Do the Factors Affecting Incoterms® Selection Differ for Exporters and Importers? A Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (Fahp) Application

• Autorzy: Tugce Danacı Unal , Ismail Metin

Warianty tytułu

Czynniki wyboru warunków Incoterms® wśród eksporterów i importerów - aplikacja (Fahp) dla Rozmytej analizy hierarchicznego procesu

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

Wstęp: Są dostępne badania analizujące jakie czynniki i w jaki sposób wpływają na wybór warunków Incoterms®, jednak istotność wagi poszczególnych czynników osobno dla eksporterów i importerów nie są należycie zbadana. Praca ta ma na celu uzupełnienie tej luki w badaniach poprzez zbadania wpływu wyboru warunków Incoterms® oraz sprawdzenie czy są różnice pomiędzy importerami i eksporterami. W tym celu przeprowadzone analizę wagi poszczególnych czynników dla obu grup. Metody: Stworzono model koncepcyjny oparty na różnych podejściach, poprzednich badaniach oraz decyzjach ekspertów. Dane zostały zebrane poprzez pocztę mailową od 19 eksporterów Incoterms®, wśród których 9 jest importerami, a 10 eksporterami. Następnie przeprowadzono analizę Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) przy zastosowaniu średniej geometrycznej w celu określenia istotności wag poszczególnych kryteriów. Wyniki: W wyniku przeprowadzonej analizy stwierdzono, że najistotniejszym czynnikiem wpływającym na wybór INCOTERMS zarówno dla eksporterów, jak i dla importerów są koszty transportu, podczas gdy najmniej istotnym czynnikiem jest wielkość firmy. Istotność czterech czynników: relacje ze spedycjami, typ wyrobów, kompleksowość transportu oraz odległość, różniła się w zależności od grupy. Relacje ze spedytorami oraz odległość były istotniejszym czynnikiem dla eksporterów, podczas gdy typ wyrobów i kompleksowość transportu miały większe znaczenie dla importerów. Wnioski: W trakcie badania ustalono, że czynniki związane z kosztami mają istotniejszy wpływ na podejmowane decyzje oraz, że z kilkoma wyjątkami, nie ma istotnych różnic pomiędzy czynnikami wpływającymi na decyzję pomiędzy importerami a eksporterami. Mała próba badawcza złożona dodatkowo z przedsiębiorstw operujących w różnych sektorach gospodarki były głównymi ograniczenia tych badań. Niemniej mogą one stanowić podstawę do dalszych pogłębionych badań w tym zakresie.(abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

Background: There are a few studies that have findings regarding the factors affecting Incoterms® selection decisions, however, the importance weights of the factors weren't revealed prominently for importers and exporters separately. This study intends to overcome this gap by examining the factors that influence Incoterms® selections to find out whether there are any differences or not between exporters and importers. For this purpose, we analyzed the importance weights of each factor and ranked them for both two parties. Methods: We constructed a conceptual model based on different approaches, previous studies and expert decisions. Data were collected from 19 experts, 9 of whom are importers and 10 are exporters, via e-mail. We conducted Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) with the geometric mean method to find out the importance weights of each criterion. Results: Findings of the study revealed that the most important factor influencing the selection of international commercial terms for both exporters and importers is "transportation costs" while the least important one is "firm size". Four factors which are "relations with forwarding agents, type of goods, complexity of transportation and distance" differ according to importers and exporters in their selections. Relations with forwarding agents and distance are found to be more influential for exporters while the type of goods and complexity of transportation are more effective for importers. Conclusions: We conclude that cost related factors are the most influential ones and apart from a few factors, there is no significant divergence between the selection decisions of importers and exporters. The small sample size and the sample consisting of companies operating in different sectors in a particular region are among the limitations of the study. We suppose that the factors determined in this study will contribute to future studies with a larger sample using different analysis methods.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Handel zagraniczny; Import; Eksport

EN

Foreign trade; Import; Export

• Czasopismo: LogForum
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: 17
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 299-309

Twórcy

autor

Tugce Danacı Unal

• Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey

autor

Ismail Metin

• Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey

Bibliografia

• Barney J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17, 1, 99-120, http://doi.org/10.1177/01492063910170010 8
• Baslangic S.Ö., 2015. Main features of changes in Incoterms 2010, Manas Journal of Social Studies, 4, 5, 73-84. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/articlefile/ 577270
• Bello D.C., Briggs F, 2009. Global channels of distribution, in Kotabe, M. and Helsen, K. (Ed.), International Marketing, Sage Publications, London, 398-412.
• Bergami R., 2012. Incoterms 2010: The newest revision of delivery terms. Acta Universitatis Bohemiae Meridionalis, 15, 2, 33-40. http://repec.ef.jcu.cz/acta/article/download/ 420/412
• Bergami R., 2013. Managing Incoterms 2010 risks: Tension with trade and banking practices, International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 6, 3, 324-338, http://doi.org/10.1504/ijebr.2013.056126
• Blanco E.E., Ponce-Cueto E., 2015. Modeling the cost of international trade in global supply chains, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ESD Working Paper Series, ESD-WP-2015-05, 1-22. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/97645
• Buckley J.J., 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 3, 233-247, http://doi.org/10.1016/0165- 0114(85)90090-9
• DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, 48, 2, 147-160, http://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
• Duncan R.B., 1972. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 3, 313-327, http://doi.org/10.2307/2392145
• Erramilli M.K., 1992. Influence of some external and internal environmental factors on foreign market entry mode choice in service firms, Journal of Business Research, 25, 4, 263-276, http://doi.org/10.1016/0148- 2963(92)90024-6
• Hien N., Laporte G., Roy J., 2009. Business environment factors, Incoterms selection and export performance, Operations and Supply Chain Management, 2, 2, 63-78, http://doi.org/10.31387/oscm040017
• Hsieh, T. Y., Lu, S. T., Tzeng, G. H. 2004. Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings, International Journal of Project Management, 22, 7, 573-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01. 002
• ICC, 2021a. Incoterms® 2020. https://iccwbo.org/resources-forbusiness/ incoterms-rules/incoterms-2020/ (01/30/2021)
• ICC, 2021b. Incoterms® rules history. https://iccwbo.org/resources-forbusiness/ Incoterms-rules/Incoterms-ruleshistory/ (01/30/2021)
• Lee A.H., Chen W.C., Chang C.J., 2008. A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan, Expert Systems with Applications, 34, 1, 96-107, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.08.022
• Malfliet J., 2011. Incoterms 2010 and the mode of transport: How to choose the right term. Proceedings - Management Challenges in the 21st Century: Transport and Logistics: Opportunity for Slovakia in the Era of Knowledge Economy 163-179. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/1212622
• Rosal I.D., 2016. Factors influencing the choice of delivery terms used in Spanish seaborne container trade, International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 8, 3, 318-333, http://doi.org/10.1504/ijstl.2016.076261
• Saaty T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of Services Sciences, 1, 1, 83-98, http://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSci.2008.01759
• Sari E.B., 2020. Recovery alternatives decision by using fuzzy based preference selection index method, Logforum, 16, 1, 171-181, http://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2020.386
• Shangina O.A., 2007. Main factors in choice of delivery terms. A multiple case study of Japanese and Russian importers in seafood trade with Norway, master's thesis, Department of Social and Marketing Studies, Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø. https://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/969
• Stapleton D.M., Pande V., O'Brien D., 2014. EXW, FOB or FCA? Choosing the right incoterm and why it matters to maritime shippers, Journal of Transportation Law, Logistics & Policy, 81, 3, 227-248. https://trid.trb.org/view/1350272
• Suraraksa J., Amchang C., Sawatwong N., 2020. Decision-making on Incoterms 2020 of automotive parts manufacturers in Thailand, The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7, 10, 461-470, http://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no1 0.461
• Williamson O.E., 1981. The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach, American Journal of Sociology, 87, 3, 548-577, http://doi.org/10.1086/227496.
• Yaakub S., Szu L.Y., 2017. Factors influencing the choice of Incoterms among Malaysian manufacturers. Proceedings - 6th International Conference on Social Science Research 1-11. http://repo.uum.edu.my/23069/
• Yaakub S., Szu L.Y., Arbak S., Halim N.A., 2018. Incoterms selection factors and its effect on export performance, Journal of Advanced Research in Business, Marketing and Supply Chain Management, 2, 1, 9-18. https://www.jarims.aibma.org/images/vol22 018/sbppg9-18.pdf
• Yilmaz M., Ozken A., Sahin N., 2011. The comparative analysis of Incoterms 2000 and 2010 and deficiencies in their implementations in Turkey, Journal of Yasar University, 23, 6, 3814-3825. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jyasar/issue/1 9135/203055
• Yiu D., Makino S., 2002. The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective, Organization Science, 13, 6, 667-683, http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.667.494
• Zadeh L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, 8, 3, 338-353, http://doi.org/10.1016/S0019- 9958(65)90241-X
• Zadeh L.A., 1983. Linguistic variables, approximate reasoning and dispositions, Medical Informatics, 8, 3, 173-186, http://doi.org/10.3109/14639238309016081

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17270/J.LOG.2021.585