Understanding the evolution of flexible supply chain in the business-to-business sector: a resource-based theory perspective

Abstract

Resource-based theory (RBT) is one of the theoretical lenses that have been used extensively to understand a firm’s competitive advantage by utilizing strategic resources and capabilities. When applied to Business-to-Business (B2B) supply chains, RBT emphasizes the importance of having a flexible and adaptable supply chain that can leverage a company’s internal strengths to meet customer needs effectively. By focusing on the resources specific to a particular company, a flexible B2B supply chain can be designed to meet customer demand efficiently and cost-effectively in a rapidly changing marketplace. Despite RBT's popularity as a theoretical lens, it has also faced criticism. To comprehensively understand these critiques and discover alternative views, we conducted a thorough analysis of relevant literature in the field of supply chain management. Although some of the criticisms were valid, we determined that the core message of RBT remains intact. However, we also acknowledge that a biased neoclassical economic rationality has constrained the RBT community. To overcome these limitations, the authors recommend further research into flexible B2B supply chains to uncover new opportunities for improvement.

Keywords:

• B2B supply chain
• contingency theory
• institutional theory
• operations management
• resource based theory (RBT)
• stakeholder theory
• supply chain management

Introduction

The pandemic and geopolitical conflicts have exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains across various industries (Panwar, Pinkse, and De Marchi 2022; Ishak et al. 2023). Consequently, it has become increasingly crucial for organizations to develop dynamic capabilities that can provide a competitive advantage during disruptions (Kähkönen et al. 2023). To stay competitive in today’s uncertain landscape, companies must rethink their supply chain strategies and build resilience to withstand unforeseen challenges (Roscoe et al. 2022; Prabhu and Srivastava 2023; Sánchez-García et al. 2023). Mitigating risks and adapting to changing circumstances are essential for success (Ketchen and Craighead 2021; Boh et al. 2023).

The role of flexible supply chains in gaining a competitive advantage during uncertain times has become more apparent in recent years (Hult, Ketchen, and Arrfelt 2007; Sushil 2015; Flynn, Koufteros, and Lu 2016; Craighead, Ketchen, and Darby 2020; Asim and Nasim 2022; Hasan, Bellenstedt, and Islam 2023). Scholars have increasingly turned to organizational theories in supply chain management to address this issue (Ketchen and Hult 2007, 2011; Choi and Wacker 2011; Craighead, Ketchen, and Darby 2020). Using such theories has helped researchers solve complex problems and advance knowledge in this field (Choi and Wacker 2011; Ketchen and Hult 2011; Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016; Craighead, Ketchen, and Darby 2020). The literature on flexible supply chains has mainly focused on flexibility as a dynamic capability, as Huo, Gu, and Wang (2018) stated. A supply chain’s ability to adjust to changes and disruptions is viewed as its primary source of flexibility. However, researchers have also used the Resource-Based Theory (RBT), or its extensions, to explain how a flexible supply chain can be built, as discussed in a study by Blome, Schoenherr, and Eckstein (2014). This perspective emphasizes the role of strategic resources and capabilities in creating a supply chain that can respond to changes in customer demand, supply chain disruptions, and other external factors (Stevenson and Spring 2007; Blome, Schoenherr, and Eckstein 2014). By combining these two perspectives, researchers can better understand how supply chains can achieve flexibility in the current dynamic business environment. Therefore, in this study, we aim to explore supply chain flexibility in the Business-to-Business (B2B) supply chain using RBT and, in doing so, seek to understand the significant limitations that hinder the progress of the theoretical understanding of the B2B flexible supply chain.

RBT is a valuable perspective for studying B2B supply chain management according to research by Hitt, Xu, and Carnes (2016). The theory suggests that a company can achieve a sustainable competitive advantage by leveraging its strategic resources or capabilities (Barney 1991; Sirmon et al. 2011; Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016; Cooper et al. 2023). Different firms within an industry may possess varying resources, some of which may be more easily transferable, resulting in long-term heterogeneity (Barney 1991). This can lead to valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and not easily substitutable resources that can contribute to sustained competitive advantage. To better understand how RBT can be applied to supply chain management operations, Hitt, Xu, and Carnes (2016) investigated vital activities that make up the supply chain, as shown in Figure 1. Their work builds on previous studies (Olavarrieta and Ellinger 1997; Mentzer et al. 2001; Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016) and enhances knowledge in this field.

Figure 1. Supply chain management activities from RBT perspective (authors own work).

While existing studies on supply chain flexibility have primarily relied on cross-sectional data collected from a single firm’s viewpoint, Stevenson and Spring (2007) suggest that this approach does not provide a comprehensive understanding of how flexibility is created across the entire B2B supply chain network, which typically involves multiple firms. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the network and identify the mechanisms by which flexibility is established and maintained throughout the supply chain to gain a more detailed perspective. This requires a more thorough investigation of the relationships between firms, including the coordination and communication strategies that enable the network to respond effectively to changing market conditions and customer demands. Such an analysis would provide valuable insights for firms seeking to enhance their supply chain flexibility and resilience. Hence, we present an overview of various activities involved in the B2B supply chain network based on a synthesis of our literature review and an understanding of the complexities involved in the B2B supply chain network (Stevenson and Spring 2009; Chaudhuri, Boer, and Taran 2018) (see Figure 1).

Moreover, we summarize a supply chain study using RBT (see Appendix 1). It explains how combining resources and capabilities improves performance. RBT encourages organizations to build things that help them achieve a sustainable competitive advantage (Olavarrietta and Ellinger 1997; Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016). The individual capability of an organization is further enhanced through its heterogeneity, proper allocation, independence, and optimal utilization of rare resources (Walker et al. 2015). RBT has been used within and across organizations, and it has been further developed in the Supply Chain Management (SCM) field in various industries to explain how to create, attain, and diminish competitive advantage (Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016). Organizations often collaborate with supply chain partners, including suppliers, to gain a competitive edge, ensure product/service quality, and meet customer demand (Xu, Huo, and Sun 2014). Building solid relationships and integrating these partners is vital.

In this paper, we provide a retrospective view of RBT in operations and supply chain management beyond Hitt, Xu, and Carnes (2016), which further incorporates the suggestions offered by Bromiley and Rau (2016) in the B2B context. The B2B supply chain involves the transfer of goods or services from one business to another, starting with acquiring raw materials and ending with delivering finished products to customers (Hong et al. 2023; Shrivastava 2023). Successfully managing a B2B supply chain is complex and requires coordination, backup planning, and eCommerce order management to deal with uncertainties (Cortez and Johnston 2020; Bag et al. 2021a, 2021b). The achievement of goals by supply chain partners, including suppliers, producers, distributors, and retailers, heavily relies on the efficient operation of their respective supply chains (Kang, Diao, and Zanini 2021; Lau and Zhao 2022; Rajaguru, Matanda, and Zhang 2022). In the context of B2B supply chains, there are various examples that we can discuss. For instance, the Tata Ball Bearing division of the Tata Group sells their bearings to Tata Motors and other automotive manufacturing organizations (Panda and Sahadev 2019). Similarly, pharmaceutical companies manufacture COVID-19 vaccines and sell them directly to government health organizations, such as NHS (Freeman et al. 2023).

Flexibility is a crucial element in supply chain management that sets it apart from other industries (Delic and Eyers 2020). The design of flexible supply chains differs for B2B (business-to-business) and B2C (business-to-consumer) supply chains in terms of control and distribution (Stott, Stone, and Fae 2016; Garner and Mady 2023). In a B2B supply chain, there are fewer players, and negotiations take place directly between buyers and sellers. This provides an opportunity for more direct control over the bargaining process (Hansen 2009; Lambert 2009; Dung, Schmied, and Van Chinh 2022). In contrast, B2C supply chains involve multiple partners and directly reach the end-users (Anderson, Lopez, and Parker 2022). B2B sales volume is generally high, while B2C sales volume varies depending on the customer’s needs (Chen 2013). In the B2B supply chain, direct relationships based on mutual understanding and trust are considered essential for successful transactions (Lambert and Enz 2017; Abreu et al. 2021). On the other hand, in B2C, the focus is on customer satisfaction and building brand loyalty to retain customers (Nisar and Prabhakar 2017; Zhang and Du 2020; Baliga et al. 2021). In today’s competitive eCommerce and B2B marketplace, success requires a user-friendly eCommerce platform and a connected supply chain (Wang et al. 2020; Belhadi et al. 2023). Therefore, integrating B2B eCommerce and supply chain management is crucial for capturing leads, building relationships, and increasing sales (Chatterjee et al. 2023).

In supply chain management, "span of control" refers to the number of employees or departments a manager can effectively oversee. In B2B supply chains, the span of control tends to be more expansive, as the supply chain involves multiple organizations and departments (Rosenzweig and Roth 2007). On the other hand, in B2C supply chains, the span of control is narrower, as the supply chain involves fewer organizations and departments (Hoejmose, Brammer, and Millington 2012). This is primarily because B2B supply chains are typically more complex and involve multiple stakeholders, whereas B2C supply chains are relatively more straightforward and involve fewer stakeholders.

The B2B industry has traditionally relied on push-and-pull marketing methods. However, with the evolution of technology and the internet, communication methods in business are rapidly changing. The COVID-19 pandemic has also significantly impacted B2B exchanges, resulting in more interactive forms of communication replacing traditional ones. The younger generation of B2B clients is more accustomed to digital technologies than their predecessors, so they prefer to engage in business communications digitally. Additionally, the pandemic has further shifted business preferences toward digital communication. The younger generation often relies on digital content and prefers to learn and connect through gamification and virtual platforms. Collaboration in a B2B supply chain is a critical aspect, and the influence of digital transformation is significant (Dubey et al. 2021b). For sustainable competitive advantage, B2B organizations must focus on human experience in their supply chain redesign and rely upon the benefits of long-term relationships garnered through trust and communication. Ordanini (2005, 97) argues, “The attention of practitioners and academics has been largely dedicated to the potential role of B2B exchanges in creating new business models or in shaping industries, but very little has been said on how these marketplaces may influence competition at the firm level”.

Hence, we identify three phases of the study. By examining the three phases of the study, readers will better understand the B2B supply chain management and the use of RBT to explain the rapid evolution of the complex B2B supply chain due to digital transformation (Wielgos, Homburg, and Kuehnl 2021). RBT has been used in various disciplines during different periods (Wong and Karia 2010; Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016). In the context of a B2B supply chain, RBT suggests that a company’s competitive advantage can be enhanced by building a flexible and adaptable supply chain based on the organization’s unique resources and capabilities (Zhang and Dhaliwal 2009; Kalaitzi and Tsolakis 2022). The importance of a flexible B2B supply chain cannot be overstated (Fauska, Kryvinska, and Strauss, 2014; Singh et al. 2021). Such a supply chain can quickly respond to market conditions and customer needs changes and optimize utilizing a firm’s resources to reduce costs and improve service levels (Sarker, Moktadir, and Santibanez-Gonzalez 2021; Zhu, Guo, and Zou 2022; Antunes et al. 2023). By leveraging its resources and capabilities, a company can create a tailored supply chain that differentiates it from its competitors, enabling it to maintain a competitive edge (Liao, Hu, and Ding 2017). Collaboration between multiple organizations is one critical aspect of a flexible B2B supply chain (Miocevic and Srhoj 2023). It involves sharing resources and capabilities, working closely on product design, or implementing tasks (Dubey et al. 2021b). Collaboration can range from remote-based to tightly coupled engagements and is often referred to as integration in B2B exchanges (Chaker et al. 2022). This type of collaboration benefits firms by allowing them to focus on their core competencies, enhancing their competitive advantage through mutual learning. The relational assets and causal ambiguity of the supply chain partnering firms make it difficult for competitors to imitate, giving the collaborating firms an edge over their competitors. However, finding a suitable partner or organization that contributes to successful collaboration can be a daunting task. The process involves unraveling hidden aspects that hold the B2B collaboration together. Therefore, we suggest guiding questions to help solve these obscure aspects and enable successful collaboration between B2B organizations. In conclusion, the importance of a flexible and adaptable B2B supply chain cannot be overstated. By leveraging their resources and capabilities and collaborating with other organizations, companies can create a tailored supply chain that differentiates them from their competitors and enhances their competitive advantage.

Organizational capabilities are a complex construct that describes how resources are combined and leveraged to achieve a desired outcome (Wu et al. 2006). These capabilities are considered a higher-order construct because they involve multiple resources and are more than just the sum of their parts. According to Wu et al. (2006) and Brandon-Jones et al. (2014), organizational capabilities are developed by bundling resources, which involves combining and coordinating different resources to create a more effective and efficient outcome. This process requires a deep understanding of the specific resources involved and the ability to integrate them in a way that maximizes impact. Overall, organizational capabilities are essential for organizations looking to succeed in the complex and competitive business environment. Hence, we refer to organizational resources as a lower-order construct and organizational capabilities as a higher-order construct. This is well demonstrated in explaining supply chain robustness and resilience (Brandon-Jones et al., 2014).

We conduct an in-depth critical review of the literature to address the gaps in research on B2B flexible supply chains. We focus on understanding how RBT has been used as a theoretical lens to comprehend the flexible supply chain. We aim to provide a list of guiding research questions to help scholars enhance the theoretical debate on using RBT to understand the flexible supply chain phenomenon. Our goal is to analyze how RBT applies to the B2B supply chain and what if any, theory limitations need addressing. We aim to create a guide for future studies focusing on developing a theoretical model to explain B2B flexible supply chains and frame research hypotheses. To achieve this aim, we undertake a comprehensive literature review on RBT and the B2B supply chain. We analyze existing research to identify the key factors impacting B2B supply chains and how they relate to RBT. We investigate any potential limitations of RBT that may hinder its effectiveness in the B2B supply chain context. We contribute to the existing body of knowledge on B2B supply chains by better understanding RBT and its potential limitations. In doing so, we hope our findings will help organizations optimize their B2B supply chains and improve performance.

The remaining part of the paper is structured as follows. Firstly, we provide a brief discussion on the evolution of RBT and its extension across various disciplines. Secondly, we present an overview of the application of RBT in a SCM context. Finally, we conclude our discussion and provide future research directions.

Evolution of RBT

In the field of strategic management research, the leading work of Wernerfelt’s (1984) and Barney’s (1991) RBT is one of the key developments in the competitive industry (Peng 2001). From the available literature, RBT can be understood as a managerial framework that helps to evaluate and understand how a firm’s resources (whether tangible or intangible) can be exploited strategically to attain a sustainable competitive advantage over other firms. RBT has received considerable attention and has been widely cited since it was introduced in Barney’s 1991 article "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage." However, some scholars argue that before Barney’s work, RBT had already been discussed in 1930. According to Hitt, Xu, and Carnes (2016), the theory was developed in 1959 in economics. Still, it was not widely accepted because it explained that industries are diverse due to their unique resource combinations. Prominent economists, however, argue that this heterogeneity is only temporary and that firms tend to develop homogeneity over time.

RBT is believed to be a response by a company’s management to the actions taken by its competitors in the industry (Behl et al. 2019). Barney (1991) argues that sustainable competitive advantage can be achieved through improved resources and capabilities, which are deemed necessary during emergencies according to the RBT proposed by Prahalad and Hamel (1990). Barney (1991) also suggests that a company’s sustainable competitive advantage depends on resources and capabilities that are rare and valuable but not easily imitated or substituted by rival organizations (VRIN). In a way, Barney (1991) argues that to achieve sustainable competitive advantage, the resources must satisfy the following conditions: V-valuable, R-rare, I-inimitable and N-non substitutable. Further, Barney (1995) extended the VRIN framework to VRIO – with the O denoting organization, i.e., owned by the organization - to enhance its applicability by focusing on organizing resources.

RBT suggests that a firm’s resources and capabilities are the primary drivers of its competitive advantage. In the past, the definition of resources in RBT only applied to internal resources, such as its physical assets, human capital, and intellectual property (Del Canto and Gonzalez 1999; McKelvie and Davidsson 2009). However, with the evolution of the RBT theory, the definition of resources now encompasses internal and external resources (Granstrand 1998; Lockett, Thompson, and Morgenstern 2009). External resources may include relationships with suppliers, customers, and other stakeholders that contribute to the firm’s success (Harrison and St. John 1996; Wang and Sengupta 2016). Including external resources in the definition has broadened the scope of RBT, making it more relevant and valuable for firms operating in today’s complex business environment (Nason and Wiklund 2018).

While RBT is a very popular and often-cited theory, it has been criticized for not considering external environmental factors. Scholars such as Priem and Butler (2001) and Akhtar et al. (2020) argue that RBT does not consider the impact of external factors such as competition, technological advancements, and market changes when analyzing a firm’s competitive advantage. Additionally, RBT has been criticized for not providing clarity on utilizing resources and capabilities in dynamic environments (Peteraf and Barney 2003). It does not account for the impact of fast-paced economic growth or sluggishness in the economy due to unexpected events such as economic crises, geopolitical crises, or internal political instability. As a result, it becomes difficult to use to help assess a firm’s long-term sustainability.

To address these limitations, Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) offer an alternative theoretical lens, the Dynamic Capability View, which is considered an extension of RBT, focusing on how firms can build and sustain their competitive advantage in dynamic and unpredictable environments (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Teece 2007). It emphasizes the importance of a firm’s ability to adapt and transform its resources and capabilities in response to changing market conditions, technological advancements, and other external factors. By doing so, firms can achieve and maintain a sustainable competitive advantage (Teece 2007; Schilke 2014; Fainshmidt et al. 2016).

Furthermore, Leiblein (2011) pointed out that the RBT theory’s constructs and fundamental ideas must provide clear distinctions, leading to more clarity in the two concepts. Barney (2001) extended the theory to clarify its use in various fields such as human resource management, economics and finance, entrepreneurship, marketing, and international business. Thus, RBT has become an influential theoretical perspective in management research due to its extensive applicability to various fields and future research directions (Kraaijenbrink, Spender, and Groen 2010; Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016).

RBT in supply chain management

Since the rise of globalization, supply chain management has garnered significant attention in the academic community (Cooper, Lambert, and Pagh 1997). To gain a deeper understanding of the B2B context involved in this field, the authors refer to the Lambert, Cooper, and Pagh (1998, 1) definition, “supply chain management (SCM) is the integration of key business processes from end user through original suppliers that provides products, services, and information that add value for customers and other stakeholders”. Further, we explored the operational definition of SCM as “supply chain is a network of organizations 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 customer” (Christopher 1998, 13). Hence, we can argue that for many organizations, supply chain management is considered an integral element of strategic management (Hult, Ketchen, and Arrfelt 2007), and thus, efficient and effective SCM seems to be one of the ways to increase the competitive advantage in the global market. An organization’s effective management of the supply chain process improves its ability to achieve the desired performance. The main aim of supply chain management is to establish proper coordination across its chain of activities, satisfy and provide value to customers and generate profitability in each chain process (Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016).

Applying RBT in supply chain management can provide a strategy to analyze and examine the supply chain process separately and collectively to ensure the expected goal is achieved. To achieve the desired goal and compete in the global market, companies focus on establishing a healthy relationship with their partners at both ends, upstream and downstream, by adding benefits throughout the activity of SC (Xu, Huo, and Sun 2014; Vitorino Filho and Moori 2020). In this situation, RBT can be helpful for value addition at each level by defining the resources (tangible or intangible) and capabilities (human or non-human; Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1991).

We utilized the SCOPUS database to analyze RBT's use in supply chain management research. We opted for this database as it encompasses literature published in any outlets in the Web of Science, making it a comprehensive bibliometric resource (Schotten et al. 2017; Pham et al. 2021). We focused on English publications of review papers, book chapters, and articles published in the last two decades, as outlined in some previous studies (see Varriale et al. 2021; Manzoor, Sahay, and Singh 2022; Pereira 2022a, 2022b). Our search yielded 699 articles, which we scrutinized to understand better how RBT has evolved and been utilized in the past two decades. We selected a specific 20-year range relevant to the topic to conduct an in-depth study on the most recent discussions and challenges highlighted in the literature. Although RBT has piqued the interest of organizational scholars for almost three decades, the operations and supply chain management community has primarily utilized the theory-driven approach to explain complex phenomena over the past two decades (Table 1).

Table 1. Advanced search syntax on scopus.

Database	Keywords Searched
Scopus Database: January, 2024 (https://www.scopus.com)	(TITLE-ABS-KEY (resource AND based AND view) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (supply AND chain AND management)) AND PUBYEAR > 2003 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, "ar") OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, "re") OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, "ch")) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, "English"))

RBT and B2B supply chain

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to businesses worldwide (Guillot, Dubey, and Kumari 2023). B2B organizations have faced significant challenges as the pandemic has caused major changes in the global economy (Raj et al. 2022). The situation has been further compounded by recent geopolitical crises, which have added to the concerns of B2B organizations (Ishak et al. 2023). The pandemic has caused severe supply chain disruptions, increasing costs for many B2B organizations. In addition, global uncertainties and rising energy costs have forced B2B organizations worldwide to reconsider their business models and find ways to reduce costs and remain competitive (Zahoor et al. 2022). B2B organizations can address these challenges through collaboration (Dubey et al. 2021b). Participating organizations can reduce costs, improve process quality, and build better supplier relationships (Abreu et al. 2021; Patel et al. 2022). Collaboration can also lead to increased sales revenue, which can significantly impact the competitiveness of participating organizations (Cao and Zhang 2011). RBT provides an exciting perspective on how B2B organizations can generate sustainable competitive advantage through collaboration (Lewis et al. 2010). Unlike popular views of competitive advantage, RBT assumes that firms within the industry may be heterogeneous regarding the resources they carry (Bromiley and Rau 2016). It also suggests that the resources held by these organizations need to be more mobile.

B2B organizations that collaborate and use RBT to generate sustainable competitive advantage can navigate crises and remain competitive in the long run (Sirmon et al., 2011). Thus, firms derive their competitiveness based on the heterogeneity and immobility of strategic resources. In the case of B2B participating firms, it is essential to identify the extent to which they control tangible and intangible resources, as the ability to manage strategic resources enhances the firm’s competitiveness, a critical aspect of a long-term partnership. The immobility nature of the help further prevents the partner from duplicating them. Kozlenkova et al. (2014) argued that while RBT has many theoretical contributions, empirical evidence needs to be provided to confirm the key assumptions. Additionally, there are differing opinions on the nature of competitive advantage and the variables that lead to it. These debates have led to criticisms regarding RBT, including its circular reasoning and lack of consideration for resource development. These two assumptions are crucial aspects of long-term relationships with partners and lay the foundation of B2B exchanges. In particular, the main concern is the need for more consensus when defining strategic resources, which often leads to confusion when differentiating between resources and capabilities. Secondly, excessive focus on the internal side of the firm often needs to appreciate the influence of the external environment on the way resources are exploited to generate competitive advantage.

These limitations often need to be clarified in generalizability. To address these criticisms, researchers need a deeper understanding of resource planning and the interaction between resources and other factors. Hence, Ling-Yee (2007, p. 360) argues that RBT suffers from “context insensitivity” despite enormous potential. Context insensitivity describes a situation where the researchers face difficulty identifying the specific conditions under which the resources or valuables are more useful. To address the criticism of the B2B supply chain further, this study provides an integration of various organizational theories in the B2B supply chain in the next section.

Theory of B2B supply chain

Ordanini (2005, 103) argues that “efficiency, partnership, and negotiation effects may be the main value drivers of participation in a B2B exchange”. According to Ordanini (2005), efficiency, the first effect, relies on the automation capability of internal processes. The ability of the organization to deal with internal capabilities significantly reduces the direct material cost, the direct labor cost, and the overhead expenses without compromising the quality of the processes (Lewis et al. 2010). Hence, the efficiency effects distinguish the organizations that are capable to manage internal processes such as ordering, delivery, inventory management, settlement, and billing, and thus, achieve significant improvements through their well-defined processes and implementation.

The partnership, the second effect, is a highly effective and widely recognized strategy that involves leveraging inter-organizational networks to achieve various goals. This approach involves engaging in collaborative efforts with other entities, which can encompass a variety of activities, including sharing information, evaluating initiatives, and procuring resources. This approach’s numerous benefits include increased access to shared resources and expertise and acquiring new knowledge and skills to help organizations stay competitive. Given its potential to drive significant outcomes, prioritizing collaboration is crucial for organizations looking to succeed and thrive in the current dynamic business environment. Cortez and Johnston (2020) describe how B2B organizations have dealt with the adverse effects of the pandemic resulting from COVID-19 through inter-organizational network capabilities. For instance, healthcare organizations have faced tough challenges in coping with the growing number of COVID-19 cases and the severe shortages of critical healthcare items such as supplies of medical devices like ventilators, sanitisers/cleaners, and personal protective equipment (PPE) such as hand gloves, masks, and gowns (Madanaguli et al. 2022). The NHS in the UK, through B2B partnerships, have managed to tackle the shortages of PPEs in most hospitals during the most severe time (Elsahn and Siedlok 2021), which demonstrates how partnership affects times of crisis and can have a significant impact on competitiveness. Similarly, other B2B organizations have made several changes by investing in new technology, new marketing strategies and other plans to tackle the pandemic crisis.

The third effect is the negotiation. Some authors define negotiating ability as the ability to bargain (Grennan 2014). Porter (1980), in one of his seminal works, has played a significant role in framing the competitive advantage theory. The bargaining power of suppliers and buyers are the two most important forces that shape an industry’s competitiveness. According to Grennan (2014), who expanded Porter’s (1980) theory, the ability to negotiate is a skill specific to each firm that significantly impacts its competitive advantage. This is particularly true when prices are up for negotiation, and factors such as cost, ability to pay, and competition come into play to determine the final price. According to a study conducted by Grennan (2014), it was discovered that hospitals possess distinctive bargaining abilities, leading to discrepancies in medical equipment costs. This can be attributed to hospitals constantly learning and refining their bargaining abilities, which allows them to negotiate better deals and secure better prices for equipment and supplies. Therefore, it can be concluded that the advancement of hospital bargaining abilities is a continuous process that significantly impacts the cost of medical equipment. Ordanini (2005) argues that the ability to exploit the market and bargain are resources of a firm that are rare and quite difficult to imitate.

Still, in some cases, they are less valuable than they are due to liquidity crises resulting from unexpected events, which often make it difficult for B2B exchanges. Hence, for superficial reasons, viewing B2B supply chain activities and the role of partners in the network cannot be considered purely using the transaction cost economics (TCE) perspective. The transaction cost is purely a zero-sum game, which assumes that one of the participating firms gains at the cost of the other partner. Hence, this assumption does not incentivise the players to participate in such B2B exchanges. Hence, C-RBT offers a solid perspective to understand the B2B exchanges from the resources point of view and the factors that help maximize the benefits from these resources. Further elaboration on RBT's contingency view is discussed in “Contingency theory and RBT (C-RBT)” section.

Contingency theory and RBT (C-RBT)

In the previous section, we discussed how the contingency view of RBT shapes B2B exchanges through three effects: efficiency, partnership, and negotiation. This section will provide further elaboration on the contingency view of RBT. Organizational researchers have often debated the usefulness of the theory, as resource and capability utilization depends on contingent factors (Aragón-Correa and Sharma 2003). Contingency theory addresses the notion of contingent conditions. It explains that internal and external conditions determine how an organization or supply chain is handled (Brandon-Jones et al. 2014; Eckstein et al. 2015; Dubey 2023). Contingency theory also explains the organization’s approach toward external conditions and argues how it must adapt to them (Donaldson 2001). In response to the criticisms of RBT, some scholars have suggested integrating RBT with contingency theory to address the somewhat static nature of RBT. The development of C-RBT serves as a useful theoretical lens to explain the extent to which resources or capabilities may provide value in different contexts (see Aragón-Correa and Sharma 2003; Brandon-Jones et al., 2014) to enhance further the usefulness of the theory (Brush and Artz 1999), and to determine additionally the conditions that may influence the effectiveness of the resources or capabilities (Fredericks 2005; Chisholm and Nielsen 2009; Safari and Saleh 2020).

Contingencies are often considered crucial while evaluating the extent to which resources or capabilities can generate competitive advantage, especially in the context of the identification of resources and capabilities and their implementation (Sousa and Voss 2008; Prashant and Harbir 2009; Schilke 2014). The contingent factors relevant to B2B supply chain management include national culture, firm size, strategic context, and other organizational variables (Akın Ateş et al. 2022). Despite enormous efforts in recent times, the contingent perspective in the B2B supply chain still needs to be developed in the literature.

Institutional theory and RBT

The RBT approach explains firm heterogeneity and sustainable competitive advantage, which centers on the attributes of resources and the strategic factor markets that provide them. By rationally identifying and utilizing resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to replicate, and cannot be substituted, firms can achieve lasting differentiation and supernormal profits. However, Oliver (1997) argues that despite the enormous usefulness of RBT, it has never focused beyond the properties of the resources and the resource market that explain the heterogeneity of the firms. Attention must be paid to the social fabrics that are equally important for the firm to appreciate while making choices. For instance, while selecting resources, the firm needs to consider the tradition of the firm, the local people’s sentiments, the regulatory pressures, and social network ties and further understand how these contexts might influence sustainable differences (Oliver 1997; Dubey et al. 2019). For instance, during the COVID-19 crisis, some of the leading pharmaceutical companies, such as Pfizer and Moderna, made significant profits from the pandemic, ignoring the needs of some underdeveloped and developed countries affected people (Emanuel et al. 2021; Jecker 2023). These practices of the leading pharmaceutical companies have raised concerns among policymakers and academic scholars (Piñeiro-Chousa et al. 2022), further fueling the debate that resources and capabilities need to be exploited in the context of the given situations. In fact, in the past, the philanthropic initiatives of organizations in times of crisis have helped organizations to gain sustainable competitive advantage (Vogel 2005; Porter and Kramer 2006). Given these criticisms, Oliver (1997) recommends expanding the theoretical boundaries of RBT through integration with institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Scott 1987) in the selection of resources.

Institutional theory is a theoretical lens that has gained significant attention from the supply chain management community (see Kauppi 2013; Shou, Zheng, and Zhu 2016). It provides the theoretical basis to examine the influence of external pressures for social conformity in shaping the organization’s actions (Oliver 1997; Massi, Rod, and Corsaro 2021). However, despite some efforts made by scholars to use the institutional theory to examine the B2B exchanges (Barry et al. 2021; Graça et al. 2021; Keränen et al. 2023), the combination of RBT and institutional theory may offer better ways to examine the collaborative efforts in time of crises to tackle healthcare challenges and other significant grand societal challenges.

Stakeholder theory and RBT

The concepts of RBT and stakeholder theory presented fresh perspectives on strategy. RBT analyzed how a company’s distinct strategic resources could give it a competitive edge, while stakeholder theory prioritized the importance of establishing lasting relationships with stakeholders for achieving optimal firm performance. Defining the boundaries of stakeholders and resources has been challenging, and both theories have faced criticism about their status as "theories” (Freeman, Dmytriyev, and Phillips 2021, 1759). Both theories were minimally affected by a distracting rearguard action, which had little impact on their influence, development, or findings (Jones, Harrison, and Felps 2018). In RBT and stakeholder theory, shareholder interests and competitive advantage are viewed differently (Freeman, Dmytriyev, and Phillips 2021; Weitzner and Deutsch 2023). Stakeholder theory emphasizes cooperation and shared values, challenging the concept of fiduciary duty toward shareholders (Dmytriyev, Freeman, and Hörisch 2021). RBT scholars view sustained competitive advantage as maximizing social welfare and a firm’s economic performance (Sodhi 2015). RBT is widely accepted in organizational studies, while stakeholder theory is often linked with social responsibility and business ethics (Weitzner and Deutsch 2023).

Despite this, both theories remain essential in management, with some scholars engaged in both discussions. Similar sentiments apply to the operations management and supply chain management fields. Organizations aim to maintain a competitive advantage while being accountable to stakeholders who shape their strategies (Sodhi 2015). Stakeholders play an essential role in the success or failure of an organization (Jensen 2001), and the stakeholder perspective continuously evolves to encompass the complexities of how organizations and stakeholders shape strategy (McGahan 2021). However, RBT remains our central focus. Scholars have noted the need for a sharper stakeholder perspective in RBT despite corporations increasingly prioritizing stakeholder benefits (Barney and Harrison 2020; Harrison, Phillips, and Freeman, 2020). While scholars have attempted to incorporate stakeholder views in RBT to explain firms’ motivation toward society (Pålsson and Kovács 2014; Sodhi 2015), i.e., enhancing the usefulness of RBT in demonstrating humanitarian aid during crises and post-disaster recovery (Sodhi and Knuckles 2021), integrative study in the B2B context remains limited (Feng et al. 2020). The advantages of integrating contingency, institutional, and stakeholder theories with RBT in B2B exchanges are discussed in the next section.

Discussion

RBT is highly influential in management and aims to explain how a firm can achieve sustained competitive advantage by acquiring and controlling valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources and capabilities and having the proper organizational structure to apply them. While the theory is simple and easy to understand, it has also been criticized for its weaknesses. By integrating RBT with contingency, institutional, and stakeholder theories, the value of RBT in B2B exchanges can be significantly enhanced. This strategic approach can help organizations better understand their complex and dynamic business environment and their stakeholders’ diverse needs and expectations. Furthermore, it can enable them to identify and exploit their unique and valuable resources and capabilities and to achieve sustainable competitive advantage in the market. Integrating RBT with these theoretical perspectives can provide organizations with a comprehensive and holistic framework for effective decision-making and performance improvement. RBT was developed to complement the industrial organization (IO) view, which puts the determinants of firm performance outside the firm in its industry’s structure (Kraaijenbrink, Spender, and Groen 2010). RBT is a theoretical framework that seeks to identify the internal sources of a firm’s sustained competitive advantage and explain why firms within the same industry may perform differently.

RBT assumes that firms are primarily profit-driven and managed by individuals with limited rationality. Additionally, it considers the predictability of the market in which the firm operates. In organizational theory, there are varying perspectives on conceptualizing firms. Some organizational theorists believe organizations are like systems that prioritize keeping themselves separate from others (Smircich 1983). This view contrasts holistic or emergent theories that interpret firms as complex organisms with interdependent parts. Organizational scholars argue that firms work best when they separate their internal and external systems (Smircich 1983). Using feedback loops can help maintain that separation. On the other hand, those who adopt the latter view contend that firms are greater than the sum of their parts and that a more fluid understanding of organizational structure is necessary to understand how they function. RBT provides a specific perspective on how firms can maintain a competitive advantage over their rivals in each industry. After conducting an in-depth analysis of various articles about the implementation of RBT in the B2B sector, we have identified multiple areas of concern that require attention. These challenges must be addressed effectively to ensure seamless integration of RBT technology into these industries.

Lack of clarity between RBT, dynamic capability view and knowledge-based view

In the realm of research, three prominent schools of thought are closely related yet distinct in their approaches. These schools are RBT, dynamic capability (DC), and knowledge-based view (KBV). Each of these schools offers a unique perspective on how to approach research, and they are widely recognized as essential frameworks for understanding and advancing research in various domains. Despite their differences, these schools aim to advance knowledge and understanding through rigorous inquiry and analysis (Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016). As such, they are highly valued by researchers and scholars alike for their contributions to the field of research. (Acedo, Barroso, and Galan 2006; El Shafeey and Trott 2014). While some scholars consider them one school of thought with the same underlying theoretical structure, others classify them as two or three distinct schools. Previous research has overlooked the potential relationship between DCs, KBV and RBT (Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016). More research must be conducted within B2B exchanges and supply chain management to explore their interrelationships. Despite the potential value of examining these links, more attention has been paid to this aspect, leading to a need for more apparent contributions to theoretical frameworks such as RBT. Further study is warranted to understand better these crucial interrelationships and their potential impact on business operations.

Lack of conceptual clarity between resources and capabilities

One of the main limitations of RBT is its failure to recognize differences among types of resources and their contributions to firm performance (Kraaijenbrink, Spender, and Groen 2010; Hitt, Xu, and Carnes 2016). The definition of resources in RBT needs to distinguish between inputs and capabilities, leading to confusion about the core concept (see Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1991; Amit and Schoemaker 1993). While RBT acknowledges physical, human, and organizational capital, it treats them equally (Kraaijenbrink, Spender, and Groen 2010). According to Barney and Clark (2007), the typologies provided are just labels, and the RBT fundamental logic remains valid. Moreover, most of the authors have used the terms "resources" and "capabilities" interchangeably, despite scholars like Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland (2007) differentiating between them. The B2B supply chain research could benefit from distinguishing between the two constructs, as creating capabilities involves bundling resources, like scientific equipment and human capital, together (Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland 2007; Brandon-Jones et al., 2014). Some B2B research has differentiated between resources and capabilities, but it is different (Blessley and Mudambi 2022; Hortovanyi et al. 2023). Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland (2007) research could help clarify this distinction. Hence, RBT could substantially improve if it explicitly recognized differences among types of resources and ownership.

The applicability of the VRIN/VRIO framework

The VRIN/VRIO framework proposes that resources and capabilities must be valuable, rare, inimitable, non-substitutable, and organized to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Barney 1991; Kraaijenbrink, Spender, and Groen 2010). While the VRIN/O criteria help evaluate a company’s resources and capabilities, they do not comprehensively assess sustainable competitive advantage. Other factors, such as market dynamics, customer preferences, and technological advancements, must also be considered. Therefore, a more holistic approach is required to ensure that a company can maintain its competitive edge over the long term (Peteraf and Barney 2003; Hoopes et al. 2003). In the past, scholars suggested that more than simply possessing resources may be required based on empirical studies. While some evidence supports this idea, it is only moderate. Further investigation is necessary to determine how other factors, such as personal motivation and goal-setting, also play a role in achieving success (Hoopes et al. 2003; Kraaijenbrink, Spender, and Groen 2010; Behl et al. 2023). To gain a sustainable competitive advantage, it is essential to allocate resources effectively. However, there is a certain level of disagreement regarding determining the specific roles of markets, individuals, and resources in this process. Further exploration and analysis may be necessary to better understand these differing perspectives (Lavie 2006). Within the realm of RBT, two distinct perspectives challenge its fundamental assumptions. The first of these perspectives posits that sustainable competitive advantage is derived from something other than individual resources at the component level, as RBT suggests. Meanwhile, the second perspective takes issue with RBT's broad characterization of entrepreneurs and managers, arguing that the key attributes necessary for success are limited to "entrepreneurial alertness" and "superior knowledge". These opposing views offer insight into the complexities of RBT and the ongoing discourse surrounding the theory’s validity. We argue that specific resources may be valuable for organizations, but to create sustained competitive advantage, a firm needs both resources and managerial capabilities to recognize and exploit productive opportunities.

To summarize, RBT fails to provide a complete explanation for sustainable competitive advantage by solely utilizing the VRIN/O logic for “deployment capabilities”. The theory needs an understanding of capability deployment. Additionally, some studies argue that the VRIN/O criteria are optional for explaining SCA. According to Foss and Knudsen (2003), uncertainty and immobility are the two vital factors that lead to the emergence of sustainable competitive advantage. Hence, it becomes imperative to understand that knowledge cannot be treated as a mere resource like other tangible assets, particularly in the context of the B2B supply chain, as stated by Hitt, Xu, and Carnes (2016). The essence of knowledge management lies in the ability to leverage knowledge and turn it into a strategic advantage, ensuring long-term success and growth.

Conclusions

Based on our thorough analysis, we have pinpointed three noteworthy areas of concern about RBT. To develop a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the theory, we carefully considered the critiques presented in the literature. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that adhering to a narrow perspective of neoclassical economic rationality can impede progress and hinder growth. For long-lasting success, fostering a well-managed socioeconomic system prioritizing continuous innovation is crucial. Achieving sustainable competitive advantage is contingent upon this essential component. (Kraaijenbrink, Spender, and Groen 2010). Barney’s (1991) critical evaluation of Porter’s five-force analysis reveals that it may need to be more comprehensive to account for the intricacies inherent in B2B transactions. As an alternative, postmodern innovators are postulated, and further investigation can assist in advancing RBT into a more pertinent theory. By scrutinizing the limitations of current analytical frameworks and exploring new approaches, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanics of B2B exchanges.

Implications for theory and practice

Our efforts to develop a deeper understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of RBT are geared toward enhancing the knowledge base of both researchers and practitioners operating in B2B exchanges. By leveraging the synergies that arise from pooling resources and value, it is possible to cultivate a more robust and sustainable competitive advantage theory that can be applied to the B2B context. When considering sustainable competitive advantage, it is essential to consider a company’s ability to surpass its competitors. This concept remains valid for the RBT framework. For a company to achieve sustainable competitive advantage, it must possess unique resources and capabilities that allow it to outperform its rivals. These resources and capabilities include proprietary technology, brand recognition, and skilled employees. By leveraging these advantages, a company can maintain its position in the market and continue to grow and thrive. When analyzing a firm’s performance, RBT must consider the context and processes involved in deploying resources that contribute to their value. To ensure the effectiveness of RBT, it is recommended that theorists stay abreast of the latest research streams and integrate those findings into their analyses. This will further cement RBT's position as one of the fundamental theories for analyzing sustainable competitive advantage.

Future research directions in B2B exchanges

Collaboration within the flexible B2B supply chain is a complex and multifaceted process that involves several research questions. Inter-organizational partnerships typically involve multiple organizations working closely to achieve common goals (Marzi et al. 2023). This collaboration can take many forms, from sharing resources and capabilities to collaborating on product design and implementation of tasks (Maurya and Srivastava 2022). When organizations collaborate, they aim to leverage each other’s strengths, expertise, and resources to achieve mutual benefits (Zhou et al. 2022). This collaboration can occur at different supply chain levels, from raw material suppliers to manufacturers, distributors, and end customers. Successful collaboration requires high trust, communication, and coordination among the participating organizations. It also requires clear guidelines regarding sharing information, resources, and responsibilities. By working together, organizations can enhance their competitiveness, reduce costs, and improve their ability to respond to market changes (Cao and Zhang 2011; Prajogo and Olhager 2012).

Collaborative relationships vary from remote-based to tightly coupled engagements (Gulati 1998). In the case of B2B exchanges, collaboration is often referred to as integration and combining assets for mutual benefits (Voss et al. 2019). Cao and Zhang (2011, 165), “the embeddedness of the supply chain partnering firms’ relational assets and the causal ambiguity makes it difficult for their competitors to imitate”. Hence, for B2B organizations, supply chain collaboration allows the firm to focus on its core competencies, enhancing its competitive advantage through mutual learning (Walters 2008; Budhwar et al. 2021; Lasrado, Thaichon, and Nyadzayo 2023). However, in B2B exchanges, looking for a suitable partner or organization that may contribute to a successful collaboration is challenging and sometimes elusive (Babu et al. 2020; Garri et al. 2020). Hence, we posit some guiding questions that might help unravel some hidden aspects that hold the B2B collaboration. Below we present these questions, with an accompanying narrative for each one.

RQ1: Could sharing resources with competitors outside the market inadvertently enable them to develop capabilities that would eventually allow them to enter the market and compete with the leading company?

As discussed earlier, RBT has been criticized for its narrow focus on internal resources. Critics argue that by only focusing on internal resources, the theory overlooks the importance of external resources that can help organizations gain a competitive advantage. As a result, RBT has evolved to include external resources to address this criticism. This integration of internal and external resources has significant benefits for organizations. By combining internal and external resources, firms can develop higher-level dynamic capabilities to better respond to challenges and seize opportunities. For instance, firms with a more comprehensive and diverse resource portfolio are better equipped to navigate the crisis and come out more vital during a crisis. Moreover, firms can create a more balanced and robust resource portfolio by leveraging internal and external resources. Internal resources, such as organizational culture, employee skills, and knowledge, can complement external resources such as partnerships, collaborations, and alliances. This combination of resources can lead to a more sustainable competitive advantage for firms. In conclusion, incorporating external resources into the RBT framework is essential as it helps organizations build a more comprehensive and balanced resource portfolio. This, in turn, enables firms to develop higher-level dynamic capabilities, which can help them gain a competitive advantage in both the short and long term.

RQ2: What are the implications of sustainable competitive advantage if two competitors have an ordinary supplier?

A well-developed supplier base is crucial for building competitive advantages for B2B firms (Lewis et al. 2010). Reliable and efficient suppliers ensure timely delivery of quality products, which boosts a firm’s reputation and increases customer satisfaction and loyalty. However, if the supplier base is underdeveloped, firms may struggle to meet customer demand, negatively affecting their competitiveness and risking losing customers to competitors (Tukamuhabwa, Stevenson, and Busby 2017). To address this issue, competitors can collaborate to build a strong supplier base that caters to the needs of the whole industry. By working together, they can share resources, knowledge, and expertise to create a pool of dependable and efficient suppliers. This leads to better product quality, enhanced efficiency, and cost savings for firms. Building a solid supplier base helps the industry and promotes the nation’s competitive advantage. Despite this, research on suppliers’ impact on competitiveness is still unclear, particularly in terms of supply base complexity.

RQ3: Do firms acquire rare external resources (e.g. strategic partners) that aid in creating unique and non-substitutable capabilities?

In the B2B environment, companies often seek to acquire non-tangible resources and capabilities to help them achieve a higher position in the market (Pitt et al. 2019). These intangible resources include brand equity, intellectual property, and organizational culture. Unlike tangible resources such as inventory or equipment, intangible resources are difficult to replicate or imitate, giving companies a sustained competitive advantage over time. For example, a strong brand reputation can help a company sell at higher prices. At the same time, a unique organizational culture can attract and retain top talent. Similarly, exclusive patents or trademarks can help prevent competitors from entering the market or copying its products. Overall, acquiring and managing non-tangible resources is critical to long-term success in the B2B context. By leveraging these resources effectively, companies can differentiate themselves from their competitors and create lasting value for their stakeholders.

To conclude, in our research on flexible B2B supply chains, we have integrated several theories to analyze the subject comprehensively. These theories include contingency theory, which emphasizes the importance of adapting to the changing environment; institutional theory, which focuses on the impact of social, cultural, and political factors on business practices; and stakeholder theory, which highlights the significance of considering the interests of all stakeholders involved in the supply chain. By incorporating these theories, along with our anchor theory of RBT, we provide a more nuanced understanding of flexible B2B supply chain dynamics and their implications for businesses and other stakeholders.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Manisha Tiwari

Manisha Tiwari is currently a research Scholar at Liverpool John Moores University, UK and part-time lecturer in Leeds Beckett University, UK. She has over 8 years of experience working with leading consultancy firms such as Tata Consultancy Services and Ernst & Young in the field of corporate social responsibility and international taxation respectively. She holds an M.B.A degree from University of Kolkata. Her research interests include Impacts of Epidemic outbreaks on Healthcare Supply Chains: Lessons from COVID-19.

David J. Bryde

David James Bryde is Director of Research & Innovation in the Faculty of Business and Law, Liverpool John Moores University. He is also a Professor of Project Management. Professor Bryde is particularly interested in relational/psycho-social aspects of operations, with a focus on understanding how different members of the supply chain/project network work together effectively and efficiently to deliver beneficial outcomes.

Foteini Stavropoulou

Foteini Stavropoulou is a Senior Lecturer in Operations and Supply Chain Management in Liverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University, UK. Her research interests lie in the fields of modelling and optimisation in transport, logistics and operations and supply chain management. Her work has been published in a variety of journals in operational research and operations management.

Gunjan Malhotra

Gunjan Malhotra (Ph.D.), is an Associate Professor of Operations Management at IMT Ghaziabad with over 15 years of experience in teaching, research, and consultancy. She's the Chairperson of the Fellow Program in Management (FP M) and the Area Chairperson for Operations Management at IMT Ghaziabad. An alumni of Kellogg School of Management and St. Gallen University, she's a passionate researcher in quantitative methods, supply chain management, retail operations, and decision sciences. Her research papers appear in esteemed journals like International Journal of Information Management and Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. She's also an accomplished author, contributing to textbooks and case studies while teaching in leading organizations' Executive Development Programs.

Appendix 1. 

RBT and SCM activities

Activities	Source	Objectives	Findings
Integrated behavior	Yu et al. (2018)	Examines how big data analytics capability leads to relational capabilities that affect financial performance.	The study uses the theoretical lens of RBT to explore how relational capabilities affect financial performance.
	Wong and Karia (2010)	Explains how logistics service providers (LSPs) gain a competitive advantage by bundling resources and capabilities, with relational capabilities being one of the most important sources of competitive advantage.	The study uses the Resource-Based Theory (RBT) as a framework to elucidate the competitive advantage of the LSP.
Mutual information sharing	Barratt and Oke (2007)	Explains how sharing information among supply chain partners creates visibility, leading to improved performance and sustainable competitive advantage.	The authors have used the Resource-Based Theory (RBT) to explain how the interplay of resources and capabilities helps retail firms achieve sustainable competitive advantage.
	Brandon-Jones et al. (2014)	Extends the study of Barratt and Oke (2007) to explain how improving information connectivity, sharing, and supply chain visibility can enhance supply chain resilience and robustness.	The authors explain how combining RBT and Contingency Theory can overcome limitations, and how the bundling of resources and capabilities under the moderating effect of supply base complexity influences the resilience and robustness of the supply chain.
	Gunasekaran et al. (2017)	The mediating effect of top management commitment on the bundling of resources (information connectivity and sharing) and supply chain visibility is examined to determine its impact on assimilating big data analytics capability.	In this study, the authors aim to explain how big data analytics capability affects supply chain performance using both RBT and upper echelon theory.
	Dubey et al. (2018)	Analyses how top management commitment moderates the impact of resource combination and supply chain visibility on agility, adaptability, and alignment (triple-A).	The authors have used the Resource-Based Theory (RBT) to explain how automotive manufacturing organizations can develop triple-A capabilities.
Cooperation	Combs and Ketchen (1999)	Explains how cooperation between firms can enhance performance.	In this study, the authors have based their arguments on the principles of RBT and organizational economics.
	Ordanini (2005)	Explains how cooperation impacts B2B exchanges.	The authors have grounded their view in the RBT.
	Baah et al. (2022)	Examines the role of information sharing and visibility in collaboration among supply chain partners.	The authors used RBT to explain how the interplay of resources and capabilities explains collaborative performance.
Same goals and focus on customer	Morash and Lynch (2002)	Argues that building capabilities to serve customers is crucial. Public policy-enabled customer services or demand-oriented performance capabilities may provide a greater competitive advantage than cost and supply-oriented capabilities. In other words, a demand-responsive supply chain is more important than an efficient supply chain in a highly turbulent environment.	The authors have grounded their view in the RBT.
	Ray, Muhanna, and Barney (2005)	Examines the differential effects of IT resources and capabilities on customer service performance.	The authors have used RBT as a theoretical lens to explain the performance using IT resources and capabilities.
	Srivastava, Fahey, and Christensen (2001)	Provides critical insights into how resources and capabilities help provide better customer service to create value for the organization.	The authors have grounded their view on the RBT to expand the boundary of the RBT beyond the firm.
Integration of process	Xu, Huo, and Sun (2014)	Explains how intra-organizational resources help improve supply chain integration, which in turn helps improve business performance.	The authors used RBT to explain how intra-organizational resources help improve supply chain integration.
	Rungtusanatham et al. (2003)	Explains how the firm gains an advantage through linkages with various partners in the supply chain on its internal operations.	The authors used RBT to explain how firms gain an advantage through linkages with various partners in the supply chain on its internal operations.
	Huo, Han, and Prajogo (2016)	Studies the antecedents of supply chain integration and the effects on supply chain performance.	The authors have grounded their model in the RBT.
Partnership and alliance management	Kauppila (2015)	Tests how alliance management capability through co-exploration and co-exploitation can improve the firm’s performance.	In this study, the author grounded their model in RBT.
	Lavie (2006)	Argue that the relationship is more critical and potent than strategic resources to gain a sustainable competitive advantage.	In this study, the author grounded the argument in RBT.
	Clarke and MacDonald (2019)	Argue that multi-stakeholder partnerships are crucial for effectively and efficiently addressing social problems.	In this study, the authors have grounded their view in the RBT.
	Sambasivan et al. (2013)	Examines the factors that influence strategic alliances and impact supply chain performance.	In this study, the authors used multiple theories, including RBT, to explain strategic alliances.