See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259553475

Third-Party Logistics: A Meta-Analytic Review and Investigation of its Impact

on Performance

Article  in  Journal of Supply Chain Management · December 2013

DOI: 10.1111/jscm.12046

CITATIONS READS

122 2,430

4 authors:

Rudolf Leuschner Craig Carter

Rutgers Business School Arizona State University - W.P. Carey School of Business
17 PUBLICATIONS   693 CITATIONS    108 PUBLICATIONS   14,844 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Thomas J. Goldsby Zachary Rogers

The Ohio State University Colorado State University
95 PUBLICATIONS   5,664 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   237 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Deception in Business Negotiations View project

Rutgers Payment Practices Index View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zachary Rogers on 24 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THIRD-PARTY LOGISTICS: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW
AND INVESTIGATION OF ITS IMPACT ON
PERFORMANCE
RUDOLF LEUSCHNER
Rutgers University

CRAIG R. CARTER
Arizona State University

THOMAS J. GOLDSBY
The Ohio State University

ZACHARY S. ROGERS
Arizona State University

Interest in third-party logistics has been steadily increasing over the last
two decades. Recently, increased focus by researchers has produced a solid
literature base of academic research. In this article, a meta-analytic
approach is employed to provide a quantitative review of the empirical lit-
erature and examine relevant constructs. Fifty-four samples across 69 peer-
reviewed journal articles, yielding a total of 9,386 observations, were
obtained and analyzed. We used transaction cost economics and the
resource-based view as lenses to hypothesize a structural model of the
relationships between relational governance structure, logistics customer
service, and firm performance. Additional relationships were also found
and analyzed, helping to clarify the mixed existing findings in the litera-
ture. The study concludes by mapping out future directions for 3PL
research, based on the study’s findings.

Keywords: third-party logistics; transaction cost economics; resource-based view;

meta-analysis; customer service; firm performance

INTRODUCTION warehouse operations spend were outsourced

Since its inception in the 1980s, the concept of
third-party logistics (3PL)—defined as the outsourc-
ing of multiple logistics activities (Sink, Langley &
Gibson, 1996)—has become a dominant reality for
the movement and storage of goods and informa-
tion in today’s supply chains. An earlier synthesis of
the vast, descriptive data from the “Lieb and Langley”
annual studies, conducted by Ashenbaum, Maltz
and Rabinovich (2005), suggests annual growth
rates of between five and ten percent for the 3PL
industry. And the most recent of these annual
studies, comprised of survey responses from more
than 2,000 industry executives, found that over 54%
of shippers’ transportation spend and 39% of their
(Langley, 2012).
As noted by Maloni and Carter (2006), the three pri-
mary reasons for outsourcing logistics services are (1)
service improvements, (2) cost reduction, and (3) a
desire by the organizations that purchase these logistics
services to focus on their own, nonlogistics core compe-
tencies. Thus, an important research question to be able
to answer is whether 3PLs can improve customer ser-
vice and firm performance. In addition, an understand-
ing of the type of customer–3PL relationship that is
needed to improve customer service and, ultimately,
firm performance is also desirable to provide a more
granular answer to this research question. Maloni and
Carter (2006) identified 45 survey-based papers in the

January 2014 21
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
3PL domain as of 2004,1 and their results suggest a
trend of increasing research interest surrounding 3PLs.
Given the 10 years that have passed since Maloni and
Carter’s data collection efforts, it is likely that a “critical
mass” of empirical research exists, which would allow a
more formal, meta-analytic examination of key con-
structs surrounding 3PLs, including the buyer–3PL rela-
tional orientation, customer service, and firm
performance relationships.
Our meta-analytic research method allowed us to
aggregate and summarize the existing research in the
domain of 3PLs. The major benefit of this approach is
that we were able to obtain results that are valid
beyond the limited scope of primary studies and
move toward making empirical generalizations. Indi-
vidual studies, because of their relatively small sample
sizes, usually lack the statistical power needed to
explain the magnitude of a statistical relationship in
the population (Hunter, 2001; Lipsey & Wilson,
2001). Another methodological advantage of a meta-
analytic study is that sampling or measurement errors
can be corrected (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990).
This paper has two major research objectives. The
first research objective is to delve more deeply into the
extant 3PL literature, by investigating the impact of
3PL customer service on firm performance, with an
examination of the 3PL–customer relational gover-
nance structure as a potential antecedent to customer
service. We apply both transaction cost economics
and the resource-based view to develop hypotheses
that propose this set of relationships. The second
research objective is to identify other key constructs
surrounding the 3PL–customer relationship that have
been studied in the extant literature and to investigate
the patterns of potential relationships between these
constructs. The value of doing so will be a better
understanding among the research community
concerning relationships that have not yet been
examined, as well as relationships that have been
sufficiently studied that might not warrant future
investigation, at least in a linear, direct fashion.
The remainder of our article is organized as follows.
In the next section, we provide a review of the 3PL
literature, and we describe the evolution of the 3PL
industry across three eras since its appearance in the
scholarly literature in the late 1980s. We then
introduce the study’s hypotheses. Afterward, we
describe the study’s methodology and present the
results of our analyses. Finally, we discuss our results
and provide suggested avenues for future, meaningful
3PL research.
1
However, a large percentage of these papers reported only
descriptive statistics, rank orderings, and/or means tests using
single-scale items and could not be included in a meta-analysis
of common constructs surrounding third-party logistics.
22 Volume 50, Number 1
LITERATURE REVIEW
Logistics Outsourcing and the 3PL Literature
A review of the literature reveals that third-party
logistics and logistics outsourcing have meant
different things to different people since the subjects
first appeared in the academic literature in the late
1980s. Definitions are critical in the conduct of
meta-analyses for they help to ensure consistency in
conceptual domain and enhance our understanding
of focal constructs (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Early
conceptualizations of third-party logistics characterize
logistics outsourcing quite broadly, as employing an
outside company to perform all or part of another
company’s materials management and product
distribution functions (Simchi-Levi, Simchi-Levi &
Kaminsky, 1999). As an example, Ellram and Cooper
(1990, p. 1) define third-party logistics providers as
“outside parties who provide [shippers with] functions
not performed by the firm. These can include trans-
portation carriers, warehousers, bankers, brokers, and
suppliers to these functions, such as stevedores.”
Over time, however, the concept of third-party
logistics evolved toward service offerings of greater
complexity, usually encompassing a combination of
services (Ojala, Andersson & Naula, 2006). Further,
the arrangements between customers and providers
of outsourced logistics service reflect the growing
complexity in relationship with emphasis placed on
high levels of formality and longer-term commit-
ments, as opposed to arm’s-length transactional
arrangements. This orientation is captured in the
definition of “modern third-party logistics” offered
by Leahy, Murphy and Poist (1995, p. 5) as: “a
relationship between a shipper and third-party
which, compared with basic services, has more cus-
tomized offerings, encompasses a broader number
of service functions, and is characterized by a longer
term, more mutually beneficial relationship.” Several
successive works (e.g., Knemeyer, Corsi & Murphy,
2003; Mello, Stank & Esper, 2008; Murphy & Poist,
1998) embrace this more comprehensive form of
logistics outsourcing to a point where, today, many
regard third-party logistics providers as asset- or
non-asset-based external parties that may be con-
sulted for any and all matters related to logistics ser-
vice (Yeung, Selen, Sum & Huo, 2006) and that are
often engaged in the strategic coordination of their
customers’ supply chain activities (Zacharia, Sanders
& Nix, 2011).
“Third-party logistics” began to appear in the titles
of conference papers and journal articles in the late
1980s. A comprehensive review of the 3PL literature
conducted by Marasco (2008) chronicles the
development of the topic, finding that 11 academic
articles focused on 3PLs during the 6-year period
 3PL Meta-Analysis
from 1989 to 1994. In the successive 6 years
(1995–2000), the topic was studied in 55 articles,
and in the next 6 years (2001–2006), it was studied
in 86 articles. Literature reviews by Maloni and
Carter (2006) and Selviaridis and Spring (2007)
point to similar growth in the works dedicated to
logistics outsourcing.
Succinctly, 3PL research can be characterized as
consisting of three broad eras. The first era consists
of descriptive works that capture the burgeoning
phenomenon of logistics outsourcing. Prevalent
among these works are those by Lieb and colleagues
dating back to 1992 featuring both shipper (e.g.,
Lieb, 1992; Lieb & Bentz, 2005a) and provider (e.g.,
Lieb & Bentz, 2005b; Lieb & Randall, 1996) per-
spectives. Langley and colleagues have conducted
annual surveys of 3PL customers since 1996 (Sink
et al., 1996). These works primarily examine the
motives for outsourcing, the functions outsourced,
and challenges and opportunities for improved logis-
tics outsourcing. Also prominent among these foun-
dational works is the Who’s Who in Logistics
directory generated by Armstrong and Associates.
Dating back to 1995, this annual report estimates
the size of the 3PL industry in the United States
each year and serves as an industry directory and
evaluative reference for shippers. Annual surveys
conducted by these authors reinforced the credibility
and growth in the 3PL market in the United States.
The second era of research ushers the refinement of
key concepts, the establishment of hypothesis testing,
and a stronger orientation toward explanation and
normative prescription. This work begins to appear in
the latter half of the 1990s and continues to focus lar-
gely on logistics outsourcing arrangements in the Uni-
ted States. Beyond describing market developments,
research in this era begins to explore the characteris-
tics of successful outsourcing arrangements (e.g.,
Boyson, Corsi, Dresner & Rabinovich, 1999; Daugher-
ty, Stank & Rogers, 1996; Knemeyer & Murphy, 2004;
Murphy & Poist, 1998; Sink & Langley, 1997) and the
outcomes associated with logistics outsourcing (e.g.,
Sinkovics & Roath, 2004; Stank, Daugherty & Ellinger,
1996; Stank, Goldsby, Vickery & Savitskie, 2003). In
testing hypotheses, these works begin to refine key
constructs and introduce theories to explain proposed
antecedent and consequent relationships to outsourc-
ing. Maloni and Carter (2006) find that more
advanced analytical approaches (e.g., regression, factor
analysis, and structural modeling) had become com-
monplace in examining complex structures of 3PL
relationships.
The third era of 3PL research is characterized by
greater internationalization in the study of logistics
outsourcing phenomena. It is believed that logistics
outsourcing as an industry practice is spreading, with
January 2014
arrangements in Western Europe, select Asian
locations, and Australia demonstrating advanced
applications. Author affiliations seem to underscore
this trend, with research commonly examining
outsourcing in the largest markets in Europe (e.g.,
Germany and the United Kingdom), Asia (e.g.,
China, Japan, and Korea), and Australia. More
recently, 3PL research from smaller or less developed
markets from around the world is making
appearances.
Research in this third era often offers contributions
through replication of studies conducted in North
America, studying similar phenomena and employing
consistent definitions and operationalizations of con-
structs. In other instances, cross-national studies are
employed to improve understanding of different set-
tings to refine the boundary conditions of theoretical
explanations. Examples of this approach include
Bookbinder and Tan (2003), Wang, Chu, Zhou and
Lai (2008), Wang, Lai and Zhao (2008), and
Wallenburg, Cahill, Goldsby and Knemeyer (2010).
Replications and cross-national comparisons are
instrumental toward the conduct of meta-analysis. For
one, it underscores the growing interest in a phenom-
enon. For another, successive studies of a phenome-
non support the compilation of samples for greater
precision in meta-analysis. Finally, compiling a collec-
tion of interconnected constructs across multiple stud-
ies allows for testing hypotheses that are not testable
within the individual studies (Eden, 2002; Goldsby &
Autry, 2011). The three eras of 3PL research provide
sufficient basis upon which to conduct meta-analytic
investigation of critical relationships.
Hypothesis Development
Transaction cost economics (TCE) is a particularly
relevant lens by which to study the outsourcing of
logistics services to 3PLs, as it considers, in part, the
type of governance structure that firms can use when
they make the decision to outsource (Williamson,
1985). Given that 3PLs involve relationships where
the market has already been chosen over vertical inte-
gration, this facet of TCE is particularly relevant to
studies of existing 3PL operations and relationships.
From a TCE perspective, firms can employ three dis-
tinct types of structures to govern the hybrid, interor-
ganizational relationships that fall between simple
markets and hierarchy—muscular, benign, and credi-
ble (Williamson, 2008). Firms that employ a muscular
approach often provide suppliers with rigid specifica-
tions and chose the supplier that offers the lowest
price based on these specifications. There is little if
any collaboration under a muscular approach, and
“Muscular buyers not only use their suppliers, but
they often ‘use up’ their suppliers and discard them”
(Williamson, 2008, p. 10).
23
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
Firms that employ a benign governance structure
implicitly rely on cooperation as a means of mitigat-
ing unforeseen contingencies in the relationship.
These relationships are characterized by a long time
horizon and the seeking of mutual gain, with “trust
supplant(ing) power as the key concept” (Williamson,
2008, p. 10). Williamson also considers a governance
structure in which a long time horizon and mutual
gain exist, but where trust is tempered by a recogni-
tion that either party might be tempted to act oppor-
tunistically, particularly if “there is a lot at stake.” This
credible contracting approach is thus one where both
parties consider potential hazards and develop credi-
ble commitments to mitigate those potential hazards.
Such credible commitments can include, for example,
shared technology.
In reality, most relational governance structures between
industrial buyers and suppliers incorporate facets of
both benign and credible structures: a long time hori-
zon, the sharing of mutual benefits and burdens, loy-
alty, commitment, and trust—although that trust is
tempered by a lack of naivete and a realization that
defection is always possible (Ellram, 1991; Ellram &
Cooper, 1990; Kaufmann & Carter, 2006). In line with
the benign and credible contracting approaches of TCE,
relationship marketing (e.g., Morgan & Hunt, 1994),
and the buyer–supplier partnership literature (e.g.,
Anderson & Narus, 1990), we conceptualize a rela-
tional governance structure between 3PLs and their cus-
tomers as being characterized by “norms of sharing
[burdens and benefits] and commitment based on
trust” (Morgan & Hunt, 1994, p. 20), although trust
might be mitigated by credible commitments or other
forms of safeguarding. Commitment and trust, in par-
ticular, are key variables in interorganizational relation-
ships, because they encourage cooperation between
organizations and a focus on long-term and mutual
benefits and discourage opportunistic behavior (Mor-
gan & Hunt, 1994, p. 22). Given the pivotal role that
commitment and trust have been shown to play in the
relationship marketing literature, and their prominence
within TCE, we posit that, within 3PL relationships:
H1: Relational governance structures are character-
ized by a) trust and b) commitment.
For the purposes of our study, we define trust as
one member of a buyer–supplier dyad having
confidence in the abilities of the other member and
thus being willing to rely on the other member of the
dyad; this definition thus encompasses both credibil-
ity and benevolence (Anderson & Narus, 1990;
Moorman, Deshpande & Zaltman, 1993). We define
commitment as “an enduring desire to maintain a
valued (interorganizational) relationship” (Moorman,
Zaltman & Deshpande, 1992, p. 316).
24 Volume 50, Number 1
Transaction cost economics can also help inform
the potential relationship between a relational gover-
nance structure and a key construct examined in
many extant 3PL studies: customer service. Procured
services are less tangible than products (Sampson &
Spring, 2012), and service supply chains can be
more challenging to manage (Barney, 2012; Maull,
Geraldi & Johnston, 2012). It can thus be more dif-
ficult to consider contingencies and contracting haz-
ards (Williamson, 1975) surrounding specifying
service outcomes. Suppliers of 3PL services that are
in more adversarial, muscular relationships with
their customers may perceive their customers as hav-
ing taken advantage of them through the use of the
customers’ power to force providers to offer extre-
mely low prices. These suppliers may then be more
likely to act opportunistically and extract their
“pound of flesh” by defecting from the spirit of the
contract through offering lower levels of customer
service facets that are not prescribed in the contract.
These actions can include, for example, withholding
information and dedicating resources to other cus-
tomers with which the supplier has a more rela-
tional governance structure. Together, this suggests
the following:
H2: There is a positive relationship between a rela-
tional governance structure and logistics cus-
tomer service.
Finally, there is an interest among researchers con-
cerning the possible performance outcomes—such as
shipper and receiver operational performance and
ultimately improved marketing and financial perfor-
mance—that might result from enhanced logistics
customer service (Green, Whitten & Inman, 2008;
Wallenburg, 2009). The resource-based view, with its
focus on the potential for resources to allow a firm
to achieve a sustained competitive advantage
and thus improve performance, is a particularly rele-
vant lens by which to consider the potential rela-
tionship between logistics customer service and
performance.
Barney (1991) defines resources as the attributes of
physical, human, and organizational capital that can
allow a firm to employ strategies that improve
efficiency and effectiveness to yield a competitive
advantage. A sustained competitive advantage can be
achieved when a firm strategy uses resources in a man-
ner that is not “simultaneously being implemented by
any current or potential competitors and when these
other firms are unable to duplicate the benefits of the
strategy” (Barney, 1991, p. 102). Further, these
resources should be (1) valuable, (2) rare to both a
firm’s current and potential competitors, (3) imper-
fectly imitable, and (4) nonsubstitutable.
 3PL Meta-Analysis
Such resources may, paradoxically, be easier for
firms to achieve externally (e.g., at the supply chain
level) than internally (Barney, 2012; Hunt & Davis,
2012). Barney (2012, p. 4) notes that “resource-
based theory… points to the importance of hetero-
geneous purchasing and supply chain management
capabilities in creating the imperfectly competitive
strategic factor markets that makes competitive
advantage in product markets possible” and that the
RBV predicts that supply chain management capabil-
ities and processes have the potential to be valuable,
rare, imperfectly imitable, and nonsubstitutable
resources, although “Of course, this is ultimately an
empirical question.” Priem and Swink (2012, p. 9)
also assert that “Particularly with regard to relation-
ship resources, many firms excel in value creation
and capture by virtue of unique relationships with…
(supply chain) partners.”
Achieving high levels of logistics customer service
should require a close and collaborative relationship
between a buyer and service supplier—or in other
words a relational governance structure, as defined
earlier—and these high levels of logistics customer
service are likely not achievable in all 3PL–customer
relationships. Thus, customer service can be thought
of as a heterogeneous resource that, under the
resource-based view, is:
• at least somewhat rare—mastery of logistics excel-
lence remains elusive; despite more than three dec-
ades of outsourcing practice, service arrangements
do not always achieve their goals; the frequency of
rebids perhaps alludes to this proposition, as does
the number of lawsuits filed for performance fail-
ures or contract violations;
• difficult to imitate—3PL–client relationships are
rooted in interpersonal relationships between the
two organizations; high-performing interpersonal
relations are regarded as difficult for competitors to
dislodge;
• certainly nonsubstitutable, because all firms track
and attempt to manage logistics customer service,
although to varying degrees of success; and
• likely valuable, because a minimum level of logis-
tics customer service is generally considered to be
an order qualifier, while higher levels of logistics
customer service beyond the order-qualifying
threshold can allow a firm to differentiate itself
vis-a-vis its competitors.
Placing logistics customer service within the
resource-based view in this manner, we put forth the
study’s final hypothesis:
H3: There is a positive relationship between cus-
tomer service and firm performance.
January 2014
METHODOLOGY
In this section, we describe the sample selection,
explain the coding scheme for the final 69 articles that
were meta-analyzed, and then detail the meta-analytic
procedures that were used to generate the data for
testing the hypotheses and conducting additional,
post-hoc analyses.
Sample Selection
The focus of our data collection was to obtain
correlations between constructs of interest from arti-
cles that describe research in the 3PL industry. The
random coefficient meta-analysis approach suggested
by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) was employed in this
study. The sample of primary sources was gathered in
two steps. First, we conducted a manual review of
four well-known logistics/supply chain management
journals that focus on empirical research (Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Management, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Manage-
ment, Journal of Business Logistics, and Journal of
Supply Chain Management). Empirical studies of the
3PL industry were gathered and inspected for
appropriate keywords to be used for the comprehen-
sive keyword search. Five keywords were selected:
“3PL,” “third-party logistics,” “logistics outsourcing,”
“logistics service,” and “logistics service provider.” We
verified that the keywords returned all relevant studies
identified via our manual search. Then, we conducted
full-scale searches in the EBSCO and ABI-Inform data-
bases, using the previously identified keywords.
Our database of articles contained 864 papers, and of
these, 241 articles were selected for further close exami-
nation as they were articles that used an empirical 3PL
sample and reported quantitative results. The research-
ers thoroughly evaluated the individual items used to
operationalize the constructs to ensure that the original
authors used measures of the constructs to properly
classify them. It was also ensured that zero-order corre-
lations between constructs were obtainable. We initially
found 81 articles that were suitable; however, the
required information was not available, and thus, our
sample of usable articles had to be reduced. Overall, 69
articles using 54 independent samples (k) and repre-
senting 9,386 observations (N) were successfully identi-
fied, coded, and used for further analysis. These articles
are shown in Appendix A.
Coding and Correlation Retrieval
A coding system was set up to classify the constructs
in the original studies per Lipsey and Wilson (2001).
First, a coding protocol was prepared for each coder.
An a priori construct categorization was combined
with an exploratory approach to identify other
25
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
constructs employed in the primary studies. The defi-
nitions for each construct category, including repre-
sentative examples of studies using that construct, are
shown in Appendix B. This categorization offers good
coverage of the most common constructs in the litera-
ture. Then, the constructs were individually recorded
in a spreadsheet and classified into broader categories
of similar constructs. We ensured that the items of
each construct reflect the respective subgroup and
75% of the items had to closely match the other con-
structs (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). To maintain inde-
pendence among samples, multiple publications
based on the same sample were treated as a single
sample (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). All articles were
coded by the authors and then verified to maintain
objectivity and consistency across the different coders.
The intercoder agreement rate was 93.12% (19 dis-
agreements over four codings and 69 articles), and
disagreements were resolved via discussion. In addi-
tion to the specific information on the variables, such
as correlation coefficients and reliability estimates, we
collected information on the study itself, such as sam-
ple size, industry, and focal firm.
In cases where interconstruct correlations or reliabil-
ities were not reported in the article, we made multi-
ple attempts to solicit the required information from
the authors. If this was not successful, other methods,
such as the tracing rule and other conversions, were
used to reproduce the correlations of interest (Kenny,
1979). In the case that only item-level correlations
were reported, a confirmatory factor analysis was used
to derive the interconstruct correlations (e.g., Rabinovich,
Knemeyer & Mayer, 2007).
Meta-Analytic Procedures
We followed Hunter and Schmidt (1990, 2004) for
calculating the correlations between constructs of
interest. For each available pair of constructs, the
correlation (r) was calculated, which is an estimate
of the population correlation. We also corrected for
artifacts such as measurement error (Hunter &
Schmidt, 2004; Rosenthal, 1991). In the few cases
that no measures of scale reliability were reported in
the original articles or if a single-item scale was
used, we substituted the mean reliability (Chen,
Damanpour & Reilly, 2010; Leuschner, Charvet &
Rogers, 2013; Leuschner, Rogers & Charvet, 2013).
In addition, when averaging the correlations, each
sample was weighted by its compound attenuation
factor (scale reliability and sample size). If a study
had more than one correlation of interest, we com-
bined them and treated them as a single correlation.
It has been shown that studies with nonsignificant
results have a lower chance of being published (Ro-
senthal, 1979). Therefore, we assessed the “fail safe
number,” which indicates how many additional
26 Volume 50, Number 1
results would have to be found to obtain an overall
nonsignificant result (Rosenberg, 2005). For statisti-
cally significant correlations (p < 0.05), the fail safe
numbers ranged from 99.02 to 5,107.60. An over-
view of the results is shown in Table 1, which con-
tains the number of independent samples (k) and
the overall sample size (N).
Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling
To test the study’s hypotheses, a path analysis was
performed. First, we constructed the meta-analytic cor-
relation matrix shown in Table 2. Then, we performed
a structural equation modeling analysis in SPSS’s
AMOS 21, using the meta-analytic correlation matrix
data. In line with other research, we used the har-
monic mean sample size to compute standard errors
(Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). We estimated two mod-
els. Model 1 conceptualizes firm performance as a
second-order construct, made up of operational per-
formance, financial performance, and market perfor-
mance. Model 2 estimates the direct links to the three
types of performance measures. In both cases, the
analysis was performed using the maximum likeli-
hood algorithm, and a non-positive-definite correla-
tion matrix was allowed as an input (Cheung, 2008;
Cheung & Chan, 2005).
RESULTS
To test our hypotheses, we evaluated the aggregated
correlations found in our original studies. The cor-
rected correlations (rc) are shown in Table 2. For
some pairs of constructs, no primary studies reported
results or the aggregate sample sizes, and the number
of studies was not large enough to calculate a reliable
estimate of the population correlation. For other
pairs, the number of samples that reported the corre-
lation and the aggregate sample size was small
(N ≥ 500 but <1,000 and k ≥ 3 but <5). Nevertheless,
we calculated those correlations, and they are shown
in italics; however, we stress that the correlations dis-
played in italics are initial estimates that should
receive additional attention in future research, due to
their comparatively small sample sizes and low num-
ber of studies. In the correlation matrix, the values in
bold are different from zero at the 0.05 level of signif-
icance.
To test our first two hypotheses, we assess the corre-
lations between Relational Governance Structure and
Trust (H1a) and Commitment (H1b). Both correla-
tions are not significantly different from zero, and
therefore, we reject the hypotheses. For H1a, the
uncorrected correlations range from 0.02 to 0.65, and
the 95% credibility interval ranges from 0.02 to
0.59. There is a significant heterogeneity factor
(Q = 30.36**), which leads us to believe that
 TABLE 1
Number of Samples (k) and Aggregate Sample Size (N)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 Asset specificity 339 – 258 – 430 – – 143 – – 388 – 884 157 545 699 311
2 Uncertainty 2 429 143 – 1182 699 128 1806 562 1014 757 821 1186 110 2162 315 –
3 Opportunism – 3 – – 918 – – 248 248 – 1066 – 851 – 721 831 128
4 Information sharing 2 1 – 213 1712 155 30 761 – 549 727 475 526 963 115 206 115
5 Operational cooperation – – – 2 337 – – 421 – 607 266 – 355 607 155 – 226
6 Relational governance 2 7 5 6 3 793 635 3629 623 1024 1876 1686 3455 1034 1565 1246 516
7 Information technology – 2 – 2 – 3 557 – – 726 260 726 1131 263 327 91 105
8 Operational technology – 2 – 1 – 4 1 557 – 417 1393 1121 1602 236 715 607 545
9 Logistics customer service 1 8 1 6 3 21 – 1 962 1492 1326 1208 2834 962 796 235 –

January 2014
10 Cost reduction – 3 1 – – 4 – – 6 457 231 305 1054 111 657 – –
3PL Meta-Analysis

11 Innovation – 3 – 1 2 3 3 2 4 2 474 1092 1238 847 453 – –

12 Operational performance 1 3 3 4 2 11 3 7 9 2 3 1293 2044 768 523 818 105
13 Financial performance – 3 – 2 – 8 3 5 6 3 4 8 851 64 – – 321
14 Market performance 5 6 4 2 3 18 5 7 17 6 5 11 4 336 1235 699 215
15 Satisfaction 2 1 – 4 2 8 2 2 6 1 4 3 1 3 1114 503 115
16 Loyalty 3 11 2 1 1 8 2 3 5 3 2 2 – 7 7 454 115
17 Trust 3 2 5 2 – 7 1 4 1 – – 3 – 3 2 2 243
18 Commitment 2 – 2 1 1 3 1 4 – – – 1 1 2 1 1 3
The cells above the diagonal contain the aggregate sample sizes (N) of the relationship, and the cells below the diagonal contain the number of samples (k) for the relationship.

27
28
TABLE 2
Corrected Meta-Analytic Correlations (rc) Between Study Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 Asset specificity
2 Uncertainty –
3 Opportunism – –
4 Information sharing – – –
5 Operational – – – –
cooperation
6 Relational governance – 0.11 0.08 0.60 –
7 Information technology – – – – – 0.32
8 Operational technology – – – – – 0.71 –
9 Logistics customer – 0.15 – 0.54 – 0.54 – –
service
10 Cost reduction – 0.34 – – – 0.55 – – 0.61

Volume 50, Number 1

11 Innovation – 0.59 – – – 0.75 0.59 – 0.69 –
12 Operational – 0.12 0.16 0.35 – 0.45 – 0.31 0.41 – –
performance
Journal of Supply Chain Management

13 Financial performance – 0.09 – – – 0.37 0.26 0.31 0.48 – 0.53 0.42

14 Market performance 0.15 –0.06 0.18 – 0.60 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.52 0.25 0.53 0.42 0.40
15 Satisfaction – – – 0.60 – 0.49 – – 0.61 – 0.55 0.38 – –
16 Loyalty 0.19 0.42 – – – 0.57 – 0.31 0.71 0.60 – – – 0.39 0.51
17 Trust 0.09 – –0.07 – – 0.28 – 0.25 – – – 0.40 – 0.08 – –
18 Commitment – – – – – 0.31 – 0.48 – – – – – – – – –
All cells in italics are based on a small number of samples (k ≥ 3 and <5) and small sample sizes (N ≥ 500 and <1,000) and should therefore only be regarded as rough estimates.
All correlation coefficients in bold are statistically different from zero at p < 0.05.
 3PL Meta-Analysis

additional moderators might be present in the sam- In addition to Model 1, we also estimated a second
ple. The estimate for H1b is based on a rather small model, individually assessing each of the three perfor-
sample (k = 3 and N = 516), and we believe that mance dimensions. The path diagram of Model 2 is
additional research will bring clarity to the magnitude shown in Figure 2 and includes the fully and partially
of this relationship. mediated models. The overall fit was adequate for the
The correlation data shown in Table 2 were then sequential (GFI = 0.938; RMR = 0.080) as well as the
used to estimate a meta-analytic structural equation mediated model (GFI = 0.964; RMR = 0.051). We con-
model. The path diagram for Model 1 is shown in clude that the impact of logistics customer service on
Figure 1. The path loadings displayed in boxes repre- operational and market performance is stronger than
sent the fully mediated model, and the path loadings on financial performance, which is not significant.
not inside of boxes represent the partially mediated
model. The overall fit of the fully mediated model
was adequate (GFI = 0.957; RMR = 0.067). There is
support for H2 and H3 in this model as evidenced by FIGURE 2
the positive and significant path coefficients; these The Impact of Relational Governance Structure and
standardized path coefficients are 0.54 (p < 0.001) Logistics Customer Service on Operational, Financial,
and 0.74 (p < 0.001), respectively. These specific rela- and Market Performance
tionships are consistently positive and significant
throughout the other models we estimated. It is nota- Relational 0.54** Logistics
ble that a significant amount of the variance of the Governance Customer
Structure 0.54** Service
logistics customer service construct and the second-
order performance constructs was explained in the
model (29.2% and 54.4%, respectively). Also included
in Figure 1 are the results of a partially mediated 0.41** 0.48** 0.52**
0.32** 0.16** 0.24*
model. The overall fit of the partially mediated model 0.24** 0.40** 0.47**

was better (GFI = 0.982; RMR = 0.029). A formal test

for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986) revealed partial
mediation and a significant indirect effect (z = 5.76,
p < 0.001) using the Sobel (1982) test. In addition, Operational Financial Market
Performance Performance Performance
the proportion of mediation is 44.13% (Iacobucci,
Saldanha & Deng, 2007). This suggests partial media-
Note: Path loadings in boxes represent the fully mediated,
tion, with relational governance structure improving hypothesized relationships between relational governance
firm performance through its positive effect on logis- structure and firm performance; path loadings not shown in
tics customer service, as well as its direct, albeit boxes represent the partially mediated relationship.
weaker positive impact on firm performance. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.

FIGURE 1
The Impact of Relational Governance Structure and Logistics Customer Service on Aggregate Firm Performance

Logistics
Customer
Service
0.54** 0.74**
0.54** 0.58**

Relational -
Firm
Governance
0.29** Performance
Structure

0.67** 0.71** 0.76**

Operational Financial Market

Performance Performance Performance

Note: Path loadings in boxes represent the fully mediated, hypothesized relationships between relational governance structure
and firm performance; path loadings not shown in boxes represent the partially mediated relationship. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001

January 2014 29
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
DISCUSSION
While we were not entirely surprised to find that the
correlation between trust and a relational governance
structure was nonsignificant (H1a), we were surprised
to discover that the correlation between commitment
and a relational governance structure was nonsignifi-
cant (H1b). One explanation for the lack of support
for H1a is that firms that utilize a relational, rather
than an arm’s-length (i.e., muscular) governance
structure might employ credible as opposed to benign
governance structures. With such credible structures,
trust might be moderated by credible commitments/
safeguarding. A post hoc examination of Table 2 finds
that relational governance structure is positively and
significantly correlated with information technology
(rc = 0.32) and operational technology (rc = 0.71),
although as a caveat these correlations are based on a
relatively small number of studies (k = 3 and k = 4,
respectively). The aggregate correlation between com-
mitment and relational governance (H1b) shown in
Table 2 is positive and certainly not small (0.31).
Given the relatively few studies and small aggregate
sample size, there may simply not be enough data to
show the significance of this relationship. Future
research might explore in more depth the roles that
commitment and trust play in the governance struc-
tures between 3PLs and their customers. Finally, some
of the other characteristics of relational governance
structures, such as information sharing (rc = 0.60)
and loyalty (rc = 0.57), are also positively and signifi-
cantly related to the relational governance structure
construct.
Our findings show strong support for Hypotheses 2
and 3. A relational governance structure can allow
3PLs and their customers to work closely together to
improve logistics customer service, which can in turn
enhance overall firm performance. In addition, there
is a significant, positive, and direct relationship
between a relational governance structure and overall
firm performance (Figure 1), suggesting that more
collaborative 3PL–shipper relationships can enhance
firm performance in other ways, perhaps via innova-
tion, which is significantly and positively correlated
with relational governance and all three types of
performance (Table 2).
The analyses displayed in Figure 2 provide a more
granular investigation of the relationships between
relational governance structure, logistics customer
service, and the three performance dimensions. Here,
we found that relational governance structure has a
very significant and positive mediating effect on
operational, financial, and market performance
through its impact on logistics customer service.
Interestingly, there is also a significant and strong
direct effect of relational governance structure on
30 Volume 50, Number 1
operational performance, which reduces its mediated
effect through logistics customer service. Thus, while a
relational governance structure enhances logistics cus-
tomer service and ultimately better operational perfor-
mance, a relational governance structure also directly
improves operational performance through mecha-
nisms other than enhanced logistics customer service.
One possibility is that relational governance structures
include high levels of information and operational
technology, as noted above, which may help to
improve operational performance.
One concern regarding the path analyses displayed
in Figures 1 and 2 is that the results are based on
aggregated samples of both shippers and 3PL suppliers.
There has been controversy in the industry as to
whether benefits in 3PL–shipper relationships accrue
to the 3PL supplier or the buyer (Richards, 2006).
This same question is often raised in the trade
literature concerning broader buyer–supplier relation-
ships across spend categories (Yuva, 2005). To investi-
gate the potential differences across shippers and
3PLs, we modeled the relationships posited by H2
and H3 as two separate path analyses. The results of
these analyses are displayed in Figure 3.
The results displayed in Figure 3 provide overall
support for the study’s hypotheses for both the ship-
per and 3PL samples. The paths between relational
governance structure and logistics customer service are
significant for both the shipper (rc = 0.61,
p < 0.0001) and 3PL (rc = 0.46, p < 0.0001) samples.
There are also positive and significant relationships
between logistics customer service and the three per-
formance dimensions for the shipper sample and
FIGURE 3
Shipper vs 3PL Findings
Relational 0.61** Logistics
Governance Customer
Structure 0.46** Service
0.28** 0.28** 0.02 0.31** 0.02 0.46**
0.28** 0.25** 0.22** 0.23** 0.47** 0.48**
Operational Financial Market
Performance Performance Performance
Note: The path loadings obtained from the shipper sample
are displayed above in boxes, and the path loadings
obtained from the 3PL sample are shown directly below the
shipper sample path loadings. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
 3PL Meta-Analysis
between logistics customer service and two of the
three performance dimensions—operational perfor-
mance and market performance—for the 3PL sample.
In addition, there are significant and direct relation-
ships between relational governance structure and
operational and financial performance for the shipper
sample and between relational governance structure
and all three performance dimensions for the 3PL
sample.
It is not surprising that there is not a direct relation-
ship between the governance structure that a shipper
has with a 3PL and the shipper’s market performance,
because we would expect that an improvement in
market performance, particularly on the outbound,
distribution side, would accrue due to the enhanced
logistics customer service experienced by the shipper’s
customers, rather than being directly impacted by the
shipper’s governance structure with the 3PL supplier.
Further, while there is not a relationship between
logistics customer service and financial performance
for shippers, the enhanced operational and market
performance experienced by shippers might ultimately
lead to better financial performance. For 3PLs, engag-
ing in relational governance structures with their cus-
tomers can improve operational, financial, and market
performance, both directly and through improved
logistics customer service.
Overall, our results suggest that shippers and their
3PL suppliers can improve logistics customer service
and multiple dimensions of performance by establish-
ing more collaborative, relational governance struc-
tures. Importantly, our meta-analytic findings suggest
that this is not a win–lose proposition. Instead, both
sides can improve firm performance by creating rela-
tionships that, if not benign from a TCE perspective,
are at least credible. The aggregate correlations
reported in Table 2 suggest that these relationships
are characterized by loyalty and the sharing of infor-
mation. Information technology and operational tech-
nology also appear to be a part of these relationships
and may further enhance performance. In addition,
the tenets of TCE and a credible form of relational
governance structure suggest that technology might
act as a safeguard that augments trust in these
relationships.
Managerial Implications
Our meta-analysis, which is based on 9,386
observations across 54 samples, allows us to present
key takeaways that should be generalizable across a
wide variety of 3PLs and their customers. The analysis
reports a preponderance of support for beneficial
performance outcomes associated with logistics out-
sourcing arrangements—for both suppliers and cus-
tomers of the services. This is promising in itself, as it
reinforces the growth in third-party provisions around
January 2014
the world. In particular, those arrangements character-
ized by relational governance structures that encom-
pass mutuality and the sharing of information yield
heightened logistics customer service that, in turn,
contributes to the operational and market perfor-
mance of firms. The 3PL providers that create such
relational governance structures with their customers
can improve their operational, financial, and market
performance, both directly and via improved customer
service outcomes. Individual studies conducted in a
variety of settings point to these relationships, finding
support in most analyses. The meta-analysis provides
a level of confirmation unattainable in single studies.
It suggests that outsourcing arrangements selectively
entered into by shippers and providers can justify the
three primary motives for outsourcing: 1) service
improvements, 2) cost reduction, and 3) focus on
nonlogistics core competencies (Maloni & Carter,
2006). In turn, where customers of these services find
value, opportunities are present for providers.
Although our analysis proved inconclusive concern-
ing the influence of trust and commitment on rela-
tional governance structure, providers and customers
are encouraged to pursue relational governance
approaches in order to achieve the desired outcomes
of the involved parties. Trust should be augmented
with safeguarding mechanisms to avoid opportunistic
behavior of the other party in the relationship. Where
trust is instilled, however, it seems that loyalty and
the benefits of retention and business growth can take
root. Aside from learning the business and capabilities
of the counterpart, trust-based relationships are also
likely to produce innovation in service arrangements.
Proactively innovating how products are delivered to
their customers seems to have a stronger effect on
firm performance, compared with, for example, logis-
tics customer service and cost reduction. In light of
the highly competitive third-party logistics market, it
becomes critical for providers to differentiate them-
selves. While such differentiation could potentially
take place by offering the best service at a commensu-
rate price, our analysis points to an ability to find
solutions that are either unattainable for the individ-
ual customer or, perhaps, not even conceived by the
customer. This will continue to be the evolution in
the third-party logistics market, as providers are
sought for their brains as well as the brawn they dem-
onstrate through conventional operational activities.
Limitations of the Research
As with all meta-analyses, this methodology relies
on available studies, and as such, the quality of the
results depends on the results obtained from the pri-
mary research. An additional challenge is to obtain an
accurate estimate of the population effect. As these
two goals must be balanced, we decided to restrict
31
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
our search to published academic articles. We believe
that this limitation does not diminish the validity of
our results as we performed a rigorous literature
search and found very high fail safe numbers. There-
fore, we are confident that the presence of additional
studies that might not have been included in the
meta-analysis would not significantly change our
results. As previously explained, we followed rigorous
procedures to obtain all the information for each pri-
mary study we retained. Nevertheless, we were not
able to obtain all correlations and reliabilities.
A common limitation of meta-analysis research is
the “apples to oranges” aggregation of articles. We
must point out that we cannot control for specific
sample effects and the only way to account for this is
to have a large enough number of articles. While we
were able to obtain a reasonably large number of arti-
cles overall, certain relationships can only be assessed
based on a small number of studies (e.g., the itali-
cized correlations reported in Table 2); therefore, the
reader should interpret those correlations with cau-
tion. Another, albeit minor, limitation is the inability
to evaluate constructs of interest over time. While this
is not a limitation of the research method per se, we
can only evaluate what is available in primary
research. However, it is possible that the lack of sup-
port for Hypothesis 1 might be explained by analyz-
ing trust and commitment over time.
Suggestions for Future Research
The conduct of a meta-analysis implies an abun-
dance of research on a topic of contemporary interest
and importance. The current analysis explored rela-
tionships in the broad phenomenon of logistics out-
sourcing. Despite a growing body of empirical
hypothesis testing on the subject, opportunities for
additional investigation remain abundant. The limita-
tion of small aggregate samples and studies for certain
aggregate correlations, for instance, provides opportu-
nities for future research. Information sharing is cer-
tainly one construct that is in need of further
investigation. As suggested earlier, technology might
act as a safeguard that moderates the relationship
between trust and a relational governance structure.
Researchers could also investigate the potential mod-
erating role of other safeguards, such as qualification
procedures and pledges (Rindfleisch & Heide, 1997).
We found relatively few articles that explored the
relationships between key interorganizational relation-
ship constructs, such as satisfaction and trust. In fact,
for satisfaction, only two interconstruct correlations,
relational governance satisfaction and satisfaction
loyalty, were examined with sufficient frequency to
meet our sample threshold. For trust, we were only
able to examine the relational governance–trust rela-
tionship, per H1a. Additional research is necessary to
32 Volume 50, Number 1
ascertain the influence of these key variables on cus-
tomer service and firm performance. Further, the stud-
ies examining the constructs of satisfaction and trust,
to date, have done so from the perspective of custom-
ers. We recommend that future research also examines
the prospects for these constructs from the perspec-
tives of 3PL providers. That is, what is the influence
of supplier satisfaction and supplier trust in customers
toward relational outcomes and performance? As the
services of 3PLs become increasingly differentiated
and the providers become more distinct in the mar-
ket, they will employ greater selectivity in their cus-
tomer relationships (Lieb, 2008). It will, therefore, be
essential for customers to market themselves effec-
tively to “choice” providers. Instilling trust and mini-
mizing fears of opportunism could prove instrumental
in gaining the confidence and commitment of these
preferred 3PLs.
While affective constructs such as interorganizational
trust and opportunism may help to explain the perfor-
mance outcomes of outsourcing arrangements, recog-
nizing that provider and customer organizations are
composed of individuals reminds us that interper-
sonal relationships factor into outsourcing success and
failure as well (Gligor & Autry, 2012). Investigation of
the roles of key individuals on both sides of the out-
sourcing arrangement could prove valuable. The find-
ings of Grawe, Daugherty and McElroy (2012) yield
worthwhile insights concerning the interorganization-
al commitment demonstrated by provider implants at
client locations, yielding relational capital and recipro-
cal forms of commitment. In other words, positioning
one or more key relationship managers at client sites
impacts the quality of the relationship. Are there key
individuals in a relationship that exhibit a greater
influence on the outcomes of outsourcing arrange-
ments? What happens should these key individuals
leave the arrangement or be assigned elsewhere? Are
there ways to effectively manage the loss of such indi-
viduals? Further, what are the optimal team dynamics
on each side of the relationship to foster improved
performance? These questions underscore that interor-
ganizational phenomena call for sociological examina-
tion on multiple levels that, to date, remain
underexplored in logistics outsourcing arrangements.
A construct that demonstrates great promise, yet
remains understudied, is innovation (Arlbjørn & Paul-
raj, 2013). Innovation registered correlation values
with seven other constructs ranging from 0.53 to 0.75
(Table 2). However, it was only examined in five or
more samples with one construct—market perfor-
mance (rc = 0.53). Wallenburg et al. (2010) define
the related concept of proactive improvement as, “ex-
post adaptations, as they would be termed in TCE –
made by an LSP within an outsourcing relationship
(that) are an act of innovation as they are ‘an idea,
 3PL Meta-Analysis
practice, or object that is perceived as new by an indi-
vidual or other unit of adoption’” (Rogers, 1995, p.
7). Further, proactive improvement is found to yield
higher levels of perceived performance in logistics out-
sourcing arrangements, per Deepen, Goldsby, Kne-
meyer and Wallenburg (2008), who illustrate that
proactive improvement contributes not only to goal
achievement, but also to goal exceedance in a
demonstrable fashion. Busse and Wallenburg (2011)
echo the call for further examination of innovation
processes and systems among logistics service
providers.
On a related note, research is necessary to explore
effective mechanisms for risk and reward sharing in
outsourcing relationships. Much has been said anec-
dotally about gain-sharing arrangements, but norms
for sharing burdens and risks can vary considerably.
Are gain-sharing provisions, like those espoused in
performance-based logistics (Randall, Pohlen &
Hanna, 2010) effective as a means of inciting innova-
tion, finding service improvements and uncovering
incremental cost reductions? If so, what forms of gain
sharing prove most effective under different relational
arrangements?
Abundant research opportunities remain, as well, for
deeper analysis of situational variables and their influ-
ence on the governance structure–performance link-
age. The current analysis examined a wide collection
of outsourced services. However, arrangements can
vary considerably in terms of the specific services pro-
cured, the duration of contracts, relationship history
among the parties and the degree of control exerted
by the provider in performing the contracted service
(s) (i.e., an asset-based provider performing the ser-
vices as opposed to a non-asset-based provider sub-
contracting the work). Deeper analysis of these
arrangements would likely demonstrate that relational
governance structure requires adaptation to the buying
situation. Of course, such an analysis requires
capturing these situational variables and reporting
their prospective influence.
One situational construct that found sample
sufficiency for examination with four other variables,
yet was found to be significant with only one, is
uncertainty. Uncertainty was found to have a positive
relationship with loyalty in outsourcing arrangements.
This relationship is likely to be an intermediated one,
with a relational form serving as a coping mechanism
to reduce uncertainty. It is also possible, however, that
uncertainty represents a meaningful control or moder-
ating variable to incorporate in analysis of 3PL gover-
nance and performance, as recommended by Maloni
and Carter (2006). Additional situational factors that
one might consider incorporating in such analyses
include relational norms, complexity, power asymme-
try, conflict, mutual dependence, and reciprocity.
January 2014
Particularly valuable would be the collection and
analysis of these situational factors in logistics out-
sourcing relationships occurring outside North Amer-
ica. Deeper analysis of these factors in international
settings would enrich our understanding of how out-
sourcing relationships that are increasingly conducted
across national boundaries should adapt to cultural
differences among contracting parties.
Lastly, while a priori relationships were not posited
for the three specific dimensions of performance, it is
worth noting that we found significant, positive aggre-
gate correlations between operational performance and
financial performance (rc = 0.42) as well as financial
performance and market performance (rc = 0.40)
(Table 2). Although the correlation between opera-
tional performance and market performance is high in
absolute terms (rc = 0.42), it lacks statistical signifi-
cance attributed to a wide range of findings among the
samples. Such an outcome might be explained by
missing artifacts in the analysis. That is, one or more
moderators are likely influencing the relationship
between operational performance and market perfor-
mance. The competitiveness of the market, for instance,
might mute such a relationship such that excellence in
operational performance is not always rewarded by
gains in market performance. Further examination of
the interrelationships between the dimensions of firm
performance is merited, with due consideration affor-
ded to prospective moderating factors. And, additional
analyses should be conducted to examine possible
moderators to the other hypothesized relationships that
were investigated in this paper.
REFERENCES
Anderson, E. J., Coleman, T., Devinney, T. M., &
Keating, B. (2011). What drives the choice of a
third-party logistics provider? Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 47 (2), 97–115.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1984). A model of the
distributor’s perspective of distributor-manufac-
turer working relationships. Journal of Marketing,
48 (4), 62–74.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of dis-
tributor firm and manufacturer firm working part-
nerships. Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 42–58.
Arlbjørn, J. S., & Paulraj, A. (2013). Special topic
forum on innovation in business networks from a
supply chain perspective: Current status and
opportunities for future research. Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 49 (4), 3–11.
Armstrong, R. (2004). Who’s who in logistics. Stoughton,
WI: Armstrong and Associates.
Ashenbaum, B., Maltz, A., & Rabinovich, E. (2005).
Studies of trends in third-party logistics usage:
What can we conclude? Transportation Journal, 44
(3), 39–49.
33
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained
competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17
(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (2012). Purchasing, supply chain man-
agement and sustained competitive advantage:
The relevance of resource-based theory. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 48 (2), 3–6.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-media-
tor variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical con-
siderations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 51, 1173–1182.
Bienstock, C. C., Mentzer, J. T., & Bird, M. M. (1996).
Measuring physical distribution service quality.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (1),
31–44.
Bookbinder, J. H., & Tan, C. S. (2003). Comparison
of Asian and European logistics systems. Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 33 (1), 36–58.
Boyson, S., Corsi, T., Dresner, M., & Rabinovich, E.
(1999). Managing effective third party logistics
relationships: What does it take? Journal of Busi-
ness Logistics, 20 (1), 73–100.
Briggs, E., Landry, T. D., & Daugherty, P. J. (2007).
Patronage in continually delivered business ser-
vice contexts. Journal of Business Research, 60,
1144–1151.
Briggs, E., Landry, T. D., & Daugherty, P. J. (2010).
Investigating the influence of velocity perfor-
mance on satisfaction with third party logistics
service. Industrial Marketing Management, 39,
640–649.
Busse, C., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2011). Innovation
management of logistics service providers: Foun-
dations, review, and research agenda. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Manage-
ment, 41, 187–218.
Cahill, D. L., Goldsby, T. J., Knemeyer, A. M., &
Wallenburg, C. M. (2010). Customer loyalty in
logistics outsourcing relationships: An examina-
tion of the moderating effects of conflict fre-
quency. Journal of Business Logistics, 31, 253–277.
Chen, J., Damanpour, F., & Reilly, R. R. (2010b).
Understanding antecedents of new product devel-
opment speed: A meta-analysis. Journal of Opera-
tions Management, 28 (1), 17–33.
Chen, H., Tian, Y., Ellinger, A. E., & Daugherty, P. J.
(2010a). Managing logistics outsourcing relation-
ships: An empirical investigation in China. Journal
of Business Logistics, 31, 279–299.
Cheung, M. W. L. (2008). A model for integrating
fixed-, random-, and mixed-effects meta-analyses
into structural equation modeling. Psychological
methods, 13 (3), 182–202.
Cheung, M. W. L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic
structural equation modeling: A two-stage
approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40–64.
Cho, J. J., Ozment, J., & Sink, H. (2008). Logistics
capability, logistics outsourcing and firm perfor-
mance in an e-commerce market. International
34 Volume 50, Number 1
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Manage-
ment, 38, 336–359.
Coyle, J., Bardi, E., & Langley, J. (2002). The manage-
ment of business logistics: A supply perspective. Bos-
ton, MA: Thomson.
Daugherty, P. J., Stank, T. P., & Rogers, D. S. (1996).
Third-party logistics service providers: Purchasers’
perceptions. International Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management, 32 (2), 23–29.
Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L., & Marquardt, A. J. (2008).
Branding a B2B service: Does a brand differentiate
a logistics service provider? Industrial Marketing
Management, 37 (2), 218.
Deepen, J. M., Goldsby, T. J., Knemeyer, A. M., &
Wallenburg, C. M. (2008). Beyond expectations:
An examination of logistics outsourcing goal
achievement and goal exceedance. Journal of Busi-
ness Logistics, 29 (2), 75–105.
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organiza-
tional environments and perceived environmental
uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17
(3), 313–327.
Eden, D. (2002). Replication, meta-analysis, scientific
progress, and AMJ’s publication policy. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 841–846.
Ellinger, A. E., Keller, S. B., & Bas, A. B. E. (2010).
The empowerment of frontline service staff in 3PL
companies. Journal of Business Logistics, 31 (1),
79–98.
Ellinger, A. E., Ketchen, Jr, D. J., Hult, G. T. M.,
Elmada g, A. B., & Richey, Jr, R. G. (2008). Market
orientation, employee development practices, and
performance in logistics service provider firms.
Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 353–366.
Ellram, L. M. (1991). Supply chain management: The
industrial organisation perspective. International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Manage-
ment, 21 (1), 13–22.
Ellram, L. M., & Cooper, M. (1990). Supply chain
management, partnership, and the shipper-third
party relationship. International Journal of Logistics
Management, 1 (1), 1–10.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orien-
tation in buyer-seller relationships. The Journal of
Marketing, 58 (2), 1–19.
Gligor, D. M., & Autry, C. W. (2012). The role of per-
sonal relationships in facilitating supply chain
communications: A qualitative study. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 48 (1), 24–43.
Goldsby, T. J., & Autry, C. W. (2011). Toward greater
validation of supply chain management theory
and concepts: The roles of research replication
and meta-analysis. Journal of Business Logistics, 32,
324–331.
Grawe, S. J., Daugherty, P. J., & McElroy, J. C. (2012).
External organizational commitment among orga-
nizational implants: The case of logistics service
providers. Transportation Research. Part E Logistics
& Transportation Review, 48 (1), 165.
Green, K. W., Whitten, D., & Inman, R. A. (2008). The
impact of logistics performance on organizational
 3PL Meta-Analysis
performance within a supply chain context. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 13,
317–327.
Hartmann, E., & De Grahl, A. (2011). The flexibility
of logistics service providers and its impact on
customer loyalty: An empirical study. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 47 (3), 63–85.
Hartmann, E., & De Grahl, A. (2012). Logistics out-
sourcing interfaces: The role of customer partner-
ing behavior. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 42 (6),
526–543.
Hill, T. J. (1994). Manufacturing strategy: Text and cases
(2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Hofenk, D., Schipper, R., Semejin, J., & Gelderman, C.
(2011). The influence of contractual and rela-
tional factors on the effectiveness of third party
logistics relationships. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, 17, 167–175.
Hunt, S. D., & Davis, D. F. (2012). Grounding supply
chain management in resource-advantage theory:
In defense of a resource-based view of the firm.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48 (2),
14–20.
Hunter, J. E. (2001). Re-inquiries: The desperate need
for replications. Journal of Consumer Research, 28,
149–158.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods for
meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods for
meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research
findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huo, B., Selen, W., Yeung, Y., Hoi, J., & Zhao, X.
(2008). Understanding drivers of performance in
the 3PL industry in Hong Kong. International Jour-
nal of Operations & Production Management, 28,
772–800.
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A
Meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural
equations models perform better than regressions.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 172, 140–154.
Jayaram, J., & Tan, K. C. (2010). Supply chain integra-
tion with third-party logistics providers. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics, 125,
262–271.
Jeffers, P. I. (2010). Embracing sustainability. Interna-
tional Journal of Operations & Production Manage-
ment, 30, 260–287.
Jeffers, P. I., Muhanna, W. A., & Nault, B. R. (2008).
Information technology and process performance:
An empirical investigation of the interaction
between IT and non-IT resources. Decision Sci-
ences, 39, 703–735.
Kaufmann, L., & Carter, C. R. (2006). International
supply relationships – Determinants of non-finan-
cial performance. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 24, 653–675.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causation. New
York, NY: John Wiley.
Kersten, W., & Koch, J. (2010). The effect of quality
management on the service quality and business
January 2014
success of logistics service providers. The Interna-
tional Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
27, 185–200.
Klein, R. (2007). Customization and real time infor-
mation access in integrated eBusiness supply
chain relationships. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 25, 1366–1381.
Knemeyer, A. M., Corsi, T. M., & Murphy, P. R.
(2003). Logistics outsourcing relationships: Cus-
tomer perspectives. Journal of Business Logistics, 24
(1), 77–110.
Knemeyer, A. M., & Murphy, P. R. (2004). Evaluating
the performance of third-party logistics arrange-
ments: A relationship marketing perspective. Jour-
nal of Supply Chain Management, 40 (1), 35–51.
Knemeyer, A. M., & Murphy, P. R. (2005). Exploring
the potential impact of relationship characteristics
and customer attributes on the outcomes of third-
party logistics arrangements. Transportation Journal,
44 (1), 5–19.
Krizman, A. (2009). Involvement, knowledge sharing
and proactive improvement as antecedents of
logistics outsourcing performance. Economic and
Business Review for Central and South - Eastern
Europe, 11, 233–256.
Lai, F., Li, D., Wang, Q., & Zhao, X. (2008). The
information technology capability of third-party
logistics providers: A resource-based view and
empirical evidence from China. Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 44 (3), 22–38.
Lai, K. H., Ngai, E. W. T., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2002).
Measures for evaluating supply chain perfor-
mance in transport logistics. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics & Transportation Review,
38, 439–456.
Lai, F., Tian, Y., & Hou, B. (2012). Relational gover-
nance and opportunism in logistics outsourcing
relationships: Empirical evidence from China.
International Journal of Production Research, 50,
2501–2514.
Lai, F., Zhao, X., & Wang, Q. (2006). The impact of
information technology on the competitive
advantage of logistics firms in China. Industrial
Management and Data Systems, 106, 1249–1271.
Langley, C. J. (2012). Third-party logistics study: Results
and findings of the 17th annual study. Phoenix, AZ:
Capgemini.
Lao, S. I., Choy, K. L., Ho, G. T. S., Chung, T., &
Chung, N. S. H. (2011). Determination of the
success factors in supply chain networks: A Hong
Kong-based manufacturer’s perspective. Measuring
Business Excellence, 15 (1), 34–48.
Large, R. O., Kramer, N., & Hartmann, R. K. (2011).
Customer-specific adaptation by providers and
their perception of 3PL-relationship success. Inter-
national Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 41, 822–838.
Leahy, S. E., Murphy, P. R., & Poist, R. F. (1995).
Determinants of successful logistical relationships:
A third-party provider perspective. Transportation
Journal, 35 (2), 5–13.
35
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
Leuschner, R., Charvet, F., & Rogers, D. S. (2013). A
meta-analysis of logistics customer service. Journal
of Supply Chain Management, 49 (1), 47–63.
Leuschner, R., Rogers, D. S., & Charvet, F. F. (2013).
A Meta-analysis of supply chain integration and
firm performance. Journal of Supply Chain Manage-
ment, 49 (2), 34–57.
Li, L. (2011). Assessing the relational benefits of logis-
tics services perceived by manufacturers in supply
chain. International Journal of Production Economics,
132 (1), 58–67.
Lieb, R. C. (1992). The use of third-party logistics ser-
vices by large American manufacturers. Journal of
Business Logistics, 13 (2), 29–42.
Lieb, R. (2008). The year 2007 survey: Provider CEO
perspectives on the current status and future
prospects of the third party logistics industry in
the Asia-Pacific region. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38,
495–512.
Lieb, R., & Bentz, B. A. (2005a). The use of third-party
logistics services by large American manufacturers:
the 2004 survey. Transportation Journal, 44 (2),
5–15.
Lieb, R., & Bentz, B. A. (2005b). The North American
third party logistics industry in 2004: The pro-
vider CEO perspective. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35,
595–611.
Lieb, R. C., & Randall, H. L. (1996). A comparison of
the use of third-party logistics services by large
American manufacturers, 1991, 1994, and 1995.
Journal of Business Logistics, 17, 305–320.
Lin, C. Y. (2006). Influencing factors on the innova-
tion in logistics technologies for logistics service
providers in Taiwan. Journal of American Academy
of Business, 9 (2), 257–263.
Lin, C. Y. (2007). Factors affecting innovation in
logistics technologies for logistics service providers
in China. Journal of Technology Management in
China, 2 (1), 22–37.
Lin, C. Y. (2008a). Determinants of the adoption of
technological innovations by logistics service pro-
viders in China. The International Journal of Tech-
nology Management & Sustainable Development, 7
(1), 19–38.
Lin, C. Y. (2008b). Factors affecting the adoption of
radio frequency identification technology by logis-
tics service providers: An empirical study. Interna-
tional Journal of Management, 25, 488–499.
Lin, C. Y., & Ho, Y. H. (2009). RFID technology adop-
tion and supply chain performance: An empirical
study in China’s logistics industry. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 14,
369–378.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liu, X., Grant, D. B., McKinnon, A. C., & Feng, Y.
(2010). An empirical examination of the contri-
bution of capabilities to the competitiveness of
logistics service providers: A perspective from
36 Volume 50, Number 1
China. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, 40, 847–866.
Liu, C. L., & Lyons, A. C. (2011). An analysis of third-
party logistics performance and service provision.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics & Transpor-
tation Review, 47 (4).
Maloni, M. J., & Carter, C. R. (2006). Opportunities
for research in Third-Party Logistics. Transportation
Journal, 45 (2), 23–38.
Marasco, A. (2008). Third-party logistics: A literature
review. International Journal of Production Econom-
ics, 113 (1), 127–147.
Maull, R., Geraldi, J., & Johnston, R. (2012). Service
supply chains: A customer perspective. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 48 (4), 72–86.
Mello, J. E., Stank, T. P., & Esper, T. L. (2008). A
model of logistics outsourcing strategy. Transporta-
tion Journal, 47 (4), 5–25.
Menon, M. K., McGinnis, M. A., & Ackerman, K. B.
(1998). Selection criteria for providers of third-
party logistics services: An exploratory study. Jour-
nal of Business Logistics, 19 (1), 121–137.
Mentzer, J. T., Flint, D. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2001).
Logistics service quality as a segment-customized
process. The Journal of Marketing, 65 (4), 82–104.
Moore, K. R. (1998). Trust and relationship commit-
ment in logistics alliances: A buyer perspective.
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, 34 (1), 24–37.
Moore, K. R., & Cunningham, W. A. (1999). Social
exchange behavior in logistics relationships: A
shipper perspective. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 29, 103–121.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993).
Factors affecting trust in market research relation-
ships. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 81–101.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992).
Relationships between providers and users of
marketing research: The dynamics of trust within
and between organizations. Journal of Marketing
Research, 29, 314–329.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commit-
ment–trust theory of relationship marketing. Jour-
nal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20–38.
Murphy, P. R., & Poist, R. F. (1998). Third-party logis-
tics usage: An assessment of propositions based
on previous research. Transportation Journal, 37
(4), 26–35.
Murphy, P. R., & Poist, R. F. (2000). Third-party logis-
tics: Some user versus provider perspectives. Jour-
nal of Business Logistics, 21 (1), 121–133.
Ojala, L., Andersson, D., & Naula, T. (2006). The defi-
nition and market size of third party logistics ser-
vices. Third Party Logistics–Finnish and Swedish
Experiences.
Panayides, P. M. (2006). Enhancing innovation capa-
bility through relationship management and
implications for performance. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 9, 466–483.
Panayides, P. M. (2007). The impact of organizational
learning on relationship orientation, logistics
 3PL Meta-Analysis
service effectiveness and performance. Industrial
Marketing Management, 36 (1), 68–80.
Panayides, P. M., & So, M. S. (2005a). Logistics service
provider–client relationships. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
41, 179–200.
Panayides, P. M., & So, M. S. (2005b). The Impact of
integrated logistics relationships on third-party
logistics service quality and performance. Maritime
Economics & Logistics (formerly International Journal
of Maritime Economics), 7 (1), 36–55.
Potocan, V. (2008). Business-to-business marketing: A
study on the communication of logistical services
in the former Yugoslavia nations. The Business
Review, Cambridge, 11 (1), 130–136.
Priem, R. L., & Swink, M. (2012). A demand-side per-
spective on supply chain management. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 48 (2), 7–13.
Rabinovich, E., Knemeyer, A. M., & Mayer, C. M.
(2007). Why do Internet commerce firms incor-
porate logistics service providers in their distribu-
tion channels?: The role of transaction costs and
network strength. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 25, 661–681.
Rafiq, M., & Jaafar, H. S. (2007). Measuring custom-
ers’ perceptions of logistics service quality of 3PL
service providers. Journal of Business Logistics, 28,
159–177.
Rajesh, R., Pugazhendhi, S., & Ganesh, K. (2011).
Influence of 3PL service offerings on client
performance in India. Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics & Transportation Review, 47,
149–165.
Randall, W. S., Pohlen, T. L., & Hanna, J. B. (2010).
Evolving a theory of performance-based logistics
using insights from service dominant logic. Jour-
nal of Business Logistics, 31 (2), 35–61.
Reeves, K. A., Caliskan, F., & Ozcan, O. (2010). Out-
sourcing distribution and logistics services within
the automotive supplier industry. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics & Transportation Review,
46, 459–468.
Richards, G. (2006). Innovation barriers in
third-party logistics. ICIS Chemical Business, 1
(19), 18–19.
Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost
analysis: Past, present, and future applications.
Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Elements of diffusion. Diffusion of
innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.).
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Rollins, M., Pekkarinen, S., & Mehtala, M. (2011).
Inter-firm customer knowledge sharing in logistics
services: An empirical study. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41,
956–971.
Rosenberg, M. S. (2005). The file-drawer problem
revisited: A general weighted method for calculat-
ing fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution,
59, 464–468.
January 2014
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and
the tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin,
86, 638–641.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social
research, Vol. 6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sahay, B. S., & Mohan, R. (2006). 3PL practices: An
Indian perspective. International Journal of Physi-
cal Distribution & Logistics Management, 36,
666–689.
Sampson, S. E., & Spring, M. (2012). Service supply
chains; Introducing the special topic forum. Jour-
nal of Supply Chain Management, 48 (4), 3–7.
Schmoltzi, C., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2012). Opera-
tional governance in horizontal cooperations of
logistics service providers: Performance effects and
the moderating role of cooperation complexity.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48 (2),
53–74.
Seidmann, A., & Sundararajan, A. (1997). The effects
of task and information asymmetry on business
process redesign. International Journal of Production
Economics, 50 (2), 117–128.
Selviaridis, K., & Spring, M. (2007). Third party logis-
tics: A literature review and research agenda. Inter-
national Journal of Logistics Management, 18 (1),
125–150.
Shah, T. R., & Sharma, M. (2012). 3PLSP scale for co-
operative dairies in Indian context. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24, 515–532.
Simchi-Levi, D., Simchi-Levi, E., & Kaminsky, P.
(1999). Designing and managing the supply chain:
Concepts, strategies, and cases. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Sink, H. L., & Langley, C. (1997). A managerial frame-
work for the acquisition of third-party logistics
services. Journal of Business Logistics, 18, 163–189.
Sink, H. L., Langley, C. J., & Gibson, B. J. (1996).
Buyer observations of the US third-party logistics
market. International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, 26 (3), 38–46.
Sinkovics, R. R., & Roath, A. S. (2004). Strategic orien-
tation, capabilities, and performance in manufac-
turer-3PL relationships. Journal of Business Logistics,
25 (2), 43–64.
Sobel, M. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for
indirect effects in structural equation models. In
S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp.
43–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stank, T. P., & Daugherty, P. J. (1997). The impact of
operating environment on the formation of coop-
erative logistics relationships. Transportation
Research. Part E. Logistics & Transportation Review,
33 (1), 53–65.
Stank, T. P., Daugherty, P. J., & Ellinger, A. E. (1996).
Information exchange, responsiveness and logis-
tics provider performance. International Journal of
Logistics Management, 7 (2), 43–58.
Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., Vickery, S. K., & Savitskie,
K. (2003). Logistics service performance: Estimat-
ing its influence on market share. Journal of Busi-
ness Logistics, 24 (1), 27–55.
37
 Journal of Supply Chain Management
Stock, J. R., & Lambert, D. M. (2001). Strategic logistics
management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tian, Y., Ellinger, A. E., & Chen, H. (2010a). Third-
party logistics provider customer orientation and
customer firm logistics improvement in China.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logis-
tics Management, 40, 356–376.
Tian, Y., Lai, F., & Daniel, F. (2008). An examination
of the nature of trust in logistics outsourcing rela-
tionship. Industrial Management and Data Systems,
108, 346–367.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing:
Combining psychometric meta-analysis and Struc-
tural Equations Modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48,
865–885.
Wallenburg, C. M. (2009). Innovation in logistics out-
sourcing relationships: Proactive improvement by
logistics service providers as a driver of customer
loyalty. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45
(2), 75–93.
Wallenburg, C. M., Cahill, D. L., Goldsby, T. J., &
Knemeyer, A. M. (2010). Logistics outsourcing
performance and loyalty behavior: Comparisons
between Germany and the United States. Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 40, 579–602.
Wallenburg, C. M., & Lukassen, P. (2011). Proactive
improvement of logistics service providers as dri-
ver of customer loyalty. European Journal of Mar-
keting, 45, 438–454.
Wallenburg, C. M., & Raue, J. S. (2011). Conflict and its
governance in horizontal cooperations of logistics
service providers. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 41, 385–400.
Wang, Q., Chu, Z., Zhou, Q., & Lai, F. (2008). A com-
parative study of third-party logistics in mainland
China and Hong Kong. Transportation Journal, 47
(3), 48–58.
Wang, Q., Huo, B., Lai, F., & Chu, Z. (2010). Under-
standing performance drivers of third-party logis-
tics providers in mainland China: A replicated
and comparative study. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 110, 1273–1296.
Wang, Q., Lai, F., & Zhao, X. (2008). The impact of
information technology on the financial perfor-
mance of third-party logistics firms in China. Sup-
ply Chain Management, 13 (2), 138–150.
Wanke, P., Arkader, R., & Hijiar, M. F. (2007). Logis-
tics sophistication, manufacturing segments and
the choice of logistics providers. International Jour-
nal of Operations & Production Management, 27,
542–559.
Ward, P. T., McCreery, J. K., Ritzman, L. P., & Sharma,
D. (1998). Competitive priorities in
operations management. Decision Sciences, 29 (4),
1035–1046.
Wathne, K. H., & Heide, J. B. (2000). Opportunism in
interfirm relationships: Forms, outcomes and
solutions. The Journal of Marketing, 64 (4), 36–51.
Wilding, R., & Juriado, R. (2004). Customer perceptions
on logistics outsourcing in the European consumer
38 Volume 50, Number 1
goods industry. International Journal of Physical Distri-
bution & Logistics Management, 34, 628–644.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies:
Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of
capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic
organization: The analysis of discrete structural
alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36
(2), 269–296.
Williamson, O. E. (2008). Outsourcing: Transaction
cost economics and supply chain management.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44 (2), 5–16.
Yeung, A. C. L. (2006). The impact of third-party
logistics performance on the logistics and export
performance of users: An empirical study. Mari-
time Economics & Logistics (formerly International
Journal of Maritime Economics), 8, 121–139.
Yeung, J. H. Y., Selen, W., Sum, C. C., & Huo, B.
(2006). Linking financial performance to strategic
orientation and operational priorities: An
empirical study of third-party logistics providers.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logis-
tics Management, 36, 210–230.
Yeung, K., Zhou, H., Yeung, A. C. L., & Cheng, T. C. E.
(2012). The impact of third-party logistics providers’
capabilities on exporters’ performance. International
Journal of Production Economics, 135, 741–753.
Yuva, J. (2005). Leveraging value from supplier rela-
tionships. Inside Supply Management, 16, 1–6.
Zacharia, Z. G., Sanders, N. R., & Nix, N. W. (2011).
The emerging role of the third-party logistics pro-
vider (3PL) as a supply chain orchestrator. Journal
of Business Logistics, 32 (1), 40–54.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of Trust: Institu-
tional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53–111.
Rudolf Leuschner (Ph.D., The Ohio State Univer-
sity) is an assistant professor in the Department of
Supply Chain Management and Marketing Sciences at
Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey. His
research interests include logistics customer service,
supply chain management, and supply chain finance.
In addition to these topics, Dr. Leuschner also is inter-
ested in the generalizability of research and its replica-
tion, with a particular emphasis on meta-analysis.
Among the outlets that have published his earlier arti-
cles are the Journal of Business Logistics and the Journal
of Supply Chain Management.
Craig R. Carter (Ph.D., Arizona State University) is
a professor in the Supply Chain Management Depart-
ment of the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona
 3PL Meta-Analysis

State University in Tempe, Arizona. His primary
research activities focus on sustainable supply chain
management and encompass ethical issues in buyer–
supplier relationships, environmental supply manage-
ment, diversity sourcing, perceptions of opportunism
surrounding electronic reverse auctions, and the
broader, integrative concepts of social responsibility
and sustainability. Prior to his academic career, Dr.
Carter spent five years working in the areas of trans-
portation and logistics with Ryder Systems, Hechinger
Company, and the U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion. He also has conducted field-based supply man-
agement research with over 100 Fortune 1000-size
firms in the United States and Germany, which
includes work with CAPS Research and McKinsey &
Company. Dr. Carter’s research has been published in
the Journal of Supply Chain Management, Journal of
Operations Management, Journal of Business Logistics,
Decision Sciences, Journal of Business Ethics, Transporta-
tion Research Part E, Transportation Journal, and Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management.
Thomas J. Goldsby (Ph.D., Michigan State Univer-
sity) is a professor of logistics in the Fisher College of
Business and the Associate Director of the Center for
Operational Excellence at The Ohio State University
in Columbus, Ohio. His research interests include the
strategic implications of logistics and supply chain
management; he currently is a research associate of
the Global Supply Chain Forum and a Research Fel-
low of the National Center for the Middle Market,
both of which are based at The Ohio State University.
Dr. Goldsby is the co-author of Lean Six Sigma Logis-
tics: Strategic Development to Operations Success and of
Global Macrotrends and Their Impact on Supply Chain
Management.
Zachary S. Rogers (MBA, University of Nevada) is a
doctoral candidate in the supply chain management
program in the W.P. Carey School of Business at Ari-
zona State University in Tempe, Arizona. His primary
research interests are in sustainable supply chain
development and behavioral judgment and decision-
making. He also is interested in closed-loop supply
chains and cradle-to-grave product stewardship. Cur-
rently, Mr. Rogers is studying the interaction between
sustainability and human behavior.

APPENDIX A
List of Samples and Articles

Article Sample Sample

No. No. Article (Year) Journal Size Country
1 1 Anderson, Coleman, Devinney and Keating (2011) JSCM 309 Asia Pacific
2 2 Briggs, Landry JBR 110 North America
and Daugherty (2007)
3 2 Briggs, Landry IMM 110 North America
and Daugherty (2010)
4 3 Cahill, Goldsby, Knemeyer JBL 248 USA
and Wallenburg (2010)
5 4 Chen, Tian, Ellinger and JBL 124 China
Daugherty (2010)
6 5 Cho, Ozment and Sink (2008) IJPDLM 117 USA
7 6 Davis, Golicic and IMM 142 USA
Marquardt (2008)
8 7 Deepen et al. (2008) JBL 549 Germany
9 8 Ellinger, Ketchen, Hult, IMM 123 USA
Elmada g and Richey (2008)
10 9 Ellinger, Keller and Bas (2010) JBL 161 USA
11 10 Grawe et al. (2012) TRE 312 USA
12 11 Hartmann and De Grahl (2011) JSCM 155 Germany
13 12 Hartmann and De Grahl (2012) IJPDLM 172 Germany
14 13 Hofenk, Schipper, Semejin and JSPM 77 Netherlands
Gelderman (2011)
15 14 Huo, Selen, Yeung, Hoi IJOPM 159 Hong Kong
and Zhao (2008)
(continued)

January 2014 39
 Journal of Supply Chain Management

APPENDIX A (continued)
Article Sample Sample
No. No. Article (Year) Journal Size Country
16 15 Jayaram and Tan (2010) IJPE 411 USA
17 16 Jeffers (2010) IJOPM 64 USA
18 16 Jeffers, Muhanna DS 64 USA
and Nault (2008)
19 17 Kersten and Koch (2010) IJQRM 229 Germany
20 18 Klein (2007) JOM 91 USA
21 19 Knemeyer et al. (2003) JBL 388 USA
22 19 Knemeyer and Murphy (2004) JSCM 388 USA
23 19 Knemeyer and Murphy (2005) TJ 388 USA
24 20 Krizman (2009) EBR 58 Slovenia
25 21 Lai, Li, Wang and Zhao (2008) JSCM 105 China
26 22 Lai, Ngai and Cheng (2002) TRE 134 Hong Kong
27 23 Lai, Tian and Hou (2012) IJPR 119 China
28 21 Lai, Zhao and Wang (2006) IMDS 105 China
29 24 Lao, Choy, Ho, Chung MBE 184 Hong Kong
and Chung (2011)
30 25 Large, Kramer IJPDLM 42 Germany
and Hartmann (2011)
31 26 Li (2011) IJPE 176 USA
32 27 Lin (2006) JAAB 114 Taiwan
33 28 Lin (2007) JTMC 557 China
34 28 Lin (2008a) IJTMSD 557 China
35 29 Lin (2008b) IJM 142 Taiwan
36 28 Lin and Ho (2009) SCMIJ 557 China
37 30 Liu, Grant, McKinnon IJPDLM 114 China
and Feng (2010)
38 31 Liu and Lyons (2011) TRE 204 Taiwan
39 32 Menon, McGinnis JBL 41 USA
and Ackerman (1998)
40 33 Moore (1998) IJPMM 339 USA
41 33 Moore and Cunningham (1999) IJPDLM 339 USA
42 34 Murphy and Poist (2000) JBL 37 USA
43 35 Panayides (2006) EJIM 251 Hong Kong
44 35 Panayides (2007) IMM 251 Hong Kong
45 35 Panayides and So (2005a) TRE 251 Hong Kong
46 35 Panayides and So (2005b) MEL 251 Hong Kong
47 36 Potocan (2008) TBRC 287 Slovenia
48 37 Rabinovich et al. (2007) JOM 196 USA
49 38 Rafiq and Jaafar (2007) JBL 183 UK
50 39 Rajesh, Pugazhendhi TRE 30 Singapore
and Ganesh (2011)
51 40 Reeves, Caliskan and Ozcan (2010) TRE 55 USA
52 41 Rollins, Pekkarinen IJPDLM 235 Finland
and Mehtala (2011)
53 42 Sahay and Mohan (2006) IJPDLM 130 India
54 43 Schmoltzi and Wallenburg (2012) JSCM 226 Germany
55 44 Shah and Sharma (2012) APJML 100 India
56 45 Sinkovics and Roath (2004) JBL 142 UK
57 46 Stank and Daugherty (1997) TRE 143 USA
58 47 Stank et al. (2003) JBL 111 USA
59 4 Tian, Ellinger and Chen (2010) IJPDLM 124 China
60 48 Tian, Lai and Daniel (2008) IJPDLM 115 China
61 49 Wallenburg (2009) JSCM 298 Germany
(continued)

40 Volume 50, Number 1

 3PL Meta-Analysis

APPENDIX A (continued)
Article Sample Sample
No. No. Article (Year) Journal Size Country
62 49 Wallenburg and Lukassen (2011) EJM 298 Germany
63 50 Wallenburg and Raue (2011) IJPDLM 212 Germany
64 21 Wang, Huo, Lai and Chu (2010) IMDS 105 China
65 21 Wang, Chu, et al. (2008), Wang, SCM 105 China
Lai and Zhao (2008)
66 51 Wanke, Arkader and Hijiar (2007) IJOPM 93 Brazil
67 52 Wilding and Juriado (2004) IJPDLM 50 Europe
68 53 Yeung (2006) MEL 72 Hong Kong
69 54 Yeung, Zhou, Yeung IJPE 150 China
and Cheng (2012)

APPENDIX B
Construct Definitions

Construct
Category Definition Examples
Asset Refers to (idiosyncratic) assets that are “specialized Rabinovich et al. (2007),
specificity to a specific transaction” and are not easily Stank and Daugherty
transferable to other purposes or uses (1997)
(Williamson, 1991, p. 555).
Uncertainty It generally consists of environmental uncertainty Reeves et al. (2010),
(the “circumstances surrounding an exchange Wallenburg and
cannot be specified ex ante”) and behavioral Lukassen (2011)
uncertainty (“performance cannot be easily
verified ex post”). Uncertainty has also been
conceptualized as consisting of both complexity
and dynamism—thus, an environment that is
complex and/or changing rapidly is more
uncertain than an environment that is simple and
more static (Duncan 1972).
Opportunism Williamson (1975, p. 6) as, “self-interest seeking Knemeyer and Murphy
with guile” and “guile” is defined as “lying, (2005), Lai et al. (2012)
stealing, cheating, and calculated efforts to
mislead, distort, disguise, obfuscate, or otherwise
confuse” (Williamson, 1985, p. 47). In addition,
violations of relationship norms can also be
constituted as opportunistic behavior (Wathne and
Heide 2000).
Information We define it as collaborative communication and Klein (2007), Jeffers et al.
sharing coordinating the information transfer between (2008)
firms. There are four classes of information that
can be shared: (1) order, (2) operational, (3)
strategic, and (4) strategic/competitive (Seidmann
and Sundararajan, 1997).
(continued)

January 2014 41
 Journal of Supply Chain Management

APPENDIX B (continued)
Construct
Category Definition Examples
Operational It is defined as coordinated actions to achieve Chen, Tian, et al. (2010),
cooperation mutually beneficent outcomes with expected Chen, Damanpou and
reciprocation over time (Anderson & Narus, 1990). Reilly (2010), Sinkovics
Specifically, we refer to “collaborative joint activity and Roath (2004)
development, work processes, and coordinated
decision-making (Leuschner et al., 2013b)”
between customers and the 3PL.
Relational Firms can employ three distinct types of structures Jayaram and Tan (2010),
governance to govern the hybrid, interorganizational Knemeyer et al. (2003),
structure relationships that fall between simple markets and Moore and Cunningham
hierarchy—muscular, benign, and credible (1999)
(Williamson, 2008). In the 3PL–customer
relationship, both benign and credible dimensions
are included and are characterized by a long time
horizon, the sharing of mutual benefits and
burdens, commitment, and trust (Ellram, 1991;
Ellram & Cooper, 1990; Kaufmann & Carter, 2006).
Information We define it as the adoption and use of information Jeffers et al. (2008), Lai
technology technology (IT) by the 3PL to facilitate better et al. (2008)
visibility and increase efficiency. The constructs in
this category focus on the types and use of IT at
the 3PL.
Operational We define it as the adoption and use of operational Lin (2008a,b); Lin and Ho
technology technology in transportation and warehousing to (2009)
improve efficiency. A good example is the use of
radio frequency identification (RFID) for efficiently
tracking and tracing cargo.
Logistics It is the output of a firm’s logistics system. It is Huo et al. (2008), Rafiq
customer measured by the “Seven Rs” (Bienstock, Mentzer, and Jaafar (2007); Stank
service and Bird 1996; Mentzer, Flint, and Hult 2001). The et al. (2003)
“Seven Rs” describe a company’s ability to deliver
the right product in the right amount at the right
place at the right time for the right customer in
the right condition at the right price (Coyle, Bardi
and Langley 2002; Stock and Lambert 2001).
Cost It is the ability of the 3PL to continuously reduce Wallenburg (2009), Wang
reduction costs and as such to offer the shipper the best et al. (2010)
prices.
Innovation It is “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as Anderson et al. (2011),
new by an individual or other unit of adoption” Panayides (2006, 2007)
(Rogers 2003, p. 12).
Operational It “refers to perceived performance improvements Liu and Lyons (2011), Tian
performance that the logistic outsourcing relationship has et al. (2010)
provided the user” (Knemeyer & Murphy, 2004, p.
39). More specifically, it consists of improvements
in competitive capabilities such as service and
delivery quality, and flexibility (Hill 1994; Ward
et al. 1998).
(continued)

42 Volume 50, Number 1

 3PL Meta-Analysis

APPENDIX B (continued)
Construct
Category Definition Examples
Financial We included measures of financial strength and Grawe et al. (2012),
performance performance that affect the income statement and Kersten and Koch (2010)
balance sheet of a company, such as profitability,
sales growth, and asset reduction measures.
Market We include intangible performance outcomes that Sinkovics and Roath
performance enhance the image of the company in the (2004), Stank et al.
marketplace, such as brand awareness and (2003)
reputation. In addition, it is improved performance
with specific customers as a result of the ongoing
business relationship.
Satisfaction It is “a positive affective state resulting from the Briggs et al. (2010), Li
appraisal of all aspects of a firm’s working (2011)
relationship with another firm” (Anderson &
Narus, 1984).
Loyalty It is a long-term commitment to repurchase that Large et al. (2011), Stank
includes a favorable cognitive attitude toward the et al. (2003)
selling firm (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). In addition, it
includes “the intention of a buyer of logistics
services to purchase the same services and
additional service from the current provider in the
future, as well as the buyer’s activities in
recommending this provider to others” (Cahill
et al., 2010; p. 255).
Trust It is the ability of the customer to rely on the 3PL to Hofenk et al. (2011), Klein
meet promises and expectations and vice versa (2007)
(Zucker 1986; Anderson & Narus, 1990; Moorman
et al., 1993; Ganesan 1994; Morgan & Hunt,
1994).
Commitment It is the belief “that an ongoing relationship with Knemeyer et al. (2003),
another is so important as to warrant maximum Schmoltzi and
efforts at maintaining it; that is, the committed Wallenburg (2012)
party believes the relationship is worth working on
to ensure that it endures indefinitely” (Morgan &
Hunt, 1994, p. 23).

January 2014 43
View publication stats