Abstract
Purpose
This study investigates how insurance intermediaries in Portugal and Ireland evaluate supply chain management (SCM) practices within the insurance industry, specifically focusing on potential regional variations in their assessments.
Design/methodology/approach
A comparative research design was employed, collecting data through surveys administered to insurance brokers in Portugal and Ireland. These countries were chosen due to their well-developed intermediary-based insurance markets.
Findings
The results show that some dimensions of supply chain management are significantly different between Portugal and Ireland. Nevertheless, the insurance brokers from the two countries also share similar views on key aspects of supply chain management.
Practical implications
This study offers valuable insights for insurance industry management, particularly regarding the dynamics of the insurer-intermediary relationship and the importance of catering to intermediary needs. The findings also highlight potential areas for European Union policy consideration, such as addressing potential asymmetries within the insurance sector across member states.
Social implications
Improved relationships and collaboration within the insurance supply chain can lead to enhanced access to insurance products and more tailored services for consumers.
Originality/value
This research addresses two key gaps in the literature. Firstly, it examines the insurer-intermediary relationship from the intermediary perspective, a viewpoint often neglected in prior research. Secondly, the study investigates and confirms the existence of regional variations in insurance SCM practices across two European countries.
研究目的
本研究擬探究在葡萄牙和愛爾蘭兩地的保險中介人於保險行業內,如何評價供應鏈管理方面的慣常做法,研究會特別專注探討這些評價所顯示的潛在地域差異。
研究設計/方法/理念
研究人員以比較研究設計進行其探究;他們透過向葡萄牙和愛爾蘭兩國的保險經紀發出調查,繼而收集數據。這兩個國家被選中的原因是:它們擁有健全的、以中介為基礎的保險市場。
研究結果
研究結果顯示,葡萄牙和愛爾蘭兩國的供應鏈管理在有些層面上存在著顯著的差異;但兩地的保險經紀在供應鏈管理的關鍵環節上則有頗類似的見解和看法。
實務方面的啟示
本研究在保險業管理方面提供了寶貴的啟示,特別是它使我們更了解承保人與中介人之間的關係的變革動力,以及滿足中介人需要的重要性。研究結果亦強調了歐洲聯盟在制訂政策時必須考慮的潛在領域,如處理各成員國之間於保險業內的潛在不對稱。
對社會的影響
若保險供應鏈內各方的關係和合作得到改善,則消費者會更容易取得各種保險產品;同時,他們亦可獲得更合適的訂製服務。
研究的原創性
本研究嘗試處理相關文獻內兩個主要的研究缺口。首先,研究人員以中介人的觀點,去探討承保人與中介人之間的關係,而過去的研究,通常忽視了這個觀點;其次,本研究探究並確認有關的兩個歐洲國家,在其保險供應鏈管理方面的慣常做法上,確實存在著地域差異。
Keywords
Citation
Dominique-Ferreira, S., Brophy, R. and Prentice, C. (2024), "A comparative analysis of supply chain management between Portugal and Ireland", European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-04-2022-0118
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Sérgio Dominique-Ferreira, Richard Brophy and Catherine Prentice
License
Published in European Journal of Management and Business Economics. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
The insurance industry is a key sector in the global economy. Scenarios of supply chain disruptions, caused by national and international warlike conflicts (e.g. the recent Russia-Ukraine conflict and the fossil fuel exports supply disruption) or international political conflicts (e.g. Taiwan conflict and the chip/semiconductor supply issues) highlight the importance of the insurance sector in market stability (Craighead et al., 2007).
Insurance plays a vital role for individuals and businesses within the financial services landscape (Gara, 2021). Distribution methods for insurance products vary widely across lines and countries, influenced by economic rationales, relationships, remuneration structures, and regulations (Hilliard et al., 2013). These distribution channels have evolved significantly since the 18th century, shaped by advancements in technology, financial services diversification, and regulatory changes (Mao and Ostaszewki, 2023; Brophy, 2015). Consequently, the dynamics of insurance supply chains (SCs) have become increasingly complex.
While distinct from traditional product or service supply chains (Leiria et al., 2020), effective SCM practices remain crucial for insurers to deliver high-quality services to customers. Key functions include claims management, cost control, risk mitigation, regulatory compliance, and customer satisfaction (Prentice et al., 2023; Ahmed et al., 2022; Leiria et al., 2020; Dominique-Ferreira, 2017).
The European Union (EU) has a highly internationalized insurance market with multinational insurers and cross-border trade (Brophy, 2017). However, this openness is countered by the persistent idiosyncrasies of national regulations, creating complexities within insurance distribution models and their underlying supply chains (Moreno et al., 2022). Efforts toward standardization, exemplified by initiatives from the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA, 2021, 2020) and Law 7/2019 (Belzuz, 2019), were unable to succeed (François and Frezal, 2018).
Research on supply chain management (SCM) practices specifically tailored to the B2B insurance industry, particularly within retail and distribution channels, remains scarce (Dominique-Ferreira, 2018). Furthermore, existing studies fail to consider potential regional variations in how insurance companies manage their supply chains. While the European Union (EU) fosters some cultural similarities among member states, significant differences in business practices persist across these countries (Samaha et al., 2014; Engelen and Brettel, 2011; Hofstede, 1980, 1991). These variations potentially influenced by cultural factors, point to a critical research gap: the need to investigate potential discrepancies in insurance supply chain management practices across regions.
Cultural differences can significantly impact supply chain dynamics (Durach and Wiengarten, 2020). Communication styles, trust-building approaches, and decision-making processes can vary considerably across cultures (Yates and de Oliveira, 2016). These variations can lead to communication barriers, delays, and reduced trust between supply chain partners, ultimately hindering supply chain efficiency. Additionally, cultural risk tolerance can influence risk management behaviours within the supply chain (Kumar and Anbanandam, 2019; Chen et al., 2009).
This study takes a unique approach by examining supply chain management (SCM) practices within the insurance distribution sector across different European Union (EU) countries. While these countries share a common regulatory framework and some insurance carriers, the potential impact of cultural variations on SC practices remains unexplored. The Behavioural Theory of the Firm posits that cultural differences significantly influence strategic management, including supply chain practices (Durach and Wiengarten, 2020; Gupta and Gupta, 2019; Goswami et al., 2021). This research addresses this gap by investigating how cultural factors might influence insurance distribution supply chains across the EU.
Furthermore, limited research exists on how insurance brokers evaluate their relationships with insurers and how these relationships differ across regions. This study addresses this gap by examining SCM practices and relationship quality in the insurance distribution sector of two EU countries, Portugal and Ireland. The research focuses on two key questions:
What are the perceived differences in SCM performance between Portugal and Ireland from the perspective of insurance brokers?
How do insurance brokers' perceptions of relationship quality with insurers differ between these two countries?
This study builds upon the Behavioural Theory of the Firm by demonstrating the impact of culture on insurance SCM practices across two EU countries, Portugal and Ireland. While prior research established the influence of culture on business practices in marketing (Durach and Wiengarten, 2020; Gupta and Gupta, 2019; Goswami et al., 2021), this work extends this concept to the specific domain of insurance supply chains. This research also identifies how insurance intermediaries evaluate specific industry practices within the SCM context. By highlighting key areas for improvement, the study contributes to strengthening synergies between stakeholders such as insurers and brokers.
The following section presents the relevant literature on Supply Chain and the correspondent dimensions, as well as the importance of national culture in management and marketing. The study compares the insurance brokers’ perception of these dimensions. The method for data collection is outlined. Discussion of the findings and implications are highlighted for researchers and practitioners.
Literature review
Supply chain management
Supply Chain Management (SCM) has transcended its logistical roots to become a critical discipline across modern businesses (La Londe and Masters, 1994). This evolution emphasizes integrated management of all value chain stages, from raw materials to customer satisfaction (Danise, 2021). Marketing, in particular, requires seamless collaboration across departments for successful outcomes (Fernando and Wulansari, 2020, b; Liu et al., 2020a, b). This integrated approach ensures value creation throughout the supply chain, encompassing suppliers, producers, and ultimately, the end consumer (Chen and Lai, 2010).
Supply chain management dimensions
Efficient information and communication technology (ICT) management is crucial for successful strategic partnerships (Hänninen et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2021; Ketchen and Craighead, 2020; Guan et al., 2019; Rita and Krapfel, 2004). These ICT processes ensure not only contract adherence but also improves cooperation and alignment between partners (Hänninen et al., 2021; Attaran, 2020; Backstrand and Fredriksson, 2020). Additionally, effective supply chain management (SCM) relies on both hard skills (technical expertise) and soft skills (human-specific assets and top management support) (Ketchen and Craighead, 2020). Quality information, facilitated by efficient ICT, empowers better decision-making (Ketchen and Craighead, 2020; Schniederjans et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2019). Ultimately, these elements contribute to a successful partnership with interdependence, commitment, trust, and shared vision among partners (Sharma et al., 2021; Wieland, 2021). A detailed exploration of each dimension’s role within SCM follows.
Communication and information management (CIM)
The modern SC faces increasing pressure due to volatile consumer demand, heightened delivery expectations, and faster production cycles (KRC Research, 2013). These trends often exceed the adaptability of existing SC systems, leading to concerns about revenue and profitability. To address these challenges, SC managers prioritize talent development, best practice adoption, data-driven decision-making, and improved visibility for executives (KRC Research, 2013). Additionally, technology platforms, outsourcing, and external consulting services are increasingly utilized. This dynamic environment underscores the need for ongoing research to identify strategies for achieving greater SC efficiency (Banker, 2021a, b; Palsule, 2020; Mazero, 2019).
CIM plays a critical role in the efficiency of SCM (Fatorachian and Kazemi, 2020; Guan et al., 2019). Furthermore, cooperation and information sharing between the different partners optimise physical and human resources, reducing time consumption (Chiu et al., 2021). As Gunasekaran and Ngai (2004) emphasize, successful SCM prioritizes the long-term benefits of all stakeholders through cooperation and open communication.
Contract
Contracts play a vital role in establishing stable relationships within the supply chain (SC) (Hong et al., 2014). They explicitly define inter-organizational agreements, improving trust between partners (Perrigot et al., 2019; Li et al., 2010). While trust is crucial for long-term success (Weissman, 2017), contracts provide a legal framework for enforcing agreed-upon principles. This ensures stability throughout the SC, both upstream (suppliers) and downstream (distributors and retailers).
Asset investment and human-specific assets
Several studies emphasize the importance of investment in human assets to achieve successful partnerships within the supply chain (Hong et al., 2014). By developing inter-firm strategic human-asset specificity, partners can enhance communication, alignment, and overall integration (Hong et al., 2014). Furthermore, skilled human resources play a critical role in delivering high-quality service, ultimately influencing customer satisfaction and loyalty (Dominique-Ferreira et al., 2021; Shamim et al., 2019). For instance, research suggests that Portuguese insurance intermediaries were more adept at adapting digital platforms and employee skillsets in response to the COVID-19 pandemic compared to their Irish counterparts (Fernandes, 2020; PwC and Insurance Ireland Leaders, 2020). This highlights the potential competitive advantage gained through a skilled and adaptable workforce. These findings align with broader research acknowledging the importance of digital touchpoints in the modern insurance industry (Alt et al., 2021).
Cooperation and alignment
Extensive research underscores the critical role of cooperation and strategic alignment between insurance industry partners in achieving a sustainable supply chain (Backstrand and Fredriksson, 2020; Pettit et al., 2019). These collaborative efforts optimize the insurance SC by facilitating joint forecasting and material management practices. Ultimately, this collaborative approach enhances return on working capital for both insurers and intermediaries (Attaran, 2020; Hong et al., 2014). Furthermore, a highly aligned partnership strengthens overall organizational efficiency across the supply chain (d'Avolio et al., 2015; Hong et al., 2014; Castelli and Brun, 2010).
Top manager support
Research emphasizes the critical role of top management commitment in developing successful supply chain management (SCM) practices (Mazero, 2019; Banker, 2021b). Top managers play a crucial role in promoting information sharing across the supply chain, recognizing its benefits for overall performance (Hong et al., 2014). Furthermore, strong leadership leads to a supportive work environment for employees, which is particularly important within the insurance industry (PwC Ireland and Insurance Ireland Leaders, 2020).
Information quality
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) play a vital role in supply chain (SC) management by enabling interaction between partners (Hänninen et al., 2021; Attaran, 2020; Fatorachian and Kazemi, 2020). However, the quality of information exchanged remains a critical element in successful SC collaboration (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012). Hong et al. (2014) posit that real-time information sharing among all SC stakeholders is essential for seamless operations. This approach fosters improved information flow, leading to enhanced efficiency and effectiveness within the SC.
Interdependence, commitment, trust, and shared vision
Interdependence, commitment, trust, and shared vision are all part of a mindset and play a critical role in improving the relationship between retailers and distributors, and therefore, optimising the SC performance (Sharma et al., 2021; Attaran, 2020; Nowicka, 2018; Bigné and Blesa, 2003). The lack of trust is one of the leading business challenges/risks facing the insurance sector (PwC and Insurance Ireland Leaders, 2020). Additionally, quality, commitment, and trust play an important role in businesses (Tang et al., 2014; Twing-Kwong et al., 2013; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Lin and Wu, 2011).
The importance of supply chain management in insurance industry
The financial services sector has undergone significant transformations driven by corporate restructuring, technological advancements, and competitive forces (Grewal et al., 2021; Shankar et al., 2021). Innovation has shifted from simply delivering new products to enhancing service stability and quality (Das et al., 2018). The rise of fintech further underscores this emphasis on continuous innovation (Clarke and Tooker, 2018).
Within financial services, the insurance industry possesses distinct characteristics compared to banking, due in part to its regulatory framework and product complexity. However, some financial giants operate across both sectors (Brophy, 2013). Information asymmetry between consumers and insurers has led to the rise of intermediaries, such as insurance brokers, who bridge this gap and play a crucial role in matchmaking between insurance suppliers and consumers (Eckardt and Räthke-Döppner, 2010; Dominique-Ferreira, 2018).
While agencies remain a primary distribution channel for insurers, various other channels have emerged (Hu and Tracogna, 2020), increasing the complexity of insurance supply chain management (SCM). This complexity is further amplified by the need for effective communication and collaboration across these diverse channels (Alt et al., 2021).
Research on SCM practices within the B2B insurance industry, particularly regarding retail and distribution channels, remains limited (Dominique-Ferreira, 2018). This study aims to address this gap by investigating insurance SCM practices from the perspective of insurance brokers, the intermediaries who play a critical role in navigating this complex ecosystem.
Methodology
Sample and procedure
The study was conducted within the Portuguese and Irish insurance markets, chosen for their general operational similarities. Data were collected through surveys administered to 86 insurance intermediaries (46 Portuguese, 40 Irish).
As noted by Leiria et al. (2022), insurance companies are often reluctant to share customer data, even in anonymized forms, for academic research. To overcome this limitation, the study focused on data collection from intermediaries. The sample size (±9% margin of error, p = q = 50, confidence level 90%, k = 2 sigma) falls within acceptable limits for exploratory studies (Daniel, 2012).
To ensure the appropriateness of the survey instrument, construct validity measures were implemented. Following Tanner (2018), detailed discussions were held with Portuguese and Irish insurance business experts to confirm the relevance and clarity of the dimensions and items used in the survey. Additionally, a pilot test involving six randomly selected insurance intermediaries was conducted to assess both construct validity and face validity (Tabachnick et al., 2007). The pilot test also confirmed that the survey could be completed in less than 15 min, minimizing respondent fatigue.
Survey instrument and hypotheses
The survey utilized a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). All survey items were adapted from Hong et al. (2014).
Analysis and results
Confirmatory factor analysis
Prior to address the research questions, confirmatory analysis was performed as the study adopted existing items to measure SCM. The results show that the model had acceptable fit indices: χ2 (2184.812) = 701, p < 0.01. The composite reliabilities for all factors were acceptable, and the average variance extracted (AVE) for each factor was approximately or over 0.50, indicative of adequate convergence. In addition, the items have acceptable loadings to each dimension with good compositive reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) (see Table 1), supporting convergent validity. Specifically, loadings were above 0.6, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) were above 0.6, and average variance extracted was above 0.05, supporting convergent validity. Discriminant validity is also supported because the square root of AVE for a certain construct is higher than correlations between that construct and others (see Table 2).
Results to address research questions
To assess the normality of data, researchers employed the Shapiro-Wilk test. Since the data did not meet the normality assumptions, a (non-parametric) Mann-Whitney U test was used (Table 3). Statistical differences between the two countries (culture effect) were found in all items (Table 3).
Insurance broker assessment of SCM practices
The survey results reveal a generally positive assessment of supply chain management (SCM) practices by insurance brokers in both Portugal and Ireland. However, a more detailed analysis by dimension uncovers some interesting variations.
Communication (CO) and information management (IM)
While information exchange appears satisfactory (3.85 in Ireland, 3.41 in Portugal), a key discrepancy emerges in conflict resolution. Portuguese brokers reported lower agreement (2.90) with the statement “we can always resolve conflicts through communication with our partners” compared to their Irish counterparts (3.78).
We exchange information with our partners completely (3.85 in Ireland and 3.41 in Portugal).
It would be difficult to find a new partner if we lose this business (4.35 in Ireland and 2.43 in Portugal).
Our partners and intermediary always try to keep each other’s promises (3.50 in Ireland and 4.05 in Portugal).
Agency agreement
In this dimension, there are considerable differences in two of the three items:
We consider the agency agreement to be an essential way to do business with our partners (3.63 in Ireland and 4.00 in Portugal).
We signed a relatively long-term agency agreement with our partners (3.61 in Ireland and 3.00 in Portugal).
Asset investment (AI) and human-specific assets (HSA)
In this dimension, results are very similar in both countries.
Cooperation (CO), alignment (AL) and top manager support (TMS)
In this dimension, results are also very similar in both countries. However, low values of these two dimensions should be highlighted.
Information quality (IQ), interdependence (INT), commitment (COM), trust (T) and shared vision (SV)
Regarding the dimension Information quality, the most significant difference is related to the item we exchange information with our partners completely (3.85 in Ireland and 3.41 in Portugal). The item with the most significant difference appears in the item. It would be difficult to find a new partner if we lose this business (4.35 in Ireland and 2.43 in Portugal).
Regarding Commitment, “our partners and we always try to keep each other’s promises” presents a significant difference (3.50 in Ireland and 4.05 in Portugal). However, no considerable differences are found in trust and shared vision.
SCM perceptions of insurance brokers in Ireland and Portugal
Through Figure 1, it is possible to observe that the “partnering relationship quality” presents more discrepancies between both samples (Portuguese and Irish intermediaries) than the “SC partnership management practice”. Furthermore, the highest values are also displayed in the former, e.g. interdependence (3.91, for the Irish intermediaries) and commitment (3.85, for the Portuguese intermediaries). The highest values of the latter are related to the Agency Agreement, i.e. contract (3.67 for the Irish intermediaries) and asset investment (also 3.67). When comparing the results obtained in each dimension with the mean value of all items of the entire sample (Figure 1), it is possible to observe that:
Communication, information management, cooperation, alignment, and top manager support present values below the mean value. In the case of Portugal, the interdependence value is below the mean.
Commitment presents a value above the mean in both countries. In the case of Ireland, interdependence also presents a value above the mean.
Although statistically significant differences were found in the results between both countries, the direction of the responses in both countries is consistent, i.e. when results are positive for one of the countries, the same happens in the other country and vice versa (detailed results and statistical differences presented in Table 3).
Discussion
SCM success is affected by different dimensions, from SC partnership management practice to partnering relationship quality. The former dimension consists of communication and information management, contract, asset investment and human-specific assets, cooperation and alignment and top manager support (e.g. Banker, 2021b; Atarran, 2020; Mazero, 2019; Weissman, 2017). The latter relies on information quality, interdependence, commitment, trust, and shared vision (e.g. Attaran, 2020; PwC and Insurance Ireland Leaders, 2020; Nowicka, 2018; Hong et al., 2014). These results are also in line with the findings obtained by Gupta and Gupta (2019), especially regarding the first category obtained by them (“operational decisions), which include workforce management, performance measurement, risk, and security.
The research suggests a scenario where, despite industry-specific nuances (idiosyncrasies), both countries exhibit well-developed distribution channels within their insurance supply chains. These channels have evolved over time, adapting to various regulatory and industrial changes. While statistical variations exist between the two nations, a positive overall assessment emerges from an analysis across all relevant dimensions.
All items present a positive assessment for both samples (Portuguese and Irish intermediaries), except for the item “we can always resolve conflicts through communication with our partners” (2.90 for Portuguese intermediaries), confirming the importance communication strategies in the insurance industry (in line with Alt et al., 2021; Yu and Tseng, 2016). Authors would also like to highlight the item “we signed a relatively long-term agency agreement with our partners” since it presents a relatively low value (3.00 also for Portuguese intermediaries). Consequently, our results are in line with literature (e.g. Banker, 2021b; Attaran, 2020; Mazero, 2019; Weissman, 2017; Hong et al., 2014).
Another item presenting differences is “it would be difficult to find a new partner if we lose this business” (2.43 for the Portuguese intermediaries). Additionally, this item shows the most significant difference in all the scale 4.35 (for the Irish intermediaries) versus 2.43. The results are also in line with the literature (e.g. Attaran, 2020; PwC and Insurance Ireland Leaders, 2020; Nowicka, 2018).
The authors contend this pioneering work in an essential part of financial services has further use in the technological advancement of insurance distribution and operations (in line with Alt et al., 2021; Grewal et al., 2021; Shankar et al., 2021). Furthermore, the rise of FinTech and RegTech (Brophy, 2019) underscores the importance of SCM exploration in this sector. Effective SCM practices are essential for successfully integrating both established supply chain technologies and disruptive innovations like blockchain-powered data exchange (Krafft et al., 2020). This research paves the way for future studies examining how insurance intermediaries can leverage SCM to harness the full potential of technological advancements within the insurance industry.
Implications
This research addresses two key gaps in the marketing literature concerning insurance supply chain management (SCM). Firstly, we examine the insurer-intermediary relationship from the intermediary perspective. Prior research has predominantly focused on the insurer’s viewpoint, neglecting the intermediary’s evaluation of this critical partnership. Secondly, we investigate potential regional variations in insurance SCM practices by comparing two EU countries, Portugal and Ireland. While existing studies acknowledge the importance of effective SCM, comparative analyses across regional contexts within the insurance sector are limited. By addressing these gaps, this study offers valuable insights into the dynamics of the insurance supply chain from the intermediary’s viewpoint and explores potential regional variations within the EU.
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to SCM theory in several ways. First, it highlights the critical role of information and communication technology (ICT) in facilitating efficient distribution and retail management. Second, the findings reinforce the importance of fostering cooperation, alignment, and trust among supply chain partners. Effective collaboration strengthens upstream relationships and contributes to a more adaptable supply chain that can better respond to fluctuating demand.
Furthermore, the research underscores the need for cultural sensitivity within the insurance industry. Our results suggest that insurance companies should adapt their practices to consider the specific cultural contexts of each market they serve. This finding extends the Behavioural Theory of the Firm by demonstrating the influence of national culture on insurance supply chain management practices. In doing so, the study aligns with recent calls for a deeper understanding of cultural influences in business behaviour (Durach and Wiengarten, 2020; Gupta and Gupta, 2019; Goswami et al., 2021).
Managerial implications
This study offers valuable insights for insurance industry management across several European countries. The findings highlight key differences in intermediary practices between Portugal and Ireland compared to countries with a prevalence of tied agents (e.g. France, Germany and Belgium). This distinction has significant ramifications for B2C insurance markets.
The research underscores the critical role of information and communication technology (ICT) in fostering efficient B2B relationships between insurers and intermediaries. This translates to improved responsiveness in B2C markets. Consequently, insurers and intermediaries should prioritize the development of synchronized ICT platforms. Standardized platforms will enhance downstream efficiency throughout the retail market and contribute to stronger cooperation and alignment between these key stakeholders.
Given the importance of contracts within the insurance distribution system, further research is recommended to explore the inclusion of specific ICT-related protocols within contracts between insurers and intermediaries. This could help mitigate the potential bypassing of traditional intermediaries by B2C customers who utilize bancassurance or brand insurance options.
The study also suggests the importance of intermediaries embracing digital transformation efforts. Developing a strong website or call centre presence can enhance customer service and potentially counter the threat of customer disintermediation through bancassurance or brand insurance models (see Figure 2).
This study reveals interesting distinctions in how insurance intermediaries in Portugal and Ireland view Agency Agreements. Irish intermediaries tend to perceive them as more long-term and detailed documents, while Portuguese intermediaries see them as primarily functional. Building on this finding, the authors propose exploring incentive structures based on “gamification” principles within long-term contracts. Such an approach could potentially enhance the longevity and stability of B2C market relationships.
Both Portuguese and Irish intermediaries prioritize staff development, exceeding regulatory requirements in their respective countries. This aligns with Brophy’s (2014) observations regarding the Irish financial services industry’s shift towards enhanced staff training. The study also reveals that Irish insurers are more likely to invest in intermediaries through ICT infrastructure for product sales and continuous professional development programs.
The research underscores the importance of developing strong B2B relationships between insurers and intermediaries, particularly in the context of evolving consumer needs and market disruptions. The COVID-19 pandemic exemplifies the need for agility in adapting product offerings, particularly in non-life insurance sectors like health insurance. The study highlights the challenge faced by some B2B markets in efficiently adjusting supply to meet surging demand. Furthermore, the research points to the increasing frequency of pandemics and cyber threats, emphasizing the need for adaptable B2B distribution channels.
The findings suggest that Irish broker associations play a crucial role in facilitating access to top insurance industry management. The authors recommend that the Portuguese insurance industry consider replicating this approach to enhance communication and collaboration at the B2B level.
The study reveals a potential cultural influence on commitment levels between Portuguese and Irish intermediaries. Portuguese intermediaries appear to demonstrate stronger commitment to insurers through factors like keeping promises and investing in the relationship. The authors recommend formalizing these “informal promises” through long-term contractual provisions.
Limitations and further research
While the sample size here is a clear limitation of this exploratory study, it is possible to observe some factors applicable, not allowing the application of other statistic methods/techniques. The number of intermediaries is in decline in Portugal and Ireland through many merger and acquisition activities. Processes related to SCM within the insurer and intermediary relationship are very streamlined and generic, allowing for a small sample size to present a bigger picture. In future studies, it would be important to have a larger sample, including other European countries. Furthermore, the potential role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions in mitigating risks within the insurance supply chain represents a promising avenue for future research. Investigating how AI can be leveraged to enhance efficiency, manage disruptions, and strengthen B2B relationships could yield valuable insights for the insurance industry.
Figures
Figure 1
Comparison results
Figure 2
Distribution channels of insurers
Items and loadings
| Item | Loading | Alpha | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supply change partnership management | ||||
| Communication | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.81 | |
| We meet frequently with our partners | 0.85 | |||
| We have a formal and flexible communication system with our partners | 0.92 | |||
| We can discuss anything with our partners concerning our mutual benefit | 0.92 | |||
| We can always resolve conflicts through communication with our partners | 0.91 | |||
| Information management | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.73 | |
| We have an advanced information-exchanging system with our partners | 0.88 | |||
| We and our partners can exchange information easily and safely | 0.94 | |||
| We and our partners inform each other in advance of changing needs | 0.84 | |||
| We and our partners are likely to share proprietary information with each other if it can help the other party | 0.83 | |||
| We and our partners can keep the confidentiality of our mutual propriety information | 0.79 | |||
| Asset investment | 0.79 | 0.90 | 0.82 | |
| We have dedicated or reserved equipment to maintain the business relationship with our partners | 0.91 | |||
| We have purchased specialised equipment to maintain the business relationship with our partners | 0.90 | |||
| Human-specific assets | 0.85 | 0.93 | 0.87 | |
| We and our partners personnel regularly visit each other’s facilities | 0.92 | |||
| We and our partners have built a cooperative team to maintain our relationship | 0.95 | |||
| Cooperation | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.89 | |
| We cooperate with our partners with respect to product design | 0.94 | |||
| We cooperate with our partners with respect to process design | 0.95 | |||
| We cooperate with our partners with respect to quality management | 0.94 | |||
| We cooperate with our partners with respect to forecasting and planning | 0.94 | |||
| Alignment | 0.87 | 0.92 | 0.80 | |
| Our main partners are our strategically aligned partners | 0.80 | |||
| We allocate profit evenly with our aligned partners | 0.92 | |||
| We have exclusive strategic partnering alignment with our partners | 0.96 | |||
| Top management support | 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.81 | |
| Top management considers the relationship between us and our partners to be important | 0.84 | |||
| Top management supports our collaboration with the resources we need | 0.90 | |||
| Top management regards SCM as a high-priority item | 0.95 | |||
| Shared vision | 0.86 | 0.91 | 0.78 | |
| We and our partners share mutual understanding about our SCM goals | 0.89 | |||
| We and our partners share mutual understanding about the importance of supply chain collaboration | 0.87 | |||
| We and our partners share mutual understanding about our strategic goals | 0.88 | |||
Source(s): Table by authors
Correlations and the squared root of AVE (on diagonal)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Alignment | 0.90 | |||||||
| 2 Asset investment | 0.32 | 0.91 | ||||||
| 3 Communication | 0.69 | 0.35 | 0.90 | |||||
| 4 Cooperation | 0.85 | 0.19 | 0.65 | 0.94 | ||||
| 5 Human-specific assets | 0.70 | 0.35 | 0.80 | 0.66 | 0.93 | |||
| 6 Information management | 0.63 | 0.40 | 0.75 | 0.66 | 0.56 | 0.86 | ||
| 7 Shared vision | 0.57 | 0.30 | 0.75 | 0.61 | 0.56 | 0.65 | 0.88 | |
| 8 Top management support | 0.64 | 0.54 | 0.79 | 0.65 | 0.77 | 0.71 | 0.75 | 0.90 |
Source(s): Table by authors
Descriptive results and statistical differences
| Dimensions | Items | Ireland | Portugal | Statistical differences |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | We meet frequently with our partners | 3.23 | 3.48 | −0.25a |
| C | We have a formal and flexible communication system with our partners | 3.45 | 3.33 | 0.12a |
| C | We can discuss anything with our partners concerning our mutual benefit | 3.68 | 3.52 | 0.15a |
| C | We can always resolve conflicts through communication with our partners | 3.78 | 2.90 | 0.87a |
| IF | We have an advanced information-exchanging system with our partners | 3.30 | 3.26 | 0.04a |
| IF | We and our partners can exchange information easily and safely | 3.35 | 3.57 | −0.22a |
| IF | We and our partners inform each other in advance of changing needs | 3.45 | 3.29 | 0.16a |
| IF | We and our partners are likely to share proprietary information with each other if it can help the other party | 3.43 | 3.17 | 0.25a |
| IF | We and our partners can keep the confidentiality of our mutual propriety information | 3.65 | 3.71 | −0.07a |
| AG | We consider the agency agreement to be an important way to do business with our partners | 3.63 | 4.00 | −0.38a |
| AG | We signed a detailed legal agency agreement with our partners | 3.78 | 3.52 | 0.25a |
| AG | We signed a relatively long-term agency agreement with our partners | 3.61 | 3.00 | 0.61a |
| AI | We have dedicated or reserved equipment to maintain the business relationship with our partners | 3.56 | 3.75 | −0.19a |
| AI | We have purchased specialised equipment to maintain the business relationship with our partners | 3.64 | 3.59 | 0.05a |
| HSA | We and our partners' personnel regularly visit each other’s facilities | 3.33 | 3.26 | 0.06a |
| HSA | We and our partners have built a cooperative team to maintain our relationship | 3.64 | 3.76 | −0.12a |
| CO | We meet frequently with our partners | 3.23 | 3.48 | −0.25a |
| CO | We cooperate with our partners with respect to product design | 3.20 | 3.24 | −0.04a |
| CO | We cooperate with our partners with respect to process design | 3.28 | 3.30 | −0.03a |
| CO | We cooperate with our partners with respect to quality management | 3.38 | 3.29 | 0.09a |
| AL | We cooperate with our partners with respect to forecasting and planning | 3.24 | 3.17 | 0.06a |
| AL | Our main partners are our strategically aligned partners | 3.50 | 3.30 | 0.20a |
| AL | We allocate profit evenly with our aligned partners | 3.28 | 3.24 | 0.04a |
| AL | We have exclusive strategic partnering alignment with our partners | 3.33 | 3.04 | 0.28a |
| TMS | Top management considers the relationship between us and our partners to be important | 3.63 | 3.43 | 0.19a |
| TMS | Top management supports our collaboration with the resources we need | 3.53 | 3.24 | 0.29a |
| TMS | Top management regards SCM as a high-priority item | 3.53 | 3.39 | 0.13a |
| COM | We and our partners always try to keep each other’s promises | 3.50 | 4.05 | −0.55a |
| COM | We have invested a lot of effort in the relationship with our partners | 3.80 | 3.90 | −0.10a |
| COM | We and our partners have made sacrifices for each other in the past | 3.60 | 3.55 | 0.06a |
| COM | We and our partners are concerned about each other’s welfare | 3.63 | 3.89 | −0.27a |
| T | Our partners have been open and honest in dealing with us | 3.58 | 3.55 | 0.03a |
| T | We feel that we can trust our partners completely | 3.43 | 3.45 | −0.03a |
| T | Our partners respect the confidentiality of the information they receive from us | 3.75 | 3.80 | −0.05a |
| T | Our transactions with trading partners do not have to be closely supervised | 3.70 | 3.45 | 0.25a |
| SV | We and our partners share mutual understanding about our SCM goals | 3.49 | 3.32 | 0.17a |
| SV | We and our partners share mutual understanding about the importance of supply chain collaboration | 3.64 | 3.40 | 0.24a |
| SV | We and our partners share mutual understanding about our strategic goals | 3.53 | 3.36 | 0.16a |
Note(s): aMann-Whitney U test Point of Probability in all items below 0.01
Source(s): Table by authors
The authors are very grateful to the Editor (Professor Enrique Bigné), to the Associate Editor (Professor Paulo Rita) and to the anonymous reviewers for their thorough and thoughtful reports.
References
Ahmed, D., Yuantao, X. and Saeed Bhutta, U. (2022), “Insurers' risk management as a business process: a prospective competitive advantage or not?”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 345-366, doi: 10.1108/ejmbe-08-2021-0221.
Alt, M.A., Saplacan, Z., Benedek, B. and Nagy, B.Z. (2021), “Digital touchpoints and multichannel segmentation approach in the life insurance industry”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 652-677, doi: 10.1108/ijrdm-02-2020-0040.
Attaran, M. (2020), “Digital technology enablers and their implications for supply chain management”, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 158-172, doi: 10.1080/16258312.2020.1751568.
Backstrand, J. and Fredriksson, A. (2020), “The role of supplier information availability for construction supply chain performance”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 33 Nos 9-10, pp. 863-874, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1837933.
Banker, S. (2021a), “Megatrends reshaping supply chain management”, Forbes, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2021/02/01/megatrends-reshaping-supply-chain-management/?sh=6ca5f1004d61 (accessed February 2021).
Banker, S. (2021b), “Supply chain talent is more important than ever”, Forbes, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2021/03/10/supply-chain-talent-is-more-important-than-ever/?sh=32ba1d675e19 (accessed March 2021).
Belzuz (2019), “The new legal framework concerning insurance and reinsurance distribution”, Belzus, available at: https://www.belzuz.com/pt/publicacoes/en-ingles/item/10778-insurance-and-reinsurance-distribution-portugal.html (accessed December 2020).
Bigné, E. and Blesa, A. (2003), “Market orientation, trust, and satisfaction in dyadic relationships: a manufacturer-retailer analysis”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 574-590, doi: 10.1108/09590550310503302.
Brophy, R. (2013), “Bancassurance: an insurance concept from an Irish perspective”, Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 319-333, doi: 10.1108/jfrc-12-2012-0052.
Brophy, R. (2014), “Financial services education: an Irish perspective”, Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 78-95, doi: 10.1108/jfrc-10-2013-0037.
Brophy, R. (2015), “A collection of insurance brands: the story of RSA in Ireland”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, 1067567, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2015.1067567.
Brophy, R. (2017), “Will Brexit affect the insurance industry? An Irish study”, Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 156-163, doi: 10.1177/0269094217706307.
Brophy, R. (2019), “Blockchain and insurance: a review for operations and regulation”, Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 215-234, doi: 10.1108/jfrc-09-2018-0127.
Castelli, C. and Brun, A. (2010), “Alignment of retail channels in the fashion supply chain: an empirical study of Italian fashion retailers”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-44, doi: 10.1108/09590551011016313.
Chen, M. and Lai, G.C. (2010), “Distribution systems, loyalty, and performance”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 698-718, doi: 10.1108/09590551011062448.
Chen, J., Sohal, A.S. and Prajogo, D.I. (2009), “The role of culture in Supply Chain risk Management in China”, Proceedings of the 23rd ANZAM Conference 2009.
Chiu, C.L., Ho, H.-C., Yu, T., Liu, Y. and Mo, Y. (2021), “Exploring information technology success of Augmented Reality retail applications in retail food chain”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 61, 102561, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102561.
Clarke, C. and Tooker, L. (2018), “Social finance meets financial innovation: Contemporary experiments in payments, money, and debt”, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 3-11, doi: 10.1177/0263276417746467.
Craighead, C.W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M.J. and Handfield, R.B. (2007), “The severity of supply chain disruptions: design characteristics and mitigation capabilities”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 131-156, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.x.
D'Avolio, E., Bandinelli, R., Pero, M. and Rinaldi, R. (2015), “Exploring replenishment in the luxury fashion Italian firms: evidence from case studies”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Nos 10/11, pp. 967-987, doi: 10.1108/ijrdm-07-2014-0098.
Daniel, J. (2012), Sampling Essentials: Practical Guidelines for Making Sampling Choices, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Danise, A. (2021), “The best life insurance companies June 2021”, Forbes, available at: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/life-insurance/best-life-insurance-companies/ (accessed May 2021).
Das, P., Verburg, R., Verbraeck, A. and Bonebakker, L. (2018), “Barriers to innovation within large financial services firms: an in-depth study into disruptive and radical innovation projects at a bank”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 92-112, doi: 10.1108/ejim-03-2017-0028.
Dominique-Ferreira, S. (2017), “How important is the strategic order of product attribute presentation in the non-life insurance market?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 34, pp. 138-144, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.09.013.
Dominique-Ferreira, S. (2018), “The key role played by intermediaries in the retail insurance distribution”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 46 Nos 11/12, pp. 1170-1192, doi: 10.1108/ijrdm-10-2017-0234.
Dominique-Ferreira, S., Rodrigues, B. and Braga, R. (2021), “Personal marketing and the recruitment and selection process: hiring attributes and particularities in tourism and hospitality”, Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Sciences, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 351-371, doi: 10.1080/21639159.2020.1808845.
Durach, C.F. and Wiengarten, F. (2020), “Supply chain integration and national collectivism”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 224, 107543, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107543.
Eckardt, M. and Rathke-Doppner, S. (2010), “The quality of insurance intermediary services – empirical evidence for Germany”, Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 667-701, doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6975.2010.01361.x.
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority EIOPA (2020), “Call to action for insurers and intermediaries to mitigate the impact of Coronavirus/COVID-19 on consumers”, available at: https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/content/call-action-insurers-and-intermediaries-mitigate-impact-coronaviruscovid-19-consumers (accessed March 2021).
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority EIOPA (2021), “Final report on draft regulatory technical standards”, available at: https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/reports/jc-2021-03-joint-esas-final-report-on-rts-under-sfdr.pdf (accessed March 2021).
Engelen, A. and Brettel, M. (2011), “Assessing cross-cultural marketing theory and research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 516-523, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.04.008.
Fatorachian, H. and Kazemi, H. (2020), “Impact of industry 4.0 on supply chain performance”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 63-81, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1712487.
Fernandes, F.S. (2020), “Intermediaries are key parts for insurers”, Business Journal, available at: https://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/negocios-iniciativas/seguros/detalhe/os-mediadores-sao-pecas-chave-para-as-seguradoras (accessed February 2021).
Fernando, Y. and Wulansari, P. (2020), “Perceived understanding of supply chain integration, communication and teamwork competency in the global manufacturing companies”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 191-210, doi: 10.1108/ejmbe-06-2020-0157.
François, P. and Frezal, S. (2018), “Instituer l’incohérence. Aléa et hétérogénéité au sein du secteur assuranciel”, Sociologie du Travail, Vol. 60 No. 1, doi: 10.4000/sdt.1718.
Gara, A. (2021), “Forbes Global 2000: the world's largest insurance companies in 2021”, Forbes, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2021/05/13/forbes-global-2000-the-worlds-largest-insurance-companies-in-2021/?sh=cd68bba160b9 (accessed May 2021).
Goswami, A.K., Agrawal, R.K. and Goswami, M. (2021), “Influence of national culture on knowledge management process: literature review and research agenda”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1186-1212, doi: 10.1108/bij-04-2020-0171.
Grewal, D., Gauri, D., Roggeveen, A. and Sethuraman, R. (2021), “Strategising retailing in the new technology era”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 6-12.
Guan, X., Mantrala, M. and Bian, Y. (2019), “Strategic information management in a distribution channel”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 42-56, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2019.01.001.
Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2004), “Information systems in supply chain integration and management”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 269-295, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2003.08.016.
Gupta, M. and Gupta, S. (2019), “Influence of national cultures on operations management and supply chain management practices – a research agenda”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 2681-2698, doi: 10.1111/poms.13100.
Hänninen, M., Luoma, J. and Mitronen, L. (2021), “Information standards in retailing? A review and future outlook”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 131-149, doi: 10.1080/09593969.2020.1845224.
Hilliard, J., Regan, L. and Tennyson, S. (2013), “Insurance distribution”, in Handbook of Insurance, Springer, New York, NY.
Hofstede, G.H. (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work—Related Values, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Hofstede, G.H. (1991), Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hong, S.-J., Kwon, I.-W. and Li, J. (2014), “Assessing the perception of supply chain risk and partnerships using importance-performance analysis model: a case study of SMEs in China and Korea”, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 110-125, doi: 10.1080/16258312.2014.11517344.
Hu, T.-I. and Tracogna, A. (2020), “Multichannel customer journeys and their determinants: evidence from motor insurance”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 54 May, 102022, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102022.
Ketchen, D.J. and Craighead, C.W. (2020), “Research at the intersection of entrepreneurship, Supply Chain Management, and strategic management: opportunities highlighted by COVID-19”, Journal of Management, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 1330-1341, doi: 10.1177/0149206320945028.
Krafft, M., Kumar, V., Harmeling, C., Singh, S., Zhu, T., Chen, J., Duncan, T., Fortin, W. and Rosa, E. (2020), “Insight is power: understanding the terms of the consumer-firm data exchange”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 133-149, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2020.11.001.
KRC Research (2013), “The struggling supply chain”, available at: https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/supply_chain_infographic.pdf (accessed January 2021).
Kumar, S. and Anbanandam, R. (2019), “Impact of risk management culture on supply chain resilience: an empirical study from Indian manufacturing industry”, Journal of Risk and Reliability, Vol. 234 No. 2, pp. 246-259, doi: 10.1177/1748006x19886718.
La Londe, B. and Masters, J. (1994), “Emerging logistics strategies: blueprints for the next century”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 35-47, doi: 10.1108/09600039410070975.
Leiria, M., Matos, N. and Rebelo, E. (2020), “Non-life insurance cancellation: a systematic quantitative literature review”, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 593-613, doi: 10.1057/s41288-020-00187-2.
Leiria, M., Rebelo, E. and de Matos, N. (2022), “Measuring the effectiveness of intermediary loyalty programmes in the motor insurance industry: loyal versus non-loyal customers”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 305-324, doi: 10.1108/ejmbe-05-2020-0103.
Lin, J. and Wu, C.Y. (2011), “The role of expected future use in relationship-based service retention”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 535-551, doi: 10.1108/09604521111159816.
Li, Z., Cai, C. and Xu, B. (2010), “Supply chain coordination with insurance contract”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 205 No. 2, pp. 339-345, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2010.01.013.
Liu, Y., Liu, Z.-y., Ren, W.-W, Yi, J. and Forrest, L. (2020a), “A coordination mechanism through relational contract in a two-echelon supply chain”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 56, 102156, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102156.
Liu, Y., Wang, D.-D. and Xu, Q. (2020b), “A supply chain coordination mechanism with suppliers' effort performance level and fairness concern”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 53, 101950, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101950.
Mao, H. and Ostaszewski, K. (2023), “Pricing reinsurance and determining optimal retention based on the criterion of maximizing social expected utility”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 395-416, doi: 10.1108/ejmbe-06-2022-0194.
Mazero, J. (2019), “Excellence in supply chain management requires supply chain expertise in the boardroom”, Forbes, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joycemazero/2019/11/05/excellence-in-supply-chain-management-requires-supply-chain-expertise-in-the-boardroom/?sh=33aa19374066 (accessed November 2019).
Moreno, I., Parrado-Martínez, P. and Trujillo-Ponce, A. (2022), “Using the Z-score to analyze the financial soundness of insurance firms”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 22-39, doi: 10.1108/ejmbe-09-2020-0261.
Nowicka, K. (2018), “Trust in digital supply chain management”, Logistics and Transport, Vol. 3 No. 39, pp. 59-64, doi: 10.26411/83-1734-2015-3-39-3-18.
Palsule, H. (2020), “What is the future of supply chain management?”, Forbes, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/04/02/what-is-the-future-of-supply-chain-management/?sh=6cd2e71653cc (accessed April 2021).
Perrigot, R., Basset, G., Briand, D. and Cliquet, G. (2019), “Network uniformity and risk of reclassification of the franchise contract”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 42 No. 10, pp. 884-901, doi: 10.1108/ijrdm-06-2013-0129.
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L. and Fiksel, J. (2019), “The evolution of resilience in Supply Chain Management: a retrospective on ensuring Supply Chain resilience”, Journal of Business Logistics: Strategic Supply Chain Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 56-65, doi: 10.1111/jbl.12202.
Prajogo, D. and Olhager, J. (2012), “Supply chain integration and performance: the effects of long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 514-522, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.09.001.
Prentice, C., Dominique-Ferreira, S. and Wang, X. (2023), “Supply chain management in the insurance industry – symmetrical and asymmetrical analysis”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 11, pp. 2505-2518, doi: 10.1108/jbim-07-2022-0305.
PwC Ireland and Insurance Ireland Leaders (2020), “PwC Ireland and Insurance Ireland Leaders' Survey 2020 reveals resilience and reinvention essential to manage uncertainty”, available at: https://www.pwc.ie/media-centre/press-release/2020/insurance-ireland-leader-survey.html (accessed February 2021).
Rita, P. and Krapfel, R. (2004), “Collaboration and competition in buyer-seller relations: the role of information in Supply Chain and e-procurement impacted relationships”, Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. 27, pp. 98-105.
Samaha, S.A., Beck, J.T. and Plamatier, R.W. (2014), “The role of culture in international relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 September, pp. 78-98, doi: 10.1509/jm.13.0185.
Schniederjans, D., Curado, C. and Khalajhedayati, M. (2020), “Supply chain digitisation trends: an integration of knowledge management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 220, 107439, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.012.
Shamim, S., Cang, S. and Yu, H. (2019), “Impact of knowledge-oriented leadership on knowledge management behaviour through employee work attitudes”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 30 No. 16, pp. 2387-2417, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1323772.
Shankar, V., Kalyanam, K., Setia, P., Golmohammadi, A., Tirunillai, S., Douglass, T., Hennessey, J., Bull, J.H. and Waddoups, R. (2021), “How technology is changing retail”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 13-27, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2020.10.006.
Sharma, A., Cosguner, K., Sharma, T.K. and Motiani, M. (2021), “Channel intermediaries and manufacturer performance: an exploratory investigation in an emerging market”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 639-657, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2020.09.005.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S. and Ullman, J.B. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, Pearson, Boston.
Tang, C., Liu, Y., Oh, H. and Weitz, B. (2014), “Socialisation tactics of new retail employees: a pathway to organisational commitment”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 62-73, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2013.11.002.
Tanner, K. (2018), Research Methods, 2nd ed., Elsevier, Cambridge.
Twing-Kwong, S., Albaum, L.G. and Fullgrabe, L. (2013), “Trust in customer-salesperson relationship in China's retail sector”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 226-248, doi: 10.1108/09590551311306264.
Weissman, R. (2017), “How contracts help define supplier performance”, Supply Chain Dive, available at: https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/contract-management-supplier-performance-UCC/446811/ (accessed February 4 2021)
Wieland, A. (2021), “Dancing the supply chain: toward transformative SCM”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 58-73, doi: 10.1111/jscm.12248.
Yates, J.F. and de Oliveira, S. (2016), “Culture and decision making”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 136, September, pp. 106-118, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.003.
Yu, T.-W. and Tseng, L.-M. (2016), “The role of salespeople in developing life insurance customer loyalty”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 22-37, doi: 10.1108/ijrdm-06-2014-0074.
Further reading
Dominique-Ferreira, S., Vasconcelos, H. and Proença, J. (2016), “Determinants of customer price sensitivity: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 327-340, doi: 10.1108/jsm-12-2014-0409.
European Union (EU) (2009), “Private health insurance in the European Union. Final report prepared for the European Commission”, Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. European Union.
Farquhar, J. and Meidan, A. (2010), Marketing of Financial Services, 2nd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Harrison, T. and Estelami, H. (2015), “Financial services marketing in a post-crisis era”, in The Routledge Companion to Financial Services Marketing, Routledge, Abington, pp. 1-9.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathanb, B., Ragu-Nathanb, T.S. and Raob, S.S. (2006), “The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organisational performance”, Omega, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 107-124, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2004.08.002.
Liu, J., Feng, Y., Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2018), “Green supply chain management and the circular economy: reviewing theory for advancement of both fields”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 794-817, doi: 10.1108/ijpdlm-01-2017-0049.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by national funds through FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC): UNIAG, UIDB/00690/2020 (DOI 10.54499/UIDB/04752/2020) and UIDP/00690/2020 (DOI 10.54499/UIDP/04752/2020).
Corresponding author
About the authors
Sérgio Dominique-Ferreira is an Adjunct Professor of Marketing at the Polytechnic Institute of Cavado and Ave, Portugal. He holds a PhD in Business and Management Studies (Marketing and Strategy). He has previously published articles in relevant journals, such as: Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science. He also won several awards in Conferences (best paper, best presentation), including invitations to serve as Keynote speaker at International Conferences.
Richard Brophy is an experienced director of an insurance brokerage and academic, Richard Brophy has an academic interest in retailing financial services. Richard holds a Bachelor of Arts, Business degree from the University of Glamorgan, a Masters of Business Studies from Dublin City University, PhD in Financial Services from the University of South Wales and other professional qualifications in marketing, corporate governance, insurance and financial planning. He has previously published articles on rebranding and regulation in the insurance industry and won the Highly Commended Award from the Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance.
Catherine Prentice is Full Professor of Marketing at the University of Southern Queensland, Australia, and the director of Asia Pacific Association for Gambling Studies. Prior to her academic career, Catherine had worked in various industries for over a decade as a business owner and as a senior corporate executive. She currently serves as Acting Director of Research, Associate Editor (AE) of Service Industries Journal, AE of Tourism Review and AE of Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science. And an editorial board member of Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Journal of Hospitality and Marketing Management, Service Industries Journal, Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Tourism Review, Australasia Marketing Journal.