Authors : Xu Huiqing

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/492devua

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2dujcht5

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jun249

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This study examined the level of Supply Chain Management and Marketing Strategy practices of a logistics company and determined whether differences exist in employees’ assessments when grouped according to demographic characteristics. It further investigated the relationship between Supply Chain Management and Marketing Strategy to understand how operational practices relate to market-oriented outcomes. Using a descriptive-correlational research design, data were collected from 130 employee-respondents through a structured questionnaire covering four dimensions of Supply Chain Management and six dimensions of Marketing Strategy. Statistical treatments included frequency and percentage distribution, weighted mean, independent samples t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and Pearson product–moment correlation. Findings indicate that respondents assessed both Supply Chain Management and Marketing Strategy at an overall “Agree” or “Practiced” level, suggesting that these functions are generally implemented but with room for improvement. Technology Integration emerged as the strongest dimension of Supply Chain Management, while Network Coordination registered comparatively lower ratings, particularly in areas related to inter-organizational communication. For Marketing Strategy, Market Intelligence and Market Share were rated more favorably, whereas Product or Service Positioning showed weaker performance, reflecting uncertainty in differentiation and brand clarity. Tests of difference revealed no significant variations in the assessment of Supply Chain Management and Marketing Strategy when respondents were grouped by age, civil status, and educational qualification. A significant difference was observed only in Market Share when grouped by sex, indicating a perceptual variation rather than a systemic disparity. Correlation analysis showed no significant relationship between overall Supply Chain Management and overall Marketing Strategy. However, several weak but significant relationships were identified at the dimensional level, revealing selective interactions and possible trade-offs between operational efficiency and market-oriented practices. The study concludes that while Supply Chain Management and Marketing Strategy are both moderately practiced, they operate with limited functional integration. Strengthening cross-functional coordination, particularly between operational and marketing units, is recommended to ensure that improvements in supply chain efficiency translate into enhanced customer value and sustained competitive performance.

References :

1. Al Azzani, H. A. (2024). Market and supply chain orientation; dynamic capabilities leading to innovation and operational capabilities. SAGE
2. Assad Ullah, et al  (2024) Global supply chain pressure and Chinese business and consumer confidence
3. Borgatti, S. P., & Li, X. (2009). On social network analysis in a supply chain context. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 5–22.
4. Deloitte Insights. (2024, May 23). Global supply-chain resilience amid disruptions. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com
5. Huang, K., [and coauthors]. (2023). The impact of Industry 4.0 on supply chain capability and performance: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 280, Article 108525.
6. Jianwen Lou and Tiantian Li, (2024) Pathways for China’s Key Industries to Secure Core Positions in Global Supply Chains: A Comparative and Empirical Study
7. Jinbo jia, (2024) Research on Supply Chain Management Strategies of Multinational Retailers in China Based on IKEA).
8. Jing, H., [and coauthors]. (2024). Digital transformation, supply chain integration, and supply chain performance. SAGE Open, 14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241281616
9. Lin, Y., & [coauthors]. (2021). The effects of supply chain diversification during the COVID-19 pandemic. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 168, Article 105337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105337
10. Mugoni, E., [and coauthors]. (2024). Sustainable supply chain management practices and performance: Resource-based and natural-resource-based perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 420, Article 137643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137643
11. Ozdemir, D., [and coauthors]. (2022). Supply chain resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Logistics Journal / International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 25, 1–22. (Available at PubMed Central) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8771080/
12. Shahzad, M. K., Ahmed, S., & Anwar, F. (2024). Market orientation, supply chain integration, and firm performance: Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities perspective. Pakistan Business Review, 26(1), 45–67. (PDF available online)
13. Todo, Y., [and coauthors]. (2022). Robustness and resilience of supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(10), 1802–1820. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00508-7