Boyer, Kenneth K. and G. Tomas M. Hult, “Extending the Supply Chain: Integrating Operations and Marketing in the Online Grocery Industry,” Journal of Operations Management, 2005, Vol.23, No.6, pp.642-661.
Camuffo, A., Furlan, A., Rettore E., “Risk sharing in supplier relations:
an agency model for the Italian air-conditioning industry”, Strategic Management Journal, 2007, Vol.28, pp.1257-1266.
Capkun, V., Hameri, A. P. & Weiss, L.A., “On the relationship between inventory and financial performance in manufacturing companies,”
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 2009, Vo.29, No.8, pp.789-806.
Chen, H., Frank, M. Z. & Wu, O. Q., “What actually happened to inventories of American companies between 1981 and 2000?”
Management Science, 2005, Vol.51, No.7, pp.1015-1031.
Cowley, P.R., “Market structure and business performance: An evaluation of buyer/seller power in the PIMS database,” Strategic Management Journal, 1988, Vol. 9, pp.271-278.
Danielson, M. and J. Scott, “Additional evidence on the use of trade credit by small firms: The role of trade credit discounts,” Working Paper Working Paper, SSRN Electronic Library, 2000.
Deloof, M, “Does working capital management affect profitability of Belgian firms?” Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 2003,
참고문헌 87
Vol.30, pp.573-587.
Elliehausen, G. E. and J. D. Wolken, “ The demand for trade credit:
An investigation of motives for trade credit use by small business,”
Board of Governonrs of the Federal Reserve System, 1993.
Fazzari S. M. and B. Petersen, “Working Capital and Fixed Investment: New evidence on Financing Constraints,” Rand Journal of Economics, 1993, Vol.24, 328-342.
Galbraith, C. S. and C. H. Stiles, “Firm profitability and relative firm power,” Strategic Management Journal 4, 1983, pp.237-249.
Galbraith, J. K., American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing power., Boson, MA: Houghton Mifflin., 1952.
Hennart, J. F., “The transaction cost theory of the multinational enterprise,” The nature of the transnational firm, 1991.
Jackson, B, “Winning and Keeping Industrial Customers: The Dynamics of customer relationships,” Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985.
Kalwani, M. U., and N. Narayandas, “Long term manufacturer-supplier relationships: do they pay off for supplier firms?” Journal of Marketing, 1995, Vol.59, pp.1-16.
Ketchen, D. J. and L. C. Guinipero, The intersection of strategic management and supply chain management, Industrial Marketing Management, 2004, Vol.33, No.1, pp.51-56.
Kinney, M. R., and W.F. Wempe, “Further evidence on the extent and origins of JIT's profitability effects,” Review of Industrial Organization, Vol.17, 2000, pp.41-59.
Lustgarten, S., “The impact of buyer concentration in manufacturing
88 대기업 협력업체의 성과분석
industries,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 1975, Vol. 57, No.2, pp.125-132.
Matsumura, E. L., and J. D. Schloetzer, “Strong Buyers and Inter Organizational Cost Management,” Working Paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Georgetown University, 2009.
Patatoukas, P., “Customer-base Concentration: Implications for Firm Performance and Capital Markets,” The Accounting Review, 2011, Vol. 87, No.2, pp363-392.
Peel, M. and N. Wilson, “Working capital and financial management practices in the small firm sector,” International small Business Journal, 1996, Vol.14, pp.52-68.
Petersen, M. A. and R. G. Rajan, “Trade credit: Theories and evidence,”
Review of Financial Studies, 1997, Vol.10, pp. 661-693.
Porter, M. E., “Consumer behavior, retailer power and market performance in consumer goods industries,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 1974, Vol.56, No.4, pp.419-436.
Scherer, F. M., “Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance,” Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1970.
Shin, H. H. and I. Soenen, “Efficiency of working capital and corporate profitability” Financial Practice and Education, 1998, Vol.8, pp.37-45.
Swamidass, P. M., “The effect of TPS on US manufacturing during 1991-1998: Inventory increased or decreased as a function of plant performance,” International Journal of Production Research, 2007, Vol.45, No.16, pp.3763-3778 .
강선민 수 위탁 기업의 경영성과 분석 정책연구 한국경제연구원, “ , ,” , ,
참고문헌 89
2010.
김경묵 대중소기업 간 협력 성과의 공유 성과공유제도와 협력이익배, “ : 분제도 비교 한국 경영학회,” , KBR,제 권 제 호16 , 1 , 2012, pp.51-79.
김금숙 대중소기업 상생협력의 유형별 사례분석 의사결정학연구, “ ,” , 제 권 제 호19 , 1 , 2011, pp.111-130.
김승일 대중소기업의 납품거래 실태조사 기본연구 중소기업연구, “ ,” , 원, 2008.
김영산 기업간의 수직적 관계가 판매기업의 수익성에 미치는 영향, “ ,”
한국산업조직학회 제 권 제 호, 7 , 1 , 1999.
김유경 진태홍 한재화 자본구조와 협력업체의 관계특수적 투자, , , “ ,”
재무관리연구, 2012 제 권 제 호29 , 4 , pp.115-137.
김재원 모기업 협력업체간의 관계개선에 관한 연구 생산성논집, “ - ,” , 제 권 제 호
1998 12 , 3 , pp.61-77.
박승록 최두열 대기업 투자의 적하효과 분석 한국경제연구학회, , “ ,” , 제 권 제 호29 , 4 , 2011.
박주식 대 중소기업 협력활동이 중소기업의 동반성장 인식에 미치는, “ , 영향에 관한 탐색적 연구,” POSRI경영경제연구, 2011,제 권 제 호11 , 3 , pp.105-129.
신민식 김수은 중소기업의 운전자본관리와 수익성간의 관계 중소기, , “ ,”
업연구 제 권 제 호, 30 , 4 , 2011, pp.17-33.
심상규 중소기업의 대기업 매출비율과 수익성간의 관계 중소기업연, “ ” 구 제 권 제 호, 33 , 4 , 2011.
이경의 현대중소기업경제론 지식산업사, , , 2002.
이병기 대기업 성장의 협력기업 낙수효과 분석 한국경제연구원, “ ,” , 2012.
90 대기업 협력업체의 성과분석
이병기 신석훈 강선민 수 위탁기업간 납품단가결정의 문제점과, , , “ ? 과제 정책연구 한국경제연구원,” , , 2010.
이장우 강용운 대 중소기업간 협력이 기술혁신 성과에 미치는 영향에, , “ -관한 탐색적 연구 중소기업연구,” , 2006,제 권 제 호28 , 3 , pp. 243-265.
이재은 최순규 제품다각화 및 고객다각화가 한국 자동차 부품업체의, , “ 재무적 경영성과에 미치는 영향 벤처경영연구,” , 2010,제 권 제 호13 , 2 , pp.69-89.
정남기 대기업과 협력기업의 경영성과 분석 기본연구 중소기업연구, “ ,” , 원, 2007.
정남기 정재호, , “2007년 대기업과 협력기업의 경영성과 분석 기본연”, 구 중소기업연구원, , 2008.
정세은 정승일 완성차 업체와 차 대규모 협력업체와의 동반 성장, , “ 1 실태 연구 중소기업연구,” , 2013, 제 권 제 호35 2 pp187-212.
주현 최근 경제위기에 따른 하도급 거래의 현안 및 시사점 산업경제, “ ,”
정보, 2007, 제432 .호
Abstract 91
Abstract
An Analysis of the Supplier Performance -On the suppliers of 4 largest group affiliated
firms-Hyun - Han Shin (Professor of Finance, School of Business of Yonsei University)
So - Yeon Kim (Post-doctoral Researcher, School of Business of Yonsei University)
In this study, we focused on the business relations between small suppliers and large buyers to examine how the buyer-supplier relationship affects small supplying companies. In particular, we focused on analyzing large business groups (Samsung, LG, SK, and Hyundai Motors) that are subject to the regulation. In the result of the analysis, we can see that the performance of buyers has a positive relationship with the performance of suppliers. With the exception of the gross profit margin, performance of buyers and performance of suppliers are moving in the same direction. It is unlikely that buyers are exploiting suppliers in order to improve their own performance and dropping the performance of suppliers.
The performance of buyers has a positive effect on suppliers, but suppliers could have been able to make more profit if it were not in a buyer-supplier relationship with large companies. In order to verify this, this paper compares the performance between the
92 대기업 협력업체의 성과분석
suppliers and non-suppliers. In the result of the study, suppliers’
gross margin was significantly lower than comparing with the non-suppliers' gross margin and we were able to see that there was a discount occurring in the unit price of suppliers. On the other hand, profits that reflect other costs (such as operating profit and profit margin on sales) rather than cost of goods sold did not show any signs of under-performance of suppliers compared with non-suppliers. This can be interpreted as that suppliers could reduce SG&A costs, except for the costs of goods sold, in order to compensate for the loss in the gross profit margin. In the result, we were able to see that the final outcome, return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) of suppliers were significantly higher than non-suppliers.
To further investigate reasons why suppliers’ ROA and ROE are higher than non- suppliers’, we looked into companies’ asset utilization. In the results of empirical analysis, we could see that the supplier’s asset turnover rate was significantly higher than the non-supplier’s. Higher asset turnover rate is interpreted as ‘having the same amount of assets but causing more revenue’; therefore even though return on sales is lower, it is possible to make higher ROA and ROE according to the Dupont identity. In the result of analysis, except for ROA and ROE, we were not able to identify any differences in supplier’s profit margin on sales compare to non-supplier’s profit margin on sale. As we have expected, supplier’s receivables turnover rate was higher, which implies that suppliers received bills rapidly from large companies compared with non-suppliers. The combination of shorter receivables and inventory conversion periods make suppliers to have shorter cash conversion cycles.