considerably.
Finally with respect to the main barriers to implement SCM, most of the companies
pointed out: Distrust on the other party because of being afraid that the savings will go only
to the other party, lack of culture of sharing information, internal resistant at some levels of
the organisation and incompatibility of information systems.
5.3. Retailers’ perspective
With respect to which degree of integration retailers have, the findings from the case
studies are: Three of the six companies interviewed have adopted the SCM approach being
internally and externally integrated. Two are not internally integrated and neither externally
integrated and one shows some signals of internal integration, but it is not fully internally
integrated and it is neither externally integrated.
Companies that are not internally and neither externally integrated state that the
reasons are: (1) “First we have to consolidate the merger we suffered some little time ago”
and (2) “Now we have to take advantage of the expansion phase; in the future the trend will
be towards ECR and SCM”.
And, with respect to the company that shows some signals of internal integration but
not any about external integration there is not enough information in the case to determine
what’s the main reason for not externally integrateii.
When asked about the main benefits that SCM can bring to a company most of the
retailers pointed out: Cost and stock reductions, service improvements and higher
competitivity. Few of them also added the following benefits: Simplification of operations
and higher productivity at the stores and, to allow win-win relationships.
Finally, with respect to the main barriers, retailers were not coincident in stating the
same barriers; nearly all of them stated different barriers: The need of a know-how, the
need of a minimum size, the history and habits, the company culture, a lack of trust on the
other party, the commercial relationship and the departmental barriers within a firm.
7
5.4. Conclusions
There are major differences in the SCM development among retailers than compared
to manufacturers. Four of the nine manufacturers had adopted the SCM view, two were in
the initials of the external integration and one was internally integrated despite it was not
taking any action with respect the external integration. On the other hand, with respect to
retailers, three of the six companies interviewed had adopted the SCM approach being
internally and externally integrated and, from the rest only one company showed some
signals of internal integration.
From the interviews it was deduced that the three retailers that have the SCM
approach are the ones more advanced in these topics, and within the first twelve retailers
there is only another firm (that has not accepted to participate in the study) that has adopted
the SCM approach. It has to be said that among the top-10 retailers that represented 45.5%
of total sales in 1997, there are three retailers (approximately 18% of market share in 1997)
that are very advanced in SCM, while there are others that have adopted this approach
lately and are not so advanced (13.5% of market share in 1997) and others that have not
adopted this SCM view yet (7.8% of market share in 1997)iii. Among manufacturers
interviewed there is less difference in the degree of SCM development, but it has to be said
that most of the manufacturers in the sample are leaders or between the leaders in their
respective categories. Probably, if smaller manufacturers had been interviewed they would
have not shown the same level of SCM development. Despite generalisation can not be
done as the sample sizes are not big enough, the findings of these case studies suggest that
main manufacturers could be, in general terms, more prepared to adopt SCM than main
retailers in the Spanish grocery sector, despite there are some important retailers (threefour) that are very advanced in this development.
The concept of SCM was well understood by most of the firms, among retailers and
manufacturers. And, regarding the benefits that SCM can bring to a firm, the general
objectives of cost and stock reductions and service improvements were stated by most of
the companies. Retailers added the benefits of simplification of operations and higher
productivity at the stores (no need of having a warehouse at each store).
And finally, with respect to the main barriers to implementing SCM there were
differences between manufacturers and retailers. Manufacturers highlighted distrust on the
other party because of being afraid that the savings will go only to the other party and a
lack of culture of sharing information as the main barriers; while for retailers the main
barriers were different for each one of the companies. Only one retailer mentioned lack of
trust on the other party. These findings suggest that manufacturers see more barriers with
respect to aspects related to the other party: (1) “Distrust” because they are afraid of
retailers owning all the savings due to a CRP project and (2) “lack of culture of sharing
information” because there are still some retailers that have reticence to share some
information about stock levels.
6. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
6.1. Limitations
One on the main limitations of this study is that it has not considered other important
members of the grocery supply chain such as TPL, manufacturers’ suppliers, etc. The
analysis has focused only on the manufacturer-retailer relationships.
Another important limitation of this study is that the unit of analysis should have
been the dyadic relationship between a retailer and a manufacturer (i.e. a specific
relationship), and not relationships in general between manufacturers on one hand and the
retailers on the other. Future research on supply chain relationships must have a dyadic
8
relationship between a retailer and a manufacturer (i.e. a specific relationship) as the
minimum unit of analysis.
The small sample sizes have also impeded generalisation of some findings.
The fact of involving only a single executive from some organisations is another
limitation, as logistics managers, for example, may find supply chain relationships more
collaborative than commercial managers or key accounts managers do.
Finally, the fact of having based the case studies on personal interviews all
limitations related to this tool should be added, such as subjectivity.
The mentioned limitations have been due to the time constraints for data collection.
However, despite these limitations the findings of this study contribute to its exploratory
aim: To determine the degree of SCM in the Spanish grocery sector.
6.2. Further research
Some lines of further research are: (1) To include more supply chain members in the
study in order to determine the type of approach that the Spanish grocery sector has
adopted. Is it a dyadic approach or is it basically driven by retailers? Or by manufacturers?
(2) It has been seen that some companies are adopting a process orientation. In this area,
further research should try to identify the key business processes and what are the
relationships between them. What are the relationships between processes of different
supply chain members? Can the Spanish grocery sector be mapped as a group of processes
rather than a group of companies?
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
ALIMARKET (1998): “Informe Anual de Distribución: 1998”, Alimarket.
BOWERSOX, D.J. & DAUGHERTY, P.J. (1987): “Emerging patterns of logistical
organization”, Journal of Business Logistics, vol.8, no.1, 46-59.
BOWERSOX, D.J. (1987): “Logistics strategic planning for the 1990’s”, Council of
Logistics Management Fall Conference Proceedings, vol.1.
COOPER, M.; ELLRAM, L.; GARDNER, J. & HANKS, A. (1997): “Meshing Multiple
Alliances”, Journal of Business Logistics, vol.18, no.1, 67-89.
COOPER, M.; LAMBERT, D. & PAGH, J. (1997): “Supply Chain Management: More
than a new name for logistics”, The International Journal of Logistics Management,
vol.8, no.1; 1-13.
CHRISTOPHER, M. (1998): Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for
reducing cost and improving service, Financial Times Pitman Publishing, London.
DYER, J.; CHO, D. & CHU, W. (1998): “Strategic supplier segmentation: The next best
practice in supply chain management”, California Management Review, vol.40,no.2,
57-78.
GARDNER, J.; COOPER, M.; NOORDEWIER, T. (1994): “Understanding shipper-carrier
and shipper-warehouser relationships: Partnerships revisited”, Journal of Business
Logistics, vol.15, no.2, 121-143.
GIMÉNEZ THOMSEN, C. (1999): Supply Chain Relationships in the Spanish Grocery
Sector, Cranfield University, MSc Thesis.
KENT, J.L. JR. & FLINT, D.J. (1997): “Perspectives on the evolution of logistics thought”,
Journal of Business Logistics, vol.18, no.2, 15-29.
KRALJIC, P. (1983): “Purchasing must become supply management”, Harvard Business
Review, vol.61, 109-117.
LA LONDE, B. (1983): “A reconfiguration of logistics systems in the 80s: Strategies and
challenges”, Journal of Business Logistics, vol.4, no.1, 1-11.
9
LAMBERT, D.M.; COOPER, M.C. & PAGH, J.D. (1998): “Supply Chain Management:
Implementation issues and research opportunities”, The International Journal of
Logistics Management, vol.9, no.2, 1-19.
MACBETH, D. & FERGUSON, N. (1994): Alianzas con los proveedores, Ed. Folio S.A.,
Barcelona.
MÚGICA, J.M. (1999): “Cambios en los canales de distribución en Europa: Tecnología de
la información, sistemas integrados y cadenas de suministro”, Distribución y
Consumo, no.43, 48-56.
SPEKMAN, R.E., KAMAUFF, J.W. & MYHR, N. (1998): “An empirical investigation
into supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management, vol.3, no.2, 53-67.
STEVENS, G.C. (1989): “Integrating the supply chain”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Materials Management, vol.19, no.8, 3-8.
YIN, R.K. (1994): Case study research: Design and methods, Sage Publications, USA.
i
CLM (1998): Annual Business Meeting; Anaheim, CA. Cited in LAMBERT, D.M.; COOPER, M.C. & PAGH,
J.D. (1998): “Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management; Vol.9, no.2, 3.
ii The person interviewed did not know about the ECR project and stated that another person in the company was
responsible for this kind of projects.
iii There is 8.5% of the market share of this top-10 companies that belongs to companies for which the
development of SCM has not been able to be identified due to a lack of information.
10