The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0398.htm

The impact of information Impact of

information
technology capabilities on technology
capabilities
agri-food supply chain
performance: the mediating effects 1699
of interorganizational relationships Received 26 August 2019
Revised 7 February 2020
9 August 2020
Mengjie Zeng 23 August 2020
Accepted 22 September 2020
College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China
and
College of Economics and Trade,
Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy, Zhengzhou, China, and
Jianjun Lu
College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China

Abstract
Purpose – Motivated by the apparent presence of the “productivity paradox” of information technology (IT) in
agri-food supply chain (SC), the purpose of this paper is to explore how IT capabilities affect agri-food supply
chain performance (SCP). Specifically, this paper investigates the direct and indirect impacts of IT capabilities
on agri-food SCP through interorganizational relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper employs the questionnaire survey method based on relevant
literatures. Data are collected from Chinese 265 core firms’ agri-food SC. Structural equation modelling (SEM) is
mainly employed for hypothesis testing and analysis.
Findings – The main findings are as follows. First, IT capabilities have significant direct impact on agri-food
SCP. Second, IT capabilities enhance interorganizational relationships in the agri-food SC. Third,
interorganizational relationships positively influence agri-food SCP. Last, interorganizational relationships
are important path factors and mediate the indirect impact of IT capabilities on agri-food SCP.
Research limitations/implications – This research is limited to a particular sample, that is, agriculture-
related firms in Chinese agri-food SC. The results need to be generalized to encompass wider samples. Future
research could in greater detail study the links among IT capabilities, interorganizational relationships and
agri-food SCP.
Practical implications – The study’s findings could provide practical reference value for agriculture-related
firms to design appropriate strategies to solve the IT “productivity paradox” and improve agri-food SCP from
the perspectives of IT capabilities and interorganizational relationships.
Originality/value – This paper constructs a newly developed framework based on the resource-based view
(RBV) and relational view to examine the links among IT capabilities, interorganizational relationships and
agri-food SCP, and innovatively verifies the mediating effect of interorganizational relationships on the impact
of IT capabilities on agri-food SCP.
Keywords Information technology capabilities, Interorganizational relationships, Agri-food supply chain
performance, Structural equation modelling, Agriculture-related firms
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Globalization, market liberalization, new consumers’ lifestyle trends, stricter food safety and
environmental regulations have had significant impacts on the agri-food industry over the
past two decades (Tsolakis et al., 2014; Huggins and Valverde, 2018; Gaitan-Cremaschi et al., Journal of Enterprise Information
Management
Vol. 34 No. 6, 2021
pp. 1699-1721
This research has been carried out by the National Social Science Foundation of China (16AGL012), for © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0398
which we express our gratitude here. DOI 10.1108/JEIM-08-2019-0237
JEIM 2019), leading to increased concern for the competitiveness of agriculture-related enterprises.
34,6 Currently, companies compete as a supply chain (SC) and no longer as individual
organizations (Kuhne et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2018; Panahifar et al., 2018). Sustainable
competitiveness depends on a company’s ability and is increased by improving the overall
supply chain performance (SCP) (Kirwan et al., 2017).
Given the growing importance of the SC in the food industry, there is a growing interest
among scholars and experts in agri-food SCP (Bourlakis et al., 2014; Odongo et al., 2016;
1700 Kirwan et al., 2017). The agri-food SC today faces perhaps unprecedented challenges, such as
environmental implications, traceability, location, treatment of animals and fairness of
farmer interests (Irani and Sharif, 2016; Saitone and Sexton, 2017). Facing these challenges,
the common goal of SC members is to improve the overall agri-food SCP because an efficient
agri-food SC could provide competitive advantages and good output for each SC member
(Gaitan-Cremaschi et al., 2017; Uddin, 2017).
At present, agriculture in developing countries is in the transformation stage from
traditional agriculture to modern agriculture, leaving some problems for the traditional agri-
food SC. Two prominent problems are information asymmetry and unstable partnership,
which lead to weak competitiveness and unsustainable agri-food SCP (Mesic et al., 2018;
Gaitan-Cremaschi et al., 2019). Businesses have realized that information technology (IT)
application is one effective way to resolve these problems in the SC (Bowles and Lu, 2014;
Krone et al., 2016; Oh et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2018; Ojha et al., 2019). Research has demonstrated
that IT application among SC partners can reduce information dissymmetry and enhance
partnerships, thereby exerting a positive effect on SCM (Lu and Bowles, 2014; Jin et al., 2014;
Ding et al., 2014; Yan et al., 2016; Fu et al., 2017).
High-quality information and communication technology is essential for developing
countries to achieve rapid economic growth (Ngwenyama and Morawczynski, 2009). In recent
years, IT has become a major factor driving economic development by constantly promoting
the reform and optimization of traditional economic structure (Huang, 2018). With the
continuous investment of IT infrastructure by the government of China, the application of IT
has promoted the development of e-commerce, logistics, agriculture and other industries (Cai
et al., 2016; Zhou and Wan, 2017; Gao, 2018). Chinese agricultural firms have invested heavily
in IT applications, such as Internet-based e-commerce, the Internet of things, traceability
systems, big data and customer relationship management (Sun and Bao, 2011; Peng et al.,
2016). However, the improvements in agri-food SCP have been limited. Therefore, a key issue
is identifying the so-called IT “productivity paradox,” which refers to the contradiction
between “the enormous improvements in the underlying technology” and the lack of benefits
from IT spending (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1996), exists in China’s agri-food SC. This may be a
common question in emerging economies because these countries have similar
characteristics and problems (Ngwenyama and Morawczynski, 2009).
There are two reasons for the IT “productivity paradox.” One cause is that IT capabilities
do not effectively match IT applications in agriculture-related firms. Previous studies have
analyzed how IT capabilities create a sustained competitive advantage and improve firm
performance in developed countries based on the resource-based view (RBV; Wernerfelt,
1984; Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Patrakosol and Lee, 2009; Mithas et al., 2011; Lu and
Ramamurthy, 2011; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Hwang et al., 2015). Although academics and
practitioners have been paying attention to issues related to IT investment and performance
(Zhu, 2004; Sun and Bao, 2011; Peng et al., 2016; Zhou and Wan, 2017), similar empirical
studies in China’s agri-food SC have been relatively limited. The other reason is that IT
capabilities do not effectively exert value in supply chain management (SCM), especially
relationship management. Previous research has indicated that IT capabilities not only have
direct impacts on firm performance but also have indirect impacts through SCM (Su, 2012; Jin
et al., 2014; Oh et al., 2016; Kim, 2017; Mendoza-Fong et al., 2018). However, previous studies
did not sufficiently explore whether and how IT capabilities improve SCP, especially agri- Impact of
food SCP in developing countries. Although the relational view (Dyer and Singh, 1998) and information
previous studies have emphasized the importance of partnership in SCM (Sambasivan et al.,
2013; Zander and Beske, 2014; Jain et al., 2014; Park et al., 2017; Lee and Ha, 2018), the current
technology
domestic and international studies have not fully indicated the mediating effects of capabilities
interorganizational relationships between IT capabilities and agri-food SCP.
Therefore, motivated by the apparent presence of the IT “productivity paradox” and the
abovementioned shortcomings, the research problems of this paper are whether and how IT 1701
capabilities affect agri-food SCP. This paper adopts four new foci in an attempt to address these
problems. First, this paper verifies value of IT capabilities in agri-food SCM by using IT
capabilities as the key explanatory variable instead of IT application. Second, this research
sheds further light on the linkage between IT capabilities and agri-food SCP and indicates that
IT capabilities significantly influence agri-food SCP not only directly but also indirectly. Third,
this paper creatively enhances the relational view of IT, in which interorganizational
relationships mediate the impact of IT capabilities on agri-food SCP. Finally, the study
innovatively discusses the IT “productivity paradox” in China from the perspectives of IT
capabilities and interorganizational relationships. This research contributes to the research and
practice of agri-food SCM, as a paucity of empirical work has examined the issue in this context.
In short, the goals of this research are to overcome these gaps through theoretical analysis
and empirical examination and to deeply analyze the influencing mechanisms of IT
capabilities on agri-food SCP. Specifically, this paper studies the direct and indirect effects of
IT capabilities on agri-food SCP and explores the mediating effects of interorganizational
relationships. Data are collected from China’s 265 core firms’ agri-food SC. SEM is mainly
employed for hypothesis testing and analysis.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the theoretical background and
presents the hypotheses. Section 3 describes the adopted methodology. Section 4 analyzes the
data and results. Section 5 discusses the results and implications for future research and
practice. Section 6 summarizes the conclusions.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development

2.1 Theoretical background and literature review
2.1.1 Resource-based view. The RBV provides a cogent framework for evaluating the impact
of IT capabilities in the agri-food SC. This theory holds that the immobile and intangible
resources that are difficult to replicate are sources of lasting competitive advantages
(Wernerfelt, 1984). Based on the work of Wernerfelt (1984), Amit and Schoemaker (1993)
further divided “resources” into two categories: resources and capabilities. The RBV
proposes that the performance differential depends on the differences in IT capabilities rather
than on the differences in IT resources (Hart and Dowell, 2011). Resources can be acquired
easily without specificity, while capabilities are valuable, rare, inimitable and non-
substitutable for enterprises (Barney et al., 2001). IT capabilities reflect a firm’s valuable
and non-substitutable ability to acquire, deploy, combine and reconfigure internal and
external IT resources to effectively support business flow, logistics flow and capital flow (Lu
and Ramamurthy, 2011). Although IT resources do not necessarily produce good enterprise
performance, there is no denying that sufficient IT resources are the basic conditions for
forming IT capabilities. Previous research has reported consistent positive correlations
between IT investment and growth in both labor productivity and MFP in developed
countries but insignificant or inconsistent correlations in developing countries (Dedrick et al.,
2003). Because of the difference in IT capabilities, productivity gains associated with IT
adoption, measured at either the firm-or aggregate-economy levels, differ between developed
and developing countries (Patrakosol and Lee, 2009).
JEIM According to the RBV, researchers have analyzed the value of IT capabilities in firms
34,6 (Santhanam and Hartono, 2003; Bhatt and Grover, 2005; Lu and Ramamurthy, 2011; Hwang
et al., 2015) and identified the links between IT capabilities and firm performance (Mithas
et al., 2011; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012). The present studies have also shown that IT is related
to SCM based on the RBV. For instance, Su (2012), Peng et al. (2016), Oh et al. (2016) and
Gunasekaran et al. (2017) explained that IT resources can enhance SC capabilities and further
improve firm performance. Jin et al. (2014), Cai et al. (2016) and Bargshady et al. (2016)
1702 indicated that IT capabilities are strongly related to the agile and flexible SC, which, in turn, is
associated with a firm’s competitive performance. Tseng and Liao (2015), Kim (2017) and
Jimenez-Jimenez et al. (2019) explored the mediating role of SC collaboration/integration in the
relationship between IT and business management.
Based on the above discussion, these findings indicated that IT capabilities have direct
and indirect impacts on enterprise performance through SCM, and further showed the
mediating role of some factors in the relationship between IT and SCM, such as SC knowledge
management capability (Niu, 2010), agility (Vickery et al., 2010), logistics integration (Prajogo
and Olhager, 2012), information sharing (Ye and Wang, 2013; Baihaq and Soha, 2013),
information integration (Zhou and Wan, 2017), market orientation (Tseng and Liao, 2015),
updating of ICT (Mendoza-Fong et al., 2018) and SC integration (Sundram et al., 2018).
2.1.2 Relational view. The relational view (RV) is the other theoretical basis of this research
to assess the value of interorganizational relationships. This theory suggests that the relational
resources that are embedded in the relationships among organizations are important but scarce
for a firm (Dyer and Singh, 1998). A firm’s sustained competitive advantage depends on its
relationships with other members (Cooper et al., 1997; Lee and Ha, 2018), for example, the
primary producers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers involved in the production and
delivery of goods to consumers. As Uddin (2017) noted, interorganizational relationships are
crucial for competing in the marketplace to achieve greater profit margins and performance.
The ability to effectively manage interorganizational relationships is essential for
organizational survival and success in a complex and changing environment.
Based on the RV, previous research has shown that performance improvement mainly
embodies how firms manage their relationships with partners in SCM (Kuhne et al., 2013;
Sambasivan et al., 2013; Zander and Beske, 2014; Jain et al., 2014; Park et al., 2017). A
coordinated relationship can provide many returns, such as lower product and service costs,
enhanced quality and innovation and better firm performance (Odongo et al., 2016). Long-
term relationships can lead to reduced political, social or economic risk, reduced transaction
costs and access to economies of scale, bypassing traditional market arrangements in the SC
(Mesic et al., 2018). However, the present studies rarely explore the effects of
interorganizational relationships on agri-food SCP.
IT utilization could effectively enhance partnerships in SCM (Yu et al., 2001; Ye and Wang,
2013; Tseng and Liao, 2015; Yan et al., 2016; Fu et al., 2017). Several scholars tentatively explored
the effects of partnerships between IT and SCM. For instance, Niu (2010) studied the direct and
indirect influence of SC information infrastructure capability on SC performance and suggested
that relationship management plays an intermediary role. Li and Chen (2010) indicated that IT
impacts SCP indirectly by enabling good relationships with SC partners. Additionally, Mesic
et al. (2018) thought the above studies have explored the impact of relationship components, such
as trust, on SCP, but few have analyzed the joint effect of these components on SCP.
Although implicitly mentioned in prior work, few previous studies have focused on how
IT capabilities create value for the agri-food SC, especially in China and other developing
countries. Scholars have rarely analyzed the role of interorganizational relationships in the
link between IT capabilities and agri-food SCP. Based on the above theoretical background
and literature review, this study finds that there are close links among IT capabilities,
interorganizational relationships and agri-food SCP. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the
influencing mechanism of IT capabilities on agri-food SCP and the mediating effects of Impact of
interorganizational relationships. A detailed review of the literatures is conducted with the information
primary literatures presented in a summarized form in Table 1. These related literature
sources are used throughout the literature review, hypotheses and measurement items
technology
subsections. capabilities

2.2 Hypotheses 1703

2.2.1 IT capabilities and agri-food SCP. The importance of IT capabilities in SCM has been
recognized in the literatures (Vickery et al., 2010; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Ye and Wang,
2013; Jin et al., 2014; Tseng and Liao, 2015; Oh et al., 2016; Kim, 2017; Mendoza-Fong et al.,
2018). IT capabilities in SC enable the core enterprise to collect, store and analyze information
about its suppliers, customers and market demands (Niu, 2010; Cai et al., 2016; Zhou and Wan,
2017). IT capabilities help maritime SC partners transmit and process necessary information
and become better informed, and allow them to make decisions earlier (Li et al., 2009; Baihaq
and Soha, 2013). IT capabilities are a significant enabler of SC process management
capability, owing to its ability to minimize process variability, improve process quality and
enhance process output in the SC (Peng et al., 2016). IT is becoming increasingly important for
efficient and timely tracking and tracing throughout the agri-food SC to safeguard
agricultural product quality safety (Ding et al., 2014). The facilitation of sufficient SC visibility
and traceability through effective information sharing by IT application is vital for managing
contamination risks and improving the quality and safety of products in the food SC (Fu et al.,
2017). IT capabilities are also conducive to harnessing information and generating business
value in agri-food SCM.
Based on the above analysis, IT capabilities can bring about continuous advantages and
help firms gain high-performance benefits from agri-food SCM. Moreover, IT capabilities
directly/indirectly help firms to quickly access information, reduce operation and transaction
costs, promote service quality and ultimately improve overall agri-food SCP. Therefore, this
research hypothesizes the following:

Constructs Sub-elements Related literature

IT capabilities IT talent capabilities Amit and Schoemaker (1993); Santhanam and

IT infrastructure Hartono (2003); Bhatt and Grover (2005); Soto-Acosta
capabilities and Merono-Cerdan (2008); Li et al. (2009); Fink
IT internal (2011); Niu (2010); Lu and Ramamurthy (2011);
communication Mithas et al. (2011); Hart and Dowell (2011); Prajogo
IT external and Olhager (2012); Baihaq and Soha (2013); Ye and
communication Wang (2013); Tang et al. (2014); Jin et al. (2014);
capabilities Hwang et al. (2015); Cai et al. (2016); Bargshady et al.
(2016); Peng et al. (2016); Oh et al. (2016); Fu et al.
(2017); Zeng et al. (2017)
Interorganizational Trust Dyer and Singh (1998); Fynes et al. (2005); Duffy and
relationships Commitment Fearne (2006); Srinivasan et al. (2011); Cheng (2011);
Power symmetry Kuhne et al. (2013); Sambasivan et al. (2013); Zander
and Beske (2014); Ding et al. (2014); Jain et al. (2014);
Terpend and Krause (2015); Odongo et al. (2016);
Uddin (2017); Fu et al. (2017); Park et al. (2017);
Panahifar et al. (2018); Lee and Ha (2018)
Agri-food SCP SC financial performance Niu (2010); Ding et al. (2014); Eckstein et al. (2015);
SC service performance Fiorini and Jabbour (2017); Nyamah et al. (2017); Table 1.
SC strategy performance Uddin (2017); Fu et al. (2017); Zhou and Wan (2017); Constructs and
Mesic et al. (2018) supporting literatures
JEIM H1. IT capabilities are positively related to agri-food SCP.
34,6 2.2.2 IT capabilities and interorganizational relationships. The development and application of
IT, such as electronic data interchange (EDI), WeChat, e-commerce and the Internet of things,
improves communication between SC partners and further strengthens buyer-supplier
relationships. Some studies have emphasized that partnerships in SC can be enhanced
through the effective utilization of IT. For example, Yu et al. (2001) pointed out that high
1704 environmental complexity has compelled firms to apply IT to maintain close communication
and collaboration with SC partners. IT application and advancement positively influence SC
integration and help firms more easily integrate and improve their partnerships (Tseng and
Liao, 2015). Yan et al. (2016) also indicated that IoT is an effective way to solve the problem of
information sharing in agricultural SC and further promote membership. Zeng et al. (2017)
found IT capability has a significant positive impact on supplier trust and customer trust
based on data of Guangdong province in China. The barriers to interfirm communication and
relational governance can be overcome by good IT capabilities, such as IT alignment and
information sharing (Ye and Wang, 2013).
In this paper, IT capabilities are not only competitive advantages but also collaborative
strategies that can promote intimate cooperation and strengthen the relationships among
agri-food SC members. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. IT capabilities are positively related to interorganizational relationships.
2.2.3 Interorganizational relationships and agri-food SCP. Interorganizational relationships
are the comprehensive assessment of the strength and degree of a long-term relationship
between business partners (Park et al., 2017). Some researchers have suggested the value of
partnerships in SCM. For example, Ding et al. (2014) proved that trust and commitment are
significantly related to the SC food quality performance indicator in the Australian beef
processing industry. Fu et al. (2017) showed that strengthening farmers’ dependence on agri-
food companies can cultivate farmers’ trust and relationship commitment, thereby
encouraging them to share information with the agri-food companies in Chinese food SCs.
Mesic et al. (2018) indicated that partnerships such as trust, commitment, economic
satisfaction, non-coercive and coercive power, reputation and conflict among firms are rare,
valuable and irreplaceable assets, which may increase information sharing and reduce
transaction costs, leading to sustained performance in the food SC. In agri-food SCM,
performance improvement mainly embodies how firms manage their relationships with
partners. Agricultural companies strive to cooperate with other members and build closer
relationships when mutual benefits can be achieved in agri-food SCP (Uddin, 2017). In
addition, the levels of these relationships usually depend on the levels of trust, commitment,
mutual dependence, power symmetry and so on; the closer the firms are to an integrated
relationship, the superior the business performance and the greater the profit (Jain et al., 2014).
Based on the RV and present research, good interorganizational relationships among agri-
food SC members are beneficial not only for individual members’ performance but also for the
overall agri-food SCP. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that:
H3. Interorganizational relationships are positively related to agri-food SCP.
2.2.4 Mediating effects of interorganizational relationships. As previously mentioned, some
scholars have shown several factors that play a mediating role in the relationship between IT
and SCM, such as information sharing (Ye and Wang, 2013), market orientation (Tseng and
Liao, 2015), information integration (Zhou and Wan, 2017) and SC integration (Sundram et al.,
2018). The mediating role of trust has been found in business management (Jain et al., 2014; Fu
et al., 2017; Zeng et al., 2017; Panahifar et al., 2018). However, scholars have not yet clearly
studied whether aggregate interorganizational relationships play a mediating role in the
relationship between IT capabilities and overall agri-food SCP. On the basis of integrating the Impact of
RV and the RBV, this research suggests that relationship productivity is enhanced due to IT information
capabilities, which provide substantial interactivity between partners and firms. IT
capabilities could promote communication and coordination among upstream and
technology
downstream firms and further enhance organizational capabilities such as capabilities
interorganizational relationships, consequently improving the overall agri-food SCP. In
other words, interorganizational relationships have a significant mediating effect on the
relationship between IT capabilities and agri-food SCP. As such, the following hypothesis is 1705
proposed:
H4. Interorganizational relationships have a mediating effect on the impact of IT
capabilities on agri-food SCP.

2.3 Conceptual model

As noted earlier, this research examines the influencing mechanism of IT capabilities on agri-
food SCP and explores the mediating effects of interorganizational relationships on the link
between IT capabilities and agri-food SCP. To examine the previously discussed points, four
hypotheses are formulated. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model and the research
hypotheses.
The conceptual model shows the relationships that are hypothesized to exist among IT
capabilities, interorganizational relationships and agri-food SCP. The three second-order
latent constructs in this paper are IT capabilities, interorganizational relationships and agri-
food SCP, which contain 3–4 first-order latent variables. First, IT capabilities can be
segmented into four sub-elements: IT talent capabilities, IT infrastructure capabilities, IT
internal communication and IT external communication capabilities. The second construct is
interorganizational relationships: trust, commitment and power symmetry. The third
construct is agri-food SCP, including SC financial performance, SC service performance and
SC strategy performance.

3. Methodology
3.1 Measurement items
This paper’s survey instrument is developed based on previous research and in-depth personal
interviews conducted with practicing experts and scholars in the agri-food SC area. Although
the scales were primarily derived from the English-language literatures, this study makes
adjustments according to the agri-food SC situation in China. The questionnaire includes four

IT capabilities Agri-food SCP

Š IT talent capabilities H1 Š SC financial performance
Š IT infrastructure capabilities
Š SC service performance
Š IT internal communication capabilities
Š SC strategy performance
Š IT external communication capabilities

H4
H2 H3
Interorganizational relationships
Š Trust
Š Commitment Figure 1.
Š Power symmetry The conceptual model
JEIM parts. The first part collects basic organizational characteristics including number of personnel
34,6 employed, ownership, annual sales and respondent profile. The remaining parts include all of
the measurement items that are measured using 7-point Likert scales ranging from “fully
disagree to “fully agree.” The core measurement items are described below.
3.1.1 IT capabilities measurement items. According to this theory, previous studies have
shown that IT capabilities can bring about continuous value to firms in SCM (Ye and Wang,
2013; Tang et al., 2014; Bargshady et al., 2016; Cai et al., 2016; Peng et al., 2016; Oh et al., 2016,
1706 etc.). In previous literatures, researchers have conceptualized IT capabilities as a composite
construct capturing different but related facets. This paper does not consider IT capabilities
from the perspective of one firm but rather from the perspective of the agri-food SC. Based on
previous studies (Bhatt and Grover, 2005; Soto-Acosta and Merono-Cerdan, 2008; Niu, 2010;
Fink, 2011; Lu and Ramamurthy, 2011; Zeng et al., 2017), the four types of IT capabilities are
assessed and measured using 12 items (see Table 2), including IT talent capabilities, IT
infrastructure capabilities, IT internal communication capabilities and IT external
communication capabilities.
3.1.2 Interorganizational relationship measurement items. Previous researchers have
typically defined interorganizational relationships as a multidimensional construct that
contains different but related facets of partner relationships (Sambasivan et al., 2013; Zander
and Beske, 2014; Jain et al., 2014). According to related studies (Fynes et al., 2005; Duffy and
Fearne, 2006; Srinivasan et al., 2011; Cheng, 2011; Ding et al., 2014; Terpend and Krause, 2015;
Uddin, 2017; Mesic et al., 2018, etc.), this paper uses trust, commitment and power symmetry
as interorganizational relationship dimensions and assesses interorganizational
relationships using 9 items (see Table 3).

Constructs Measurement items Key sources

IT talent capabilities TC 1: IT-related employees can skillfully use Bhatt and Grover (2005); Fink
IT/the IT system (2011); Zeng et al. (2017)
TC 2: IT-related employees are highly
motivated and proactive in their work
TC 3: IT-related employees are good at self-
study
IT infrastructure IC 1: We have a complete hardware and Bhatt and Grover (2005); Niu (2010);
capabilities software platform Lu and Ramamurthy (2011)
IC 2: IT/IT systems are highly compatible
and scalable
IC 3: We have a unified information system
to manage supply, sales and other
information
IT internal CC 1: Each department fully exchanges Soto-Acosta and Merono-Cerdan
communication orders, production, sales and other (2008); Niu (2010); Zeng et al. (2017)
capabilities information
CC 2: All departments cooperate fully
CC 3: Internal staff can communicate well
IT external EC 1: We fully communicate with key Bhatt and Grover (2005); Soto-
communication partners Acosta and Merono-Cerdan (2008);
capabilities EC 2: We have complete IT/IT systems for Zeng et al. (2017)
partners management
EC 3: We make full use of IT/IT systems to
Table 2. communicate and cooperate with key
Measurement items partners (such as using networks, WeChat,
and key sources of IT e-commerce and other information
capabilities technologies)
Constructs Measurement items Key sources
Impact of
information
Trust RT 1: We believe that major partners take our interests into Duffy and Fearne (2006); Ding technology
account when making important decisions et al. (2014); Mesic (2018)
RT 2: We believe that major partners would not disclose capabilities
our trade secrets
RT 3: We believe that major partners would consciously
abide by the agreement or commitment 1707
Commitment RC 1: We promise not to break off our relationships easily Ding et al. (2014); Mesic et al.
in the future (2018)
RC 2: We are willing to work together with major partners
to maintain a long-term relationship
RC 3: We preferentially choose partners who comply with
relevant laws, regulations and standards
Power RP 1: We encourage and help each other with our major Cheng (2011); Uddin (2017)
symmetry partners Table 3.
RP 2: Our interest distribution with major partners is fair Measurement items
and reasonable and key sources of
RP 3: We have equal negotiation and bargaining power interorganizational
with major partners relationships

3.1.3 Agri-food SCP measurement items. Agri-food SCP is used as a dependent variable in
the conceptual model of this paper. Agri-food SC financial performance, service performance
and strategy performance are three important components of agri-food SCP (Niu, 2010;
Nyamah et al., 2017; Fiorini and Jabbour, 2017; Zhou and Wan, 2017). This research focuses on
the overall agri-food SCP which is measured using 9 items (see Table 4), tapping into agri-
food SC financial performance, SC service performance and SC strategy performance,
referring to previous research (Niu, 2010; Ding et al., 2014; Eckstein et al., 2015; Fiorini and
Jabbour, 2017; Zhou and Wan, 2017; Dissanayake and Cross, 2018).

3.2 Research method and data collection procedure

Before a formal investigation, the questionnaires are pilot-tested and validated through in-
depth interviews with 10 core firms of different agri-food SC in China. Moreover, the clarity
and comprehensibility of the survey questionnaires are confirmed by four experts involved in
agri-food SC research from China Agriculture University. This research only analyzes and
presents the final qualified items and revised model. This paper collects the data between
November 2018 and July 2019. To ensure the representativeness of the sample, the

Constructs Measurement items Key sources

SC financial SF 1: We have low order management cost Niu (2010); Eckstein et al. (2015);
performance SF 2: We have low logistics management cost Zhou and Wan (2017)
SF 3: We have high profit rates
SC service SS 1: We have high product quality and safety Ding et al. (2014); Zhou and Wan
performance SS 2: We have high consumer satisfaction (2017)
SS 3: We have high on-time delivery rate
SC strategy SP 1: We could rapidly develop and promote new Niu (2010); Ding et al. (2014);
performance products or services with major partners Fiorini and Jabbour (2017)
SP 2: We could quickly respond to changes in Table 4.
consumer demand with major partners Measurement items
SP 3: We could efficiently respond to market price and key sources of agri-
fluctuations with major partners food SCP
JEIM questionnaires are distributed to the core firms of Chinese agri-food SC in major
34,6 representative provinces through online and field surveys with the help of relevant
agencies, referring to previous studies (Uddin, 2017; Zeng et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2018; Lee and
Ha, 2018). The target respondents are senior managers (e.g. president, CEO, vice-president or
senior manager) and middle managers (e.g. SC managers, logistics managers or procurement
managers), who understand the enterprise informatization and overall agri-food SC well.
Finally, a total of 319 questionnaires are collected. After eliminating the questionnaires
1708 with missing or incomplete data, this study obtains a sample of 265 useable questionnaires
(83.07% response rate). The discrepancy test reveals no significant difference between the
responses of these subsamples. The research sample covers 16 major provinces in the east,
west, north and south of China. Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics of basic
organizational characteristics. Regarding the size categories, 37.7% of firms are within the
size group of 51–300 employees, with 20.4% in the group of 301 employees and more.
Regarding the total annual sales, the largest proportion (23.4%) of the current sample has
annual sales greater than 100 million RMB, followed by the group of 51,000–500,0000 RMB
(21.1%). More than 89% of respondents are middle and senior managers, who know a great
deal about their agri-food SC. Table 6 shows the means and standard deviations of the main
items. In addition, a classic study (Anderson and Garbing, 1988) of SEM described that a
sample size of 150 is usually sufficient to obtain a converged and appropriate solution for
models with three or more indicators per factor. Breckler (1990) indicated that stable SEM
analysis results could be obtained based on over 200 samples in general. According to the

Characteristics N (%)

Size (no. of personnel employed)

<20 employees 61 23
21–50 employees 50 18.9
51–100 employees 52 19.6
101–300 employees 48 18.1
301–500 employees 17 6.4
>501 employees 37 14
Total 265 100
Ownership
Privately owned 232 87.55
State-owned or state-controlled 20 7.55
Foreign equity 13 4.9
Total 265 100
Total annual sales (in 0.000 RMB)
<50 26 9.8
51–500 56 21.1
501–1,000 39 14.7
1,001–5,000 40 15.1
5,001–10,000 42 15.8
>10,000 62 23.4
Total 265 100
Respondent profile
Table 5. Top management 143 54
Descriptive statistics of Middle-level management 93 35.1
basic organizational Supply chain management 29 10.9
characteristics Total 265 100
Constructs Item Mean Standard deviation
Impact of
information
IT talent capabilities TC 1 5.28 1.512 technology
TC 2 5.37 1.381
TC 3 5.22 1.401 capabilities
Average 5.29 1.431
IT infrastructure capabilities IC 1 5.74 1.287
IC 2 5.50 1.425 1709
IC 3 5.43 1.514
Average 5.56 1.409
IT internal communication capabilities CC 1 5.30 1.640
CC 2 5.15 1.620
CC 3 5.42 1.372
Average 5.29 1.544
IT external communication capabilities EC 1 5.35 1.521
EC 2 5.15 1.596
EC 3 5.31 1.525
Average 5.27 1.547
Trust RT 1 5.45 1.276
RT 2 5.38 1.390
RT 3 5.60 1.233
Average 5.48 1.300
Commitment RC 1 5.54 1.264
RC 2 5.66 1.177
RC 3 5.84 1.127
Average 5.68 1.189
Power symmetry RP 1 5.77 1.137
RP 2 5.67 1.244
RP 3 5.72 1.226
Average 5.72 1.202
SC financial performance SF 1 4.96 1.565
SF 2 4.94 1.591
SF 3 4.81 1.548
Average 4.90 1.568
SC service performance SS 1 5.91 1.056
SS 2 5.83 1.086
SS 3 5.94 0.996
Average 5.89 1.046 Table 6.
SC strategy performance SP 1 5.58 1.188 Descriptive statistics of
SP 2 5.58 1.184 the scale items (means
SP 3 5.50 1.253 and standard
Average 5.55 1.208 deviations)

above analysis, 265 samples regarding Chinese agri-food SC are sufficient to analyze 10 latent
variables of SEM in the paper.

3.3 Reliability and validity

The reliability and validity of the constructs are assessed using Cronbach’s α coefficient and
confirmatory factor analysis (see Tables 7–9). Cronbach’s α coefficient and composite
reliabilities (CR) are used to determine whether an evaluation model has a certain degree of
stability and reliability (Wu et al., 2018). The Cronbach’s α values of all factors in this research
range from 0.851 to 0.940 which are higher than 0.7, and composite reliabilities (CR) range
from 0.858 to 0.965 which are larger than 0.80, indicating a relatively high internal
consistency.
JEIM Factor α Squared multiple
34,6 Constructs Item loadings coefficient AVE CR correlations (R2)

IT capabilities 0.940 0.735 0.907

IT talent capabilities TC 1 0.84 0.883 0.770 0.909 0.584
TC 2 0.92
TC 3 0.87
1710 IT infrastructure IC 1 0.85 0.895 0.746 0.898 0.618
capabilities IC 2 0.90
IC 3 0.84
IT internal CC 1 0.74 0.853 0.671 0.859 0.940
Communication CC 2 0.90
capabilities
CC 3 0.81
IT external EC 1 0.81 0.900 0.753 0.901 0.871
Table 7. Communication EC 2 0.87
Reliability and validity capabilities
tests for IT capabilities EC 3 0.92

Factor α Squared multiple

Constructs Item loadings coefficient AVE CR correlations (R2)

Interorganizational 0.931 0.756 0.965 0.377

relationships
Trust RT 1 0.91 0.930 0.829 0.935 0.973
RT 2 0.94
RT 3 0.88
Commitment RC 1 0.86 0.905 0.770 0.909 0.818
Table 8. RC 2 0.92
Reliability and validity RC 3 0.85
tests for Power symmetry RP 1 0.80 0.851 0.670 0.858 0.580
interorganizational RP 2 0.89
relationships RP 3 0.76

Factor α Squared multiple

Constructs Item loadings coefficient AVE CR correlations (R2)

Agri-food SCP 0.877 0.747 0.964 0.779

SC financial SF 1 0.92 0.889 0.736 0.892 0.315
performance
SF 2 0.81
SF 3 0.84
SC service SS 1 0.84 0.891 0.729 0.889 0.582
performance
SS 2 0.88
SS 3 0.84
SC strategy SP 1 0.84 0.912 0.775 0.911 0.651
Table 9. performance
Reliability and validity SP 2 0.92
tests for agri-food SCP SP 3 0.88
Validity refers to the representativeness and appropriateness of the measurement methods, Impact of
that is, whether the indicators reflect the characteristics of the latent variables (Wang et al., information
2018). Confirmatory factor analysis is used to test whether the observable variables
appropriately constitute the latent variables by IBM AMOS 24.0 software. As shown in
technology
Tables 7–9, all of the standardized factor loadings are above 0.70, ranging between 0.74 and capabilities
0.94. Average variance extracted (AVE) range from 0.67 to 0.829, which are also higher than
the suggested threshold of 0.60. Based on the suggested criteria (Panahifar et al., 2018), the
squared multiple correlation (R2) values for the latent constructs meet the prescribed 1711
threshold. Thus, these results show a highly acceptable level of reliability and validity.

3.4 Verification of common method bias

This research takes several steps to avoid common method bias. First, the respondents are
prequalified to ensure that they are medium-to-senior-level managers who are familiar with
informatization and the SC business process. Second, this study ensures that their responses
are confidential. To further reduce the possibility of common method bias, Harman’s single-
factor test is adopted (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This paper includes all items from all of the
constructs for a factor analysis to determine whether the majority of the variance can be
accounted for by one general factor. The test results show the inexistence of common method
bias in this research.

4. Results
4.1 Measurement model
This research chooses eight conventional model-fit statistics – χ 2/degrees-of-freedom (χ 2/df),
standardized root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) , root mean square residual
(RMR), goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI),
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and normed fit index (NFI). The suggested minimum cut-off values
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi et al., 1991; Wang et al., 2018) and the modificatory
observed values are presented in Table 10. Thus, the results indicate a good model fit, with
χ 2 5 718.599 (degrees of freedom 5 385).

4.2 Path analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to test the hypothesized relationships among the
latent variables. IBM AMOS 24.0 is used to obtain the path analysis diagram depicted in
Figure 2, which shows the standardized path coefficient and p value of each hypothesized
relationship among IT capabilities, interorganizational relationships and agri-food SCP.
Table 11 shows path analysis results of SEM. Based on the measurement models results, the
first-order latent variables could significantly measure three second-order latent constructs.
IT capabilities could be significantly observed by IT talent capabilities, IT infrastructure
capabilities and IT internal and external communication capabilities. Trust, commitment and
power symmetry could markedly assess interorganizational relationships. Agri-food SCP
could be dramatically measured using agri-food SC financial performance, service
performance and strategy performance. Besides, the results support H1 by manifesting the

χ 2/df RMSEA RMR GFI CFI IFI TLI NFI

Suggested value <3 <0.08 <0.5 >0.8 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 >0.9 Table 10.
Observed value 1.866 0.057 0.093 0.850 0.951 0.951 0.944 0.901 Goodness-of-fit test
Conclusion Accepted Accepted Good fit Good fit Good fit Good fit Good fit Good fit statistics
JEIM IT talent
34,6 capabilities SC financial
performance
0.764*** 0.561***
IT infrastructure
capabilities
0.786*** 0.470*** 0.763*** SC service
IT capabilities Agri-food SCP
1712 0.970***
performance
IT internal
communication
capabilities 0.614*** 0.512*** 0.807***
0.933*** SC strategy
performance
IT external Interorganizational
communication relationships
capabilities 0.986*** 0.762***
Figure 2. 0.904***
Path analysis diagram
of SEM (***p < 0.001) Trust Commitment Power symmetry

Standardized
Paths estimate S.E.a CRb Results

Structural model
IT capabilities→ Agri-food SCP (β1) 0.470*** 0.074 4.694 Supported
IT capabilities→ Interorganizational relationships 0.614*** 0.083 8.337 Supported
(β2)
Interorganizational relationships→ Agri-food SCP 0.512*** 0.062 5.434 Supported
(β3)
Measurement models
IT capabilities→ IT talent capabilities 0.764*** – – Supported
IT capabilities→ IT infrastructure capabilities 0.786*** 0.086 9.699 Supported
IT capabilities→ IT internal communication 0.970*** 0.116 10.527 Supported
capabilities
IT capabilities→ IT external communication 0.933*** 0.108 10.606 Supported
capabilities
Interorganizational relationships→ Trust 0.986*** – – Supported
Interorganizational relationships→ Commitment 0.904*** 0.060 16.102 Supported
Interorganizational relationships→ Power symmetry 0.762*** 0.058 10.935 Supported
Agri-food SCP→ SC financial performance 0.561*** – – Supported
Agri-food SCP→ SC service performance 0.763*** 0.142 6.394 Supported
Agri-food SCP→ SC strategy performance 0.807*** 0.165 6.827 Supported
Table 11. Note(s): ***p < 0.001; aS.E. is an estimate of the standard error of the covariance; bCR is obtained by dividing
Path analysis results the covariance estimate by its standard error

positive effect of IT capabilities on agri-food SCP (β1 5 0.470, p < 0.001). IT capabilities also
have significant effects on interorganizational relationships, as proposed by H2 (β2 5 0.614,
p < 0.001). Similarly, interorganizational relationships positively influence agri-food SCP
(β3 5 0.512, p < 0.001), thus supporting H3. Thus, H1, H2 and H3 are supported.
4.3 Test of mediating effect Impact of
This paper uses two methods to verify the mediating effects of interorganizational information
relationships. First, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) meditation model is used to test the mediating
effects. Consider variable X that is assumed to affect variable Y, and path a is called the total
technology
effect, which may be mediated by variable Z. Figure 3 shows the mediated model. Path c is capabilities
called the direct effect. The reduction of the effect of X on Y after controlling for Z (a-c) is called
the indirect effect or the mediation amount. When path c is reduced to zero, complete
mediation occurs after Z has been controlled. The test for the significance of the mediating 1713
effect is equivalent to the test for the null hypothesis that such an effect is equal to zero
(Sobel, 1982).
According to the above method, the full regression models defined by models (1)–(3)
are analyzed based on SPSS 17.0 (see Table 12 and Figure 4). In model 1, IT capabilities and
agri-food SCP are correlated because the coefficient of 0.631(a) is significant (p < 0.001). In
model 2, IT capabilities are significantly correlated with interorganizational relationships
(b 5 0.563). In model 3, the results show that the correlations of agri-food SCP with IT
capabilities and interorganizational relationships are also positive and significant. The direct
effect (c 5 0.390) of IT capabilities on agri-food SCP is greater than the indirect effect (0.631–
0.390 5 0.241). Figure 4 vividly shows the above analysis based on Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
meditation model. In short, the findings illustrate the partial meditation effects of
interorganizational relationships on the link between IT capabilities and agri-food SCP,
supporting hypothesis H4.
This research further uses the method proposed by Sobel (1982) to revalidate the results
based on IBM AMOS 24. Figure 2 shows that IT capabilities have two effect paths on agri-
food SCP. First, IT capabilities are significantly correlated with agri-food SCP (path
coefficient 5 0.470, p < 0.001), which means IT capabilities have a direct effect path of 0.470
on agri-food SCP. Second, IT capabilities are also significantly correlated with
interorganizational relationships (path coefficient 5 0.614, p < 0.001), and the correlations
of interorganizational relationships with agri-food SCP are positive and significant (path
coefficient 5 0.512, p < 0.001). Based on the research of Sobel (1982), the results illustrate that
IT capabilities have an indirect effect path on agri-food SCP, which is mediated by
interorganizational relationships. The result output window in the IBM AMOS 24.0 shows the

c
X Y
Figure 3.
b d Baron and Kenny’s
meditation model
Z

ASCP 5 e þ a ITC þ « (Model 1) IR 5 e þ b ITC þ « (Model 2) ASCP 5 e þ c ITC þ d IR þ « (Model 3)

a 0.631*** – –
b – 0.563*** –
c – – 0.390***
d – – 0.428***
2
R 0.396 0.314 0.520 Table 12.
F 173.992*** 122.045*** 143.949*** Tests for mediating
Note(s): ***p < 0.001; ITC, information technology capabilities; IR, interorganizational relationships; ASCP, effect by regression
agri-food SCP analysis
JEIM indirect effect of 0.315 (p < 0.001). Thus, IT capabilities’ effect on agri-food SCP is partially
34,6 mediated by interorganizational relationships. The above analysis confirms that
interorganizational relationships mediate the effect of IT capabilities on agri-food SCP,
supporting H4. In addition, the results further support hypotheses H1, H2 and H3.

1714 5. Discussion
Motivated by the apparent presence of the “IT productivity paradox” in the agri-food SC, this
study investigates the links among IT capabilities, interorganizational relationships and agri-
food SCP and carries out an in-depth exploration of how IT capabilities improve the overall
agri-food SCP based on the RBV and RV. Specifically, this research studies the direct and
indirect impacts of IT capabilities on agri-food SCP through interorganizational
relationships. The findings indicate IT capabilities have significant direct impact on agri-
food SCP and enhance interorganizational relationships. Besides, interorganizational
relationships positively influence agri-food SCP and mediate the indirect impact of IT
capabilities on agri-food SCP. The value of IT capabilities partly stems from their ability to
enhance interorganizational relationships in agri-food SCM. These findings can provide
important implications for theory, practice and future research.

5.1 Theoretical contributions

IT and agri-food SCM are not new research topics, but there are still some important research
voids to be addressed. Compared with prior findings, this study contributes in several key
areas and provides valuable implications for advancing future research.
First, previous research regarded IT application as the main explanatory variable in China
(Zhu, 2004; Sun and Bao, 2011; Zhou and Wan, 2017; Fu et al., 2017), and few studies have
focused on the value of IT capabilities in the agri-food SCM especially in developing
countries. By using IT capabilities as the key explanatory variable instead of IT application,
this research further verifies the findings of Patrakosol and Lee (2009) about the value of IT
capabilities in developing countries and echoes the suggestion of Cai et al. (2016) to further
investigate the importance of IT capabilities in agri-food SCM.
Second, various tests have validated the direct correlation between IT capabilities and
firm performance in the industrial SC (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Hwang et al., 2015; Tseng
and Liao, 2015; Peng et al., 2016), but the relationship between IT capabilities and agri-food
SCP has rarely been studied. This research further explores how IT capabilities create value
for the agri-food SCP and finds that IT capabilities significantly influence agri-food SCP not
only directly but also indirectly.
Third, scholars have adopted the RV (Dyer and Singh, 1998) in investigating the value of
interorganizational relationships in SCM (Sambasivan et al., 2013; Zander and Beske, 2014;
Jain et al., 2014; Park et al., 2017; Lee and Ha, 2018). However, the current research has not fully
indicated the correlations among interorganizational relationships, IT capabilities and

0.631***
ITC ASCP
Model 1

0.390***
ITC Model 3 ASCP
0.563** 0.428***
Model 2 Model 3
Figure 4. IR
The meditation effect Note(s): ***p < 0.001; ITC, information technology
analysis capabilities; IR, interorganizational relationships;
ASCP, agri-food SCP
agri-food SCP. This paper constructs a newly developed framework to examine the links Impact of
among the three variables and further applies this perspective by innovatively exploring the information
mediating effect of interorganizational relationships on the impact of IT capabilities on agri-
food SCP.
technology
Finally, this paper discusses the IT “productivity paradox” in China and analyzes the capabilities
reasons from the perspectives of IT capabilities and interorganizational relationships. The
findings expand in detail the research conclusion of Peng et al. (2016) regarding the important
role of supply chain management capabilities in solving the IT “productivity paradox.” The 1715
findings refine the results of prior studies (Cai et al., 2016; Zhou and Wan, 2017; Zeng et al.,
2017) in the Chinese context. Despite the plethora of existing research, the quest for pragmatic
ways to harness the value of IT continues. Given that China shares many characteristics with
other emerging economies, the outcomes derive based on this context can help scholars
understand the influencing mechanisms of IT capabilities on agri-food SCP.

5.2 Practical implications

The practical implications of this study mostly center on several key aspects. First, an
effective way to enhance overall performance in the agri-food SC is by improving IT
capabilities, not only IT applications, which could be one of the reasons for the IT
“productivity paradox” in China. The findings could explain why the performance and
competitiveness of many Chinese agriculture-related companies have not improved, despite
heavy investments in IT systems in recent years. Many managers think that there is only a
positive link between IT application and performance. This incorrect impression is likely to
lead to the blind pursuit of high-level IT applications without consideration of the
improvement of overall IT capabilities, and this unrealistic pursuit of IT applications could
lead to the duplication and wasting of resources, ultimately causing the decline of overall
performance. Thus, managers should fully realize the importance of IT capabilities and
improve the overall IT capability through four sub-elements: IT talent capabilities, IT
infrastructure capabilities, IT internal and external communication capabilities.
Second, how to improve the quality of interorganizational relationships in the agri-food SC
is a complex issue for agriculture-related firms. This paper finds that IT capabilities could
provide effective coordinating tools for enhancing interorganizational relationships and
further improving agri-food SCP. The optimal level of interorganizational relationships
should be determined by the firm’s objectives and operations, while trust, commitment and
power symmetry are the primary focuses of interorganizational relationships in agri-
food SCM.
Third, agriculture-involved firms could design and implement appropriate strategies to
maximize the returns on IT spending and solve the IT “productivity paradox” from the
perspectives of IT capabilities and interorganizational relationships. When considering IT
strategies in agri-food SCM, managers should realize the value of IT capabilities and
interorganizational partnerships and make full use of IT capabilities to build long-term
partnerships between upstream and downstream firms, thus further improving the entire
agri-food SCP.

5.3 Limitations and future research

The study has the following limitations, which may provide some future research directions.
First, although this paper employs the questionnaire survey method based on relevant
literatures, the measures using 7-point Likert scales are subjective. Collecting data from
different sources could increase the robustness of the results. Therefore, future research could
obtain both subjective and objective data to validate the conclusions. Second, this paper
focuses on the overall IT capabilities, interorganizational relationships and agri-food SCP.
JEIM Future research could in greater detail study the links among three variables. Finally, the
34,6 data are not entirely uniformly distributed for all provinces in China, limiting the
geographical representation. Future research should be performed in other countries and all
parts of China to discern the generalizability of this paper’s findings.

6. Conclusions
1716 This paper theoretically and empirically explores the influencing mechanism of IT
capabilities on agri-food SCP and investigates in detail how IT capabilities improve the
overall agri-food SCP, motivated by the IT application practices and research status. Using
data collected from China’s 265 core firms’ agri-food SC, the results indicate that IT
capabilities directly and indirectly improve the overall agri-food SCP and prove the mediating
effect of interorganizational relationships on the indirect impact of IT capabilities on agri-
food SCP. This paper analyzes the reasons for the IT “productivity paradox” from the
perspectives of IT capabilities and interorganizational relationships. The findings make a
continuing theoretical and empirical contribution by revealing the value of IT capabilities
and interorganizational relationships to solve the IT “productivity paradox” in agri-food
SCM, as there has been rare empirical work on the issue in this context. We hope the current
study with a special focus on IT application could raise some interesting discussions for
researchers and practitioners who are paying attention to improve agri-food SCP.

References
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice - a review and
recommended 2-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Bagozzi, R.P., Li, Y.J. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing construct-validity in organizational
research”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-458.
Baihaqi, I. and Sohal, A.S. (2013), “The impact of information sharing in supply chains on
organisational performance: an empirical study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 24 Nos
8-9, pp. 743-758.
Bargshady, G., Zahraee, S.M., Ahmadi, M. and Parto, A. (2016), “The effect of information technology
on the agility of the supply chain in the Iranian power plant industry”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 427-442.
Barney, J., Wright, M. and Ketchen, D.J. (2001), “The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after
1991”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 625-641.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator mediator variable distinction in social
psychological-research - conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bhatt, G.D. and Grover, V. (2005), “Types of information technology capabilities and their role in
competitive advantage: an empirical study”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 253-277.
Bourlakis, M., Maglaras, G., Aktas, E., Gallear, D. and Fotopoulos, C. (2014), “Firm size and sustainable
performance in food supply chains: insights from Greek SMEs”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 152, pp. 112-130.
Bowles, M. and Lu, J.J. (2014), “Removing the blinders: a literature review on the potential of nanoscale
technologies for the management of supply chains”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 82, pp. 190-198.
Breckler, S.J. (1990), “Application of covariance structure modeling in psychology: cause for concern?”, Impact of
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, pp. 260-273.
information
Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L. (1996), “Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information
systems spending”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 541-558.
technology
Cai, Z., Huang, Q., Liu, H.F. and Liang, L. (2016), “The moderating role of information technology
capabilities
capability in the relationship between supply chain collaboration and organizational
responsiveness evidence from China”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1247-1271. 1717
Cheng, J.H. (2011), “Inter-organizational relationships and information sharing in supply chains”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 374-384.
Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), “Supply chain management, more than a new name
for logistics”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Dedrick, J., Gurbaxani, V. and Kraemer, K.L. (2003), “Information technology and economic
performance: a critical review of the empirical evidence”, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 35
No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Ding, M.J., Jie, F., Parton, K.A. and Matanda, M.J. (2014), “Relationships between quality of information
sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 85-108.
Dissanayake, C.K. and Cross, J.A. (2018), “Systematic mechanism for identifying the relative impact of
supply chain performance areas on the overall supply chain performance using SCOR model
and SEM”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 201, pp. 102-115.
Duffy, R. and Fearne, A. (2006), “Effective partnerships for agri-food chains - the impact of supply-
chain partnerships on supplier performance in the UK fresh-produce industry”, Quantifying the
Agri-Food Supply Chain, Vol. 15, pp. 225-241.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), “The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
interorganizational competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 660-679.
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. and Henke, M. (2015), “The performance impact of supply chain
agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 3028-3046.
Fink, L. (2011), “How do IT capabilities create strategic value? Toward greater integration of insights
from reductionistic and holistic approaches”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 16-33.
Fiorini, P.D. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2017), “Information systems and sustainable supply chain
management towards a more sustainable society: where we are and where we are going”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 241-249.
Fu, S.L., Han, Z.J. and Huo, B.F. (2017), “Relational enablers of information sharing: evidence from
Chinese food supply chains”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 117 No. 5,
pp. 838-852.
Fynes, B., de Burca, S. and Voss, C. (2005), “Supply chain relationship quality, the competitive
environment and performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 16,
pp. 3303-3320.
Gaitan-Cremaschi, D., Meuwissen, M.P.M. and Lansink, A.G.J.M.O. (2017), “Total factor productivity: a
framework for measuring agri-food supply chain performance towards sustainability”, Applied
Economic Perspectives and Policy, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 259-285.
Gaitan-Cremaschi, D., Klerkx, L., Duncan, J., Trienekens, J.H., Huenchuleo, C., Dogliotti, S., Contesse,
M.E. and Rossing, W.A.H. (2019), “Characterizing diversity of food systems in view of
sustainability transitions. A review”, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 1-22.
JEIM Gao, Y.Y. (2018), “How does Internet information technology promote rural social and economic
development”, Modern Economic Research, Vol. 4, pp. 94-100, in Chinese.
34,6
Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N. and Papadopoulos, T. (2017), “Information technology for
competitive advantage within logistics and supply chains: a review”, Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 99, pp. 14-33.
Hart, S.L. and Dowell, G. (2011), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm: fifteen years after”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1464-1479.
1718
Huang, Y. (2018), “Research on the mechanism of computer information technology to economic
development”, Economic Research Guide, Vol. 16, pp. 183-90, in Chinese.
Huggins, C. and Valverde, A. (2018), “Information technology approaches to agriculture and nutrition
in the developing world: a systems theory analysis of the mNutrition program in Malawi”, Food
Security, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 151-168.
Hwang, D., Yang, M.G. and Hong, P. (2015), “Mediating effect of IT-enabled capabilities on competitive
performance outcomes: an empirical investigation of ERP implementation”, Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 36, pp. 1-23.
Irani, Z. and Sharif, A.M. (2016), “Sustainable food security futures perspectives on food waste and
information across the food supply chain”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 171-178.
Jain, M., Khalil, S., Johnston, W.J. and Cheng, J.M.S. (2014), “The performance implications of power-
trust relationship: the moderating role of commitment in the supplier-retailer relationship”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 312-321.
Jimenez-Jimenez, D., Martinez-Costa, M. and Sanchez Rodriguez, C. (2019), “The mediating role of
supply chain collaboration on the relationship between information technology and
innovation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 548-567.
Jin, Y., Vonderembse, M., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Smith, J.T. (2014), “Exploring relationships among
IT-enabled sharing capability, supply chain flexibility, and competitive performance”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 153, pp. 24-34.
Kim, H.J. (2017), “Information technology and firm performance: the role of supply chain integration”,
Operations Management Research, Vol. 10 Nos 1-2, pp. 1-9.
Kirwan, J., Maye, D. and Brunori, G. (2017), “Acknowledging complexity in food supply chains when
assessing their performance and sustainability”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 52, pp. 21-32.
Krone, M., Dannenberg, P. and Nduru, G. (2016), “The use of modern information and communication
technologies in smallholder agriculture: examples from Kenya and Tanzania”, Information
Development, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1503-1512.
Kuhne, B., Gellynck, X. and Weaver, R.D. (2013), “The influence of relationship quality on the
innovation capacity in traditional food chains”, Supply Chain Management-an International
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 52-65.
Lee, C.H. and Ha, B.C. (2018), “The impact of buyer-supplier relationships’ social capital on bi-
directional information sharing in the supply chain”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 325-336.
Li, S.H. and Chen, F. (2010), “The impact of information technology and partner relationship on supply
chain performance”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Operations and
Supply Chain Management (Icoscm 2010), Vol. 4, pp. 723-728.
Li, G., Yang, H.J., Sun, L.Y. and Sohal, A.S. (2009), “The impact of IT implementation on supply chain
integration and performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 120 No. 1,
pp. 125-138.
Lu, J. and Bowles, M. (2014), “Improving the food safety in supply chain: the value of nanotechnology
on a growing problem”, Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops and Foods, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 123-133.
Lu, Y. and Ramamurthy, K. (2011), “Understanding the link between information technology Impact of
capability and organizational agility: an empirical examination”, Mis Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 931-954. information
Mendoza-Fong, J.R., Garcia-Alcaraz, J.L., Macias, E.J., Ibarra Hernandez, N.L., Diaz-Reza, J.R. and
technology
Fernandez, J.B. (2018), “Role of information and communication technology in green supply capabilities
chain implementation and companies’ performance”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 6, p. 1793.
Mesic, Z., Molnar, A. and Cerjak, M. (2018), “Assessment of traditional food supply chain performance
using triadic approach: the role of relationships quality”, Supply Chain Management-an 1719
International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 396-411.
Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N. and Sambamurthy, V. (2011), “How information management capability
influences firm performance”, Mis Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 237-256.
Ngwenyama, O. and Morawczynski, O. (2009), “Factors affecting ICT expansion in emerging
economies: an analysis of ICT infrastructure expansion in five Latin American countries”,
Information Technology for Development, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 237-258.
Niu, Y. (2010), “The impact of information technology on supply chain performance: a knowledge
management perspectivee”, Dissertations & Theses, Gradworks.
Nyamah, E.Y., Jiang, Y., Feng, Y. and Enchill, E. (2017), “Agri-food supply chain performance: an
empirical impact of risk”, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 872-891.
Odongo, W., Dora, M., Molnar, A., Ongeng, D. and Gellynck, X. (2016), “Performance perceptions
among food supply chain members A triadic assessment of the influence of supply chain
relationship quality on supply chain performance”, British Food Journal, Vol. 118 No. 7,
pp. 1783-1799.
Oh, S., Ryu, Y.U. and Yang, H. (2016), “Supply chain capabilities and information technology
characteristics: interaction effects on firm performance”, Proceedings of the 49th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (Hicss 2016), pp. 1417-1425.
Ojha, D., Sahin, F., Shockley, J. and Sridharan, S.V. (2019), “Is there a performance tradeoff in
managing order fulfillment and the bullwhip effect in supply chains? The role of information
sharing and information type”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 208,
pp. 529-543.
Panahifar, F., Byrne, P.J., Salam, M.A. and Heavey, C. (2018), “Supply chain collaboration and firm’s
performance the critical role of information sharing and trust”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 358-379.
Park, K.O., Chang, H. and Jung, D.H. (2017), “How do power type and partnership quality affect supply
chain management performance?”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 127.
Patrakosol, B. and Lee, S.M. (2009), “IT capabilities, interfirm performance, and the state of economic
development”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 9, pp. 1231-1247.
Peng, J., Quan, J., Zhang, G. and Dubinsky, A.J. (2016), “Mediation effect of business process and
supply chain management capabilities on the impact of IT on firm performance: evidence from
Chinese firms”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 89-96.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
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.
Saitone, T.L. and Sexton, R.J. (2017), “Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with
conflicting consumer and societal demands”, European Review of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 634-657.
Sambasivan, M., Siew-Phaik, L., Mohamed, Z.A. and Leong, Y.C. (2013), “Factors influencing strategic
alliance outcomes in a manufacturing supply chain: role of alliance motives, interdependence,
JEIM asset specificity and relational capital”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 141
No. 1, pp. 339-351.
34,6
Santhanam, R. and Hartono, E. (2003), “Issues in linking information technology capability to firm
performance”, Mis Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 125-153.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models”, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 13 No. 13, pp. 290-312.
1720 Soto-Acosta, P. and Merono-Cerdan, A.L. (2008), “Analyzing e-business value creation from a resource-
based perspective”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Srinivasan, M., Mukherjee, D. and Gaur, A.S. (2011), “Buyer-supplier partnership quality and supply
chain performance: moderating role of risks, and environmental uncertainty”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 260-271.
Su, Y.F. (2012), “The impact of information technology on supply chain management capabilities: a
resource-based View”, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management (IEEM), Changsha, pp. 947-951.
Sun, X.W. and Bao, J.L. (2011), “Study on e-commerce development model of modern agriculture-take
Suzhou as an example”, Tenth Wuhan International Conference on E-Business, Wuhan, Vols I
and II, pp. 276-280.
Sundram, V.P.K., Bahrin, A.S., Munir, Z.B.A. and Zolait, A.H. (2018), “The effect of supply chain
information management and information system infrastructure: the mediating role of supply
chain integration towards manufacturing performance in Malaysia”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 751-770.
Tang, S.H., Moosavipur, S.S., Sulaiman, S., Ariffin, M.K.A.M. and Ghobakhloo, M. (2014), “The impact
of information technology investment on supply chain capabilities: a review”, Advances in
Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 564, pp. 723-726.
Terpend, R. and Krause, D.R. (2015), “Competition or cooperation? Promoting supplier performance
with incentives under varying conditions of dependence”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 29-53.
Tseng, P.H. and Liao, C.H. (2015), “Supply chain integration, information technology, market
orientation and firm performance in container shipping firms”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 82-106.
Tsolakis, N.K., Keramydas, C.A., Toka, A.K., Aidonis, D.A. and Iakovou, E.T. (2014), “Agrifood supply
chain management: a comprehensive hierarchical decision-making framework and a critical
taxonomy”, Biosystems Engineering, Vol. 120, pp. 47-64.
Uddin, N. (2017), “Inter-organizational relational mechanism on firm performance the case of
Australian agri-food industry supply chain”, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Vol. 117 No. 9, pp. 1934-1953.
Vickery, S.K., Droge, C., Setia, P. and Sambamurthy, V. (2010), “Supply chain information technologies
and organisational initiatives: complementary versus independent effects on agility and firm
performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 23, pp. 7025-7042.
Wang, J.H., Chu, M., Deng, Y.Y., Lam, H.M. and Tang, J.J. (2018), “Determinants of pesticide
application: an empirical analysis with theory of planned behaviour”, China Agricultural
Economic Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 608-625.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A Resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 171-180.
Wu, J.H., Zhang, X.F. and Lu, J.J. (2018), “Empirical research on influencing factors of sustainable
supply chain management-evidence from Beijing, China”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 5, p. 1595.
Yan, B., Yan, C., Ke, C.X. and Tan, X.C. (2016), “Information sharing in supply chain of agricultural
products based on the Internet of Things”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116
No. 7, pp. 1397-1416.
Ye, F. and Wang, Z.Q. (2013), “Effects of information technology alignment and information sharing Impact of
on supply chain operational performance”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 65 No. 3,
pp. 370-377. information
Yu, Z.X., Yan, H. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2001), “Benefits of information sharing with supply chain
technology
partnerships”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 101 Nos 3-4, pp. 114-119. capabilities
Zander, K. and Beske, P. (2014), “Happy growers! Relationship quality in the German organic apple
chain”, The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 205-223. 1721
Zeng, M.G., Lin, Q., Pan, H.W. and Zhu, J. (2017), “The relationship among information technology
capability, trust and supply chain integration”, Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 217-225,
in Chinese.
Zhou, S.H. and Wan, G.H. (2017), “The impact of E-Business on supply chain performance of
manufacturing enterprises: an empirical study from information integration perspective”,
Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 199-210, in Chinese.
Zhu, K. (2004), “The complementarity of information technology infrastructure and e-commerce
capability: a resource-based assessment of their business value”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 167-202.

Corresponding author
Jianjun Lu can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]