Supply chain relational capital and the bullwhip effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to conduct a large-sample empirical investigation of how relational capital impacts bullwhip at the supplier. Design/methodology/approach The study uses mandatory disclosures in regulatory filings of US firms to identify a supplier’s major customers and constructs empirical proxies of supply chain relational capital, i.e., length of the relationship between suppliers and customers and partner interdependence. Multivariate regression analyses are performed to examine the effects of relational capital on bullwhip at the supplier. Findings The findings show that bullwhip at the supplier is greater when customers are more dependent on their suppliers, but is reduced when suppliers share longer relationships with their customers. The results also provide additional insights on several firm characteristics that impact supplier bullwhip, including shocks in order backlog, selling intensity and variations in profit margins. Furthermore, the authors document that the effect of supply chain relationships on bullwhip tends to vary across industries and over time. Originality/value The study employs a novel data set that is constructed using firms’ financial disclosures. This large panel data set consisting of 13,993 observations over 36 years enables thorough and robust analyses to characterize supply chain relationships and gain a deeper understanding of their impact on bullwhip.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".