Moderation Effect of Firm Size

The next set of analysis involves testing the invariance of the structural coefficients. The y difference between Model 4a (x M4a X m4 = 12.21 with two degrees of freedom and a p = 0.002, which is statistically significant). The significant result support H5 that the level of association between SCC and CA is different across small, medium, and large firms. 

Similarly, the y difference between Model 4b and Model 4 (x M4b — 30.69 with two degrees of freedom and a p = 0.000) is statistically 

Based on the ERBV (Lavie 2006), collaborative advantage can be understood as a function of the combined value and rarity of all shared resources among supply chain parffiers (i.e., relational rents) while competitive advantage of a firm depends on the total value and rarity of the firm s own shared and non-shared resources (i.e., internal rents) and resources interactions with partners (i.e., appropriated relational rents and spillover rents). When collaboration is formed, each partner endows a subset of its resources to the collaboration with the expectation of generating common benefits from the shared resources of both firms (Lavie 2006). 

According to the relational view and the ERBV (Dyer and Singh 1998 Lavie 2006), the link of SCC CA (i.e., H5) focuses on the joint value creation process. Firms generate common benefits (i.e., relational rents) through supply chain collaboration. The link of CA- FP (i.e., H7) focuses on the value appropriation process. Firms improve their performance by appropriating relational rents. The direct link of SCC FP (i.e., Hs) focuses on the spillover rents (and internal rents) that generate private benefits to the focal firm, which is not related to collaborative advantage. Such private benefits directly impact firms performance. 

These results echo the literature acknowledging both common benefits and private benefits (Hamel 1991 Khanna et al. 1998 Lavie 2006). For small firms, SCC helps them jointly create value with their partners but their interfirm learning and joint knowledge are difficult to internalize or transfer to other business areas due to their small scale and scope of operations. Thus, SCC can cause little spillover effect that generates private benefits. In other words, SCC can achieve almost no benefits that are not related to the collaborative advantage, and thus it has no direct impact on firm performance. So the impact of SCC on firm performance is completely mediated by collaborative advantages for small firms. 

---

Table 8.1 The moderation effect of firm size using multi-group analysis in LISREL...

Moderation Effect of Firm Size Table 8.2 Path coefficients and t-values by firm size... 

Currently, 58 biodiesel plants operate in the United States with a total capacity to produce 1.3 million tons of fuel and an average capacity per plant of 22 thousand metric tons (Fig. 5.33). An additional 53 plants are planned for construction with a total capacity of 2.4 million tons and an average size of 45 thousand tons. The industry is young and highly fragmented as 80% of the production is produced by 33% of the firms (Fig. 5.34). Soybeans would feed about 47% of the planned biodiesel production. The 940 thousand metric tons of additional oil demand would still only equal 10% of the 2005 U.S. oil supply, up from the current 3%. So the direct price effects from U.S. biodiesel expansion would be moderate. Most of the price effects on food oils will come from much more rapid expansion of biodiesel utilization in Europe and Asia. 

---