Hypothesis H1 states that co-opetition is positively affected to sustainable distribution.
However, the parameter estimate for the path between co-opetition and sustainable distribution was not statistically significant even though it was in the expected direction. One explanation for this non-finding might be that the measures used to tapping this construct might be insufficient. A more plausible explanation might be that merely having co-opetition among the supply chain partners may not be sufficient to create a value that would drive sustainable distribution. Instead, the respondents perceived that co-opetition has a significant positive influence on collaborative freight distribution. However, co-opetition strategy is a significant but indirect predictor (β = 0.35*0.37 = 0.13, p < .05) of sustainable distribution via collaborative freight distribution.
Regarding to the direct relationship between co-opetition and collaborative freight distribution, Sutherland (2006) and Zhou, Hui & Liang (2011) stated that collaborative business activity among competitors would require co-opetitive relationship. Thus, co-opetitive relationship between competing firms are critical considerations for selecting potential partners, managing fair benefits and risks sharing, and implementing appropriate advanced information technology for enabling collaborative freight distribution.
As the research results of the present study shown, respondents perceived that co-opetition approach is critical for considering criteria for selecting alliance partners, including goals and objectives, complementary skills (i.e., partner’s experience, capabilities, and potential for making real contribution), peer relationship between the top executives, and capability to learn a new working environment. The research findings contributes to the work of Lambe, Spekman, and Hunt (2002) that the firm has to consider its goals and objectives and evaluate them against those of the potential partners in order to establish relationships, as well as assess the complementary business strategies and objectives of the potential partners. However, if the
222 goals and objectives of the parties planning to enter into an alliance are similar, but their business strategies are different, all parties must reconfigure their strategy and internal business processes according to the mutual goals and objectives. The study revealed that relationship management is another critical consideration, as for an alliance to be successful, relationship between top management should be established. Moreover, information should be shared between parties and frequent meetings held, in order to exchange information, opinions, and report on business progress, which is supported by the work of Morris, Koỗak & ệzer (2007).
Firms must also consider communication management by implementing information technologies to communicate and exchange real time information with their potential partners in order to reduce potential for future conflict, as Chin, Chan & Lam (2008) supported. In conclusion, the results of this study indicated that co-opetitive relationship is critical for partner selection.
The research results also showed that an establishment of co-opetitive relationship can influence fair benefits and risks sharing, regarding to sale and on-time delivery improvement.
The study contributed to the work of Cruijssen, Cools, and Dullaert (2007), who asserted that benefits and risks sharing must be managed fairly in order to sustain long-term relationships and avoid potential conflicts from emerging. Based on the results obtained in this study, respondents perceived that one of the important considerations is obtaining an agreement on the mutual goals and objectives. If the firm and its partners have different goals and objectives, this disparity may lead to unequal expectations with respect to the benefits that would be derived from the co-opetitive relationship. Thus, the firm and its partners must have aligned or similar goals and objectives in order to agree on fair benefits and risks sharing. For example, alignment in the objectives aimed at improving on-time delivery of all partners (i.e., benefits sharing) in the co-opetitive relationship would require a solid agreement on strategies, tactics and operations of freight movement management. All partners must create new strategy or reconfigure both current strategy and internal processes according to the mutual goals and objectives. Once this is achieved, all partners would have an equal expectation of the benefits that could be derived from the alliance. Thus, respondents perceived that a co-opetitive relationship management is critical for fair benefits and risks sharing.
Moreover, as shown by the study results, respondents perceived that advanced information technology must be implemented by all firms in the co-opetitive relationship for improving service levels (i.e. better on-time performance) and increasing visibility (i.e. identifying
223 location of freight in the supply chain). Effective real time information sharing is one of the most critical considerations for collaborative freight distribution (Esper & Williams, 2003).
Thus, respondents believed that advanced information technologies must be implemented, including market-based system and collaborative planning and forecasting-based system.
Information technologies would allow firms to frequently exchange information on the new developments and potential issues. For example, the firm could share real time de-tour route during the delivery with its partners. Thus, all partners could change their delivery routes accordingly, in order to avoid late delivery. Therefore, co-opetitive relationship would influence involving firms to implement advanced information technologies. All in all, the study indicated that co-opetition could influence collaborative freight distribution.
Regarding to the relationship between co-opetition and sustainable distribution with incorporation of collaborative freight distribution, Sutherland (2006) and McKinnon (2000) stated that achievement of sustainable distribution requires a formation of strategic alliance or co-opetitive working environment. That is, all involving parties need to form co-opetitive relationship prior an arrangement of collaborative transportation and joint operation towards sustainability for achieving sustainable distribution. Bengtsson and Kock (2000) asserted that firms should consider co-opetitive relationship when common goal is homogenous. This allows firms to share information, resources, facilities, and knowledge. However, firms are suggested to cooperate in activities far from customers and compete in activities close to customers.
Transporters could cooperate and join hands together to carrying newspapers to a regional hub that will save everyone’s resources while achieving the goal of cost saving through less fuel consumption and vehicular emission. However, they are free to compete among themselves from the regional hub to the newsagents to deliver the newspapers as soon as possible to reach the end customers. The parties are seen not to observe the practice at the moment. Overall, the results showed that respondents perceive co-opetition is vital for achieving collaborative freight distribution. This will influence sustainable distribution.
Many scholars also agreed that co-opetition could enable sustainable distribution through collaborative freight distribution approach. Leitner et al. (2011) and Cruijssen et al. (2007) asserted that independent firms are unable to optimise route planning, logistics capacity, vehicle capacity utilization, full truck load, and transport process when they operate in isolation. The co-opetitive relationship would allow participating firms to combine their delivery route and identify optimal route. Thus, sustainable freight distribution cannot be
224 achieved without the consideration of strategic alliances. McKinnon et al. (2010) stated that participating in horizontal collaboration is critical for enabling any collaborative business activities in logistics and supply chain management. The authors further stated that the collaborative freight distribution could reduce tonne-kilometers per delivery vehicle per year and improve vehicle capacity utilization, as well as reduce empty running. Consequently, firms in the co-opetitive relationship could reduce costs of logistics operation, reduce toxic and waste from distribution activity, and improve atmosphere quality, thus improving living conditions of their community. Thus, co-opetition can indirectly enable sustainable distribution through collaborative freight distribution.
On economic sustainability, respondents perceived that co-opetition approach with incorporation of collaborative freight distribution is likely to boost firm’s reputation, lower risk of business operations, identify easier ways to attract external sources of sponsorship, broaden market and improve condition for sale increase, and improve market opportunity. Results indicated that firms are likely to create new strategy and reconfigure internal business operations according to the common goal of the co-opetitive relationship. Under cooperative arrangement, firms would reconfigure to sharing unique resources, such as distribution network and facilities. Newspaper companies could share distribution routes encouraging transporters to minimise the travel frequency, fuel consumption and emission. As a result, economic performance would be influenced by lower risk of business operations, broader market, improve market opportunity and sale volume of newspapers in wider geographical area.
Moreover, firms could gain grants from the government when performing towards sustainability. For example, the government provides financial support for businesses to save energy and water and reduce other emissions (NSW_Government 2014). Thus, co-opetitive relationship would indirectly influence sustainable distribution.
Social sustainability is very likely to be achieved by co-opetition via collaborative freight distribution. Results indicated that respondents believed in mutual goals and objectives that must be identified in establishing the relationship. That is, all participating firms must be mutually interested in joint business operation leading to a sustainability paradigm change within and between firms. Respondents are of the opinion that co-opetition through collaborative freight distribution would help them to increase staff motivation, enhance human capital value, and improve the contribution of a firm to community development. For instance, establishment of collaborative freight distribution terminal would require workers to operate
225 the terminal. Thus, local community employment rate would be increased. Moreover, human capital value and community development would be improved since employees would have more knowledge and skills from new work experience. Nonetheless, Hanna, Newman, and Johnson (2000) stated that employee involvement is positively related to the achievement of sustainable supply chain. A sustainability and joint business operation initiative implemented by the firm would motivate employees to act accordingly, thus contributing to the effectiveness of the sustainability framework. Nevertheless, those employees would be motivated by the sustainability initiative and share their environmentally-friendly outlook with the community.
As a consequence, the entire community would benefit from the sustainability initiative.
Therefore, co-opetition together with collaborative freight distribution is critical for achieving social sustainability.
Environmental sustainability, the research findings showed that respondents perceived potential benefits of reduced water pollution, visual pollution, odour pollution and solid waste from co-opetition with an incorporation of collaborative freight distribution approach. For example, implementation of information technology would reduce solid waste from waste paper when all transactions are communicated via market-based system or collaborative planning and forecasting-based system. Similarly, newspapers could be distributed via a shared vehicle, which would improve truck space utilization. As the consequence, less number of delivery vehicles would be employed to distributing the same quantity of newspaper, which would reduce visual and odour pollution from engine combustion. This is supported by Krajewska et al. (2007) who stated that horizontal cooperation among freight carriers could improve space utilization, optimize truck capacity, and reduce fuel and truck usage. Thus, co- opetition could influence sustainable distribution through an incorporation of collaborative freight distribution.