See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358432375

Procurement process risk and performance: empirical evidence from

manufacturing firms

Article in Benchmarking An International Journal · February 2022

DOI: 10.1108/BIJ-06-2021-0306

CITATIONS READS

14 7,532

5 authors, including:

Nyamah Edmond Yeboah Yi Feng

University of Cape Coast University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
37 PUBLICATIONS 455 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 965 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Evelyn Yeboah Nyamah Richard Kofi Opoku

University of Cape Coast University of Cape Coast
11 PUBLICATIONS 160 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 274 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Kofi Opoku on 18 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm

Procurement process risk and Procurement

process risk
performance: empirical evidence and firm
performance
from manufacturing firms
Edmond Yeboah Nyamah
Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, School of Business,
University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Received 2 June 2021
Revised 14 January 2022
Yi Feng Accepted 15 January 2022

School of Management and Economics,

University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
Evelyn Yeboah Nyamah
Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, School of Business,
University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana
Richard Kofi Opoku
Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing, China, and
Matilda Ewusi
University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

Abstract
Purpose – This paper employs the positivism paradigm, quantitative approach and explanatory research
design. It analyses primary data obtained from manufacturing firms via structured questionnaires and uses the
partial least square-structural equation modelling technique to establish the effect of individual procurement
process risk on procurement performance.
Design/methodology/approach – Procurement risks are inevitable in manufacturing procurement process; a
situation that could undermine the performance of manufacturing firms if not properly managed. Yet, with
procurement accounting of about 14–19% of developing countries gross domestic product, the effects of procurement
process risk on performance remain scarce in manufacturing firms in developing countries. Therefore, the paper aims
to investigate the effect of procurement process risk on procurement performance of manufacturing firms.
Findings – In this paper, five out of the six procurement process risks studied were found to be undermining
procurement performance of manufacturing firms significantly. However, the risk threshold effect on the
performance differs.
Research limitations/implications – Although this research is geographically/sector bias, several
insightful managerial implications can be drawn to manage procurement process risk in manufacturing
settings irrespective of the area of operation. The results of this research imply that manufacturing firms’
procurement process is risk prone and the effect of risk surrounding each procurement process on procurement
performance differs. Hence, the need to identify and analyse the risks surrounding each procurement process
before making managerial decision to spend firms limited resources in response to the individual risk to
improve procurement performance in the manufacturing sector.
Originality/value – This paper is the first to provide existing and future procuring practitioners/firms with
in-depth empirical evidence of the effect of the procurement process risks on procurement performance in
manufacturing firms operating in developing economies.
Keywords Procurement process risk, Planning/preparation risk, Product/service identification risk,
Requisition review risk, Supplier selection risk, Managerial risk, Procurement performance
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Benchmarking: An International

Journal
The manufacturing sector in West Africa is fast growing based on the evidence of its high © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
rate of foreign investment and gross domestic product contributions to the region’s economy DOI 10.1108/BIJ-06-2021-0306
BIJ (Machado et al., 2019; Lawrence, 2020; Bag et al., 2021). The sector has a diverse character and
it is made up with subsidiaries of multinational companies and small-medium-large–scale
local firms (Lawrence, 2020). Aside the internal competition, the performance of the
manufacturing sector in West Africa is facing tough external competition from
well-established manufacturing sector in Asia, Europe and the Americas (Henao et al.,
2019). To achieve a desirable competitive edge in the manufacturing sector, earlier studies
(Wu and Barnes, 2011; Sajan et al., 2017; Marodin et al., 2019; Laosirihongthong et al., 2019)
point to the need for firms to coordinate a series of processes to obtain external sources of
materials, technologies, skills, facilities and other logistics resources. These resources would
help these firms to successfully undertake their essential activities while outsourcing the non-
essential operational events to meet suppliers and buyers’ requirements (Jasti and Sharma,
2014; Romero and Arce, 2017; Pinto, 2020).
Although manufacturing firms’ coordination processes are geared towards value creation
(Lacerda et al., 2016), the complexity of information, finance and material flows in the
manufacturing sector in unstable business environmental expose firms’ procurement activities
to many risks/disruptions: a situation that could affect overall firm performance significantly
(Harland et al., 2003; Zsidisin, 2003; Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005; Tang and Musa, 2011; Ho et al.,
2015; Trkman et al., 2016; Ramesh and Sarmah, 2020; Parast and Subramanian, 2021). Research
has shown that the meaning, measurement, interpretations, management and effect of risk
varies across and within fields respectively (Baird and Thomas, 1990; Spekman and Davis, 2004;
Chopra and Sodhi, 2014; Nyamah et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2018; Rane et al., 2019; Tarei et al., 2020).
For instance, research has shown that risk is inevitable in any business setting with its
occurrence highly likely to affect business activities and performance including procurement

c and Ivetic, 2016; Machado et al., 2019; Dellana et al., 2021).
processes within supply chains (Soti
The negative effect of risk on firm performance evident in earlier researches justify why
procurement risk management is becoming imperative for manufacturing firms within West
Africa (Hallikas and Lintukangas, 2016; Nooraie and Parast, 2016; Wiengarten et al., 2016;
Nyamah et al., 2017; Fan and Stevenson, 2018). As a result, research into the effect of
procurement risk on the performance of firms in the West African region is an important need
for existing and upcoming firms to improve performance.
In this paper, grounded on Harland et al. (2003), J€ uttner et al. (2003), Zsidisin (2003), Tang
and Musa (2011), Ho et al. (2015), Nyamah et al. (2017) and Rane et al. (2019), procurement risk
is described as any event in the procurement process that affect the inbound supply of goods
or services to create a distribution of possible production outcomes that harm firms’
reputation, capability, operation, performance, financial viability and planned demand target.
Procurement performance, in recent times, has been considered among the key organisational
performance measurement indicators (Laosirihongthong et al., 2019). According to Malviya
and Kant (2019), measuring procurement performance plays a significant role in predicting
the performance of manufacturing firms and their supply chains. In fact, procurement
performance measures the degree to which a procurement function or process meets expected
goals at the most competitive costs (Jones and Kaluarachchi, 2008; Malviya and Kant, 2019;
Tripathi and Gupta, 2019; Machado et al., 2019; Bardhan et al., 2021). Since risks account for
more than 40% of firm performance (Nyamah et al., 2017); it would be prudent to investigate
the risks residing in the various stages of manufacturing firms’ procurement processes and
their effects on procurement performance in the manufacturing sector in the West African
region.
Although the notion of supply chain risk management has been fairly established (AS/
NZS ISO 31000 2009; Hallikas and Lintukangas, 2016; Knemeyer et al., 2009; Munir et al., 2020;
El Baz and Ruel, 2021), risk management studies associated with procurement process in the
manufacturing sectors is rare in literature. For instance, none of the previous studies (e.g.
Hallikas and Lintukangas, 2016; Florio and Leoni, 2017; Ramesh and Sarmah, 2020) have
clearly established the effect of risks associated with procurement processes on procurement Procurement
performance in both developed and emerging economies, a situation that could affect policy process risk
formulations and practices of procurement in manufacturing sector of the region. Based on
the theory of constraints (TOC), manufacturing firms’ procurement processes are
and firm
predominantly exposed to various constraints (such as planning/preparation risks, performance
planning and preparation risk product/service identification risk, requisition review risk,
supplier selection risk, managerial risk, contact management risk) that could influence
manufacturing firms’ procurement performance and competitiveness (Cox and Boyd, 2020;
Mabin and Balderstone, 2020); and hence, the need to establish the effect of the constraints
surrounding procurement process on performance of manufacturing firms.
Again, since a robust manufacturing sector could be largely understood as the basic path
to economic growth and development (Adom and Kwakwa, 2014; Mijiyawa, 2017), this paper
benchmarks the manufacturing sector in West African to have similar characteristics, as
evidenced by the degree of economic growth and development in most West African
countries. Therefore, this paper uses the Ghanaian manufacturing sector to understand the
effect of the various procurement processes risks on manufacturing performance in the West
Africa region. The contribution of this research is in three-folds. First, the outcome of the
study would enrich literature on manufacturing firms’ procurement practices within the West
African region. Second, the study’s results could guide existing and future procuring firms/
managers/officers to understand the risks associated with procurement process and its effect
on procurement performance in order to formulate relevant policies/strategies to manage
risks associated with procurement processes. Third, this research would be a wakeup call for
future research in procurement risk management.
The following section examines the literature and develops the hypotheses in relation to
procurement process risk and firm performance. Sections 3 and 4 present the methodologies
and the results of the study, respectively. The discussion of the findings is at section 5. Section 6
presents managerial implications and conclusion of the study.

2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development

2.1 Theory of constraints
This paper is guided by the TOC propounded by Eliyahu Goldratt in the year 1984 (Goldratt,
1990). The theory is inextricably tied to the Optimised Production Technology (OPT) system,
a planning and control tool which was formalised by Goldratt. The OPT system was created
to identify and manage possible limiting factors in any production processes (Cox and Boyd,
2020; Mabin and Balderstone, 2020). The theory evolved around this system to become a vital
managerial philosophy spanning across differing management areas including procurement.
It specifically exposes firms to possible constraints that could impede operational success.
According to Şimşit et al. (2014), TOC’s ideology is centred on how firms can efficiently
manage constraints notably risks to promote operational effectiveness. Cox and Boyd (2020)
revealed that a constraint is any bottleneck or limiting factor that restricts the efficiency of a
system. It is also regarded as the weakest link in any system that could expose the operations
of a firm to severe threats from environmental forces. These constraints are seen as risk-
related factors that could inhibit effective procurement processes and they include planning/
preparation risk, managerial risk, suppliers’ selection risk, product/service identification risk
and requisition review risk. During procurement processes, for instance, manufacturing
firms’ exposure to any of these risks could affect the entire procurement processes and
procurement performance (Mabin and Balderstone, 2020). As such, the theory suggests that
firms can only overcome any constraint in their procurement processes by ensuring
continuous systems improvement through adoption of relevant policies, practices and total
quality management (Cox and Boyd, 2020; Mishra, 2020). It could, therefore, be asserted that
BIJ manufacturing firms need to embrace the TOC in order to manage risks that could affect their
operational activities including procurement processes.

2.2 Risk
The concept “risk” has been used since the 17th century with the original meaning “to run into
danger or to go against a rock” (McElwee, 2007, p. 12). In the 21st century, this concept has
been widely used and associated with different words such as threat, hazard, uncertainty or
challenge. According to Zou et al. (2007), risk is a two-edged sword and refers to the
possibility that a threat or unforeseen event would occur and its associated consequences.
Chopra and Sodhi (2014) opined that risk represents the probability and consequences of an

c and Ivetic (2016) posited that risk is an unfavourable situation that
unknown event. Soti
deviates firms’ attention from achieving expected outcomes. Machado et al. (2019) similarly
defined risk as the total of the possibility and impact of a hazard. Risk is as an evitable
component of any business activity with its occurrence likely to affect the overall
productivity of any business (Dellana et al., 2021). Tarei et al. (2020) asserted that risk could
have been positive and negative effects on businesses; however, its negative consequences
could be devastating; consequently, having severe negative rippling effects on business
success, productivity and competitiveness. Risk is also any threat of loss, damage, injury or
liability that emanates from both internal and external vulnerabilities (Nyamah et al., 2017;
Rane et al., 2019; Tarei et al., 2020). It is associated with a firm’s exposure level to uncertainties
that could have devastating effects on operational efficiency, effectiveness and survival.
Related studies have argued that risk can occur in any business activity at any time; however,
firms should ensure that its occurrence do not cause severe damage to them (Nyamah et al.,
2017; Kumar et al., 2019). According to Kumar et al. (2019), risk needs maximum attention; as
such, firms within the pharmaceutical industry need to adopt green supply chain initiatives to
identify, analyse and manage risk. Simply put, in any procurement process, procurement
practitioners are equally likely to be exposed to various risks such as supplier selection risk,
planning and preparation risks and contract risk, among others, and thus, the need to ensure
proper risk management.

2.3 Procurement process

The concept “procurement” has widely been used by businesses across the globe (Ambekar et al.,
2020; Lysons, 2020). Procurement represents one of the most valuable assets of modern-day
businesses including manufacturing firms (Lysons, 2020). It is the act of obtaining or sourcing
for goods and services (Ambekar et al., 2020). Although some businesses have associated this
concept to only purchasing, others have related it with the entire processes or activities that lead
to the purchasing, consumption and disposal of the commodity. Procurement represents a large
portion of manufacturing firms’ input and it plays a key role in the buyer’s success stories
(Ambekar et al., 2020). As such, the processes involved in conducting procurement activities are
a major component of procurement. The procurement process deals with identifying, defining
and implementing certain steps to ensure proper acquisition of goods and services to attain
expected objectives (Bag et al., 2020; S€onnichsen and Clement, 2020). It contains the systematic
steps involved in the identification, purchase and disposal of a good or service. The process
serves as a guide to all procurement; thus, the success or failure of an organisation is largely
dependent on it (S€onnichsen and Clement, 2020; Raj et al., 2020). Related studies have revealed
that every business has a unique procurement process which generally starts from procurement
planning and preparation, product/service identification, requisition review, supplier selection
and contract management (Adeniyi et al., 2020; Ambekar et al., 2020; Raj et al., 2020). These
stages of procurement could be exposed to various risks; thereby, affecting the quality the entire
procurement process if not properly managed.
2.4 Procurement performance Procurement
Firm performance represents the economic dimension that reflects a firm’s ability to use process risk
available resources to attain set targets (Jones and Kaluarachchi, 2008; Alabdullah, 2021).
According to Tran et al. (2015), firm performance shows the association between input
and firm
resources and output results in any business operation. It considers the effectiveness and performance
efficiency of a firm during production and consumption. Taouab and Issor (2019) and Saini
and Singh (2020) noted that firm performance is related with a firm’s efficiency, quality,
evaluation, profitability, growth, effectiveness and competitiveness. Firm performance helps
organisations to assess and evaluate their strategic plans and apply the necessary resources
and efforts into achieving them (Kamble and Gunasekaran, 2020). It has been measured using
different dimensions including procurement performance (Frederico et al., 2020; Kamble et al.,
2020). Procurement performance focuses on measuring the level at which a procurement
function is able to achieve expected goals and objectives at the lowest possible costs (Kamble
and Gunasekaran, 2020). Measuring procurement performance plays a valuable role in
determining the effectiveness and efficiency of the procurement function. According to
Kamble et al. (2020), procurement performance is a new dimension of firm performance that
focuses on the procurement aspect of a firm. Firms that achieve higher procurement
performance are cost-efficient, competitive and successful and vice versa. Bag et al. (2020)
concluded that measuring procurement performance is key to minimising about 60% of
overall costs associated with procurement. It helps manufacturing firms, for instance, to
minimise input wastes while optimising resource usage during procurement in order to
deliver quality, obtain cheaper products and promote value addition (Malesios et al., 2020).

2.5 Research hypotheses development

2.5.1 Planning and preparation risk and firm performance. Procurement planning and
preparation involves the activity in assessing an entity’s needs, funding and timing of need
acquisition from the right place in such a way that operations are efficiently met as required
(Willy and Njeru, 2014; Salim and Kitheka, 2019; Ezeanyim et al., 2020). This activity involves
determining procurement requirements or specifications and associated procurement costs to
smoothen the procurement process (Willy and Njeru, 2014). Procurement planning plays
crucial roles in consolidating requirements, identifying the most appropriate procurement
processes whereas scheduling lead times for procurement activities (Changalima et al., 2020).
For a success in any procurement project, the planning and preparation considerations are
necessary because the violation of any step in this process could adversely affect
procurement contracts and operational performance of the procuring firms. Firms which fail
to develop comprehensive, accurate and reliable procurement plans are predominantly
exposed to poor product designs, product quality issues, poor sourcing, long lead times and
understocked or overstocked inventories (Chepkesis et al., 2018; Changalima et al., 2020).
Timely and effective procurement planning and preparation could mitigate procurement risk
as the execution of an ill-procurement strategy has a broad effect on the performance of
businesses (Kihara and Ngugi, 2013; Eberhard et al., 2014). Specifically, proper procurement
planning mitigates procurement project delays and costs while promoting operational
flexibility, dependability and speed (Apiyo and Mburu, 2014; Chepkesis et al., 2018). Hence,
our hypothesis 1 is given as:
H1. The higher the planning and preparation risk, the lower the procurement
performance of manufacturing firms.
2.5.2 Product/service identification risk and performance. The identification of product or
services has become imperative to manufacturing firms’ procurement processes (Apiyo and
Mburu, 2014; Nyaga and Kihara, 2017). Increased product complexity and a shorter product
life cycle are a result of the volatile global market climate; compelling manufacturing firms to
BIJ rapidly identify and acquire new goods or services that demand a high level of flexibility in
attaining evolving consumer requirements (Tan, 2001; Barragan et al., 2003; Ryals and
Rogers, 2006; Hong and Kwon, 2012; Rendon and Rendon, 2015). Lack of clarity at product or
service identification stage in any procurement process could cause interruptions in bidding
and bidding response, evaluation and approvals, testing and installations and incorrect
product specifications – a situation that could deviate the planned production schedules of
the manufacturing firms (Noor et al., 2013; Nooraie and Parast, 2016) to affect, for example
production quality, customer deliveries and overall firm and supply chain performance.
Therefore, hypothesis 2 is given as:
H2. The higher the product or service identification risk, the lower the procurement
performance of manufacturing firms.
2.5.3 Requisition review risk and performance. In practice, the actual procurement process
commences only after top management approves the purchase requisition and cross-checks
for financial availability (Nzimande and Padayachee, 2017). Requisition during any
procurement process focuses on formally obtaining approval from top management by
submitting a standardised document to them (Van Weele and Van Raaij, 2014; Kumar et al.,
2019). The requisition review process is a formal way of accounting and keeping track of all
requisitions made within a given period. Top management’s acceptance and approval of the
requisition enables the procurement departments to continue with the procurement
processes. Also, according to previous studies, the requisition analysis may include all
activities needed to transport the product/service from the supplier to its final destination
(Van Weele and Van Raaij, 2014; Anane et al., 2019). The obvious risks that can occur,
however, are the violation of any protocol in the procurement process; the lack of probity and
ethical conduct of procurement officers; weak value-for-money systems and the use of poor
risk management systems (Fazekas et al., 2016; Maulina and Natakusumah, 2020) among
others; a situation that could affect manufacturing processes (Tang and Musa, 2011; Torabi
et al., 2018). Poor requisition reviews arguably lead to selecting unqualified suppliers, long
lead times, product quality issues and increased production costs. This could expose
manufacturing firms to severe procurement performance issues; thereby, affecting overall
firm performance. As such, firms’ exposure to requisition review risk could have severe
rippling effects on the entire procurement processes and in turn affect procurement
performance (Torabi et al., 2018). Thus, overcoming risks associated with requisition review
in procurement processes have been found to ensure procurement successes (Brahim et al.,
2014; Nzimande and Padayachee, 2017). Therefore, hypothesis 3 is given as:
H3. The higher the requisition review risk, the lower the procurement performance of
manufacturing firms.
2.5.4 Suppliers selection risk and performance. Issues surrounding suppliers are of major
concern in procurement and supply chain risk management (Igarashi et al., 2013; Schaltegger
and Buttitt, 2014; Chakraborty et al., 2019; Laosirihongthong et al., 2019; Mabin and
Balderstone, 2020). Supplier selection in procurement process emerges from the likelihood of
disruption associated with upstream supply – a situation that mostly affect the performance
of manufacturing and downstream customers (Jonathan et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2019;
Micheli et al., 2009; Tarei et al., 2020). External procurement risk arising from an upstream
supplier has been shown in previous studies to have an effect on an industry’s overall
performance (Rajesh and Ravi, 2015; Kumar et al., 2019; Laosirihongthong et al., 2019;
Lockamy, 2019). Foerstl et al. (2017) argued that the widespread of quality suppliers across
the globe have expanded the supplier selection process. Studies by Masi et al. (2013), van der
Westhuizen and Ntshingila (2020) and Bardhan et al. (2021) concluded that supplier selection
is synonymous with improved business performance in both financial and non-financial
dimensions. Arguably, exposure to supplier selection risks such as capacity risks, quality Procurement
risks, quantity and communication risks could expose firms to quality issues and increased process risk
financial burden; in turn threatening the overall firm performance and competitiveness levels.
Therefore, hypothesis 4 states that:
and firm
performance
H4. The higher the supplier selection risk, the lower the procurement performance of
manufacturing firms.
2.5.5 Managerial risk and performance. Managerial risk is a crucial element of strategic
management (Hoskisson et al., 2017; Chakraborty et al., 2019). For a long time, it has been
understood that top management support is critical to effective procurement (Singh and
Singh, 2019). Managerial competence in the management of procurement-related risk is
imperative to the success of the company since the procurement component is as high as 70%
or more of the overall resource requirement of manufacturing firms (Hong and Kwon, 2012;
Singh and Kumar, 2020). Thus, lack of support from management exposes firms to
managerial risks which could have negative rippling effects on their overall operational
activities (Malik et al., 2020). Managerial risk is associated with uncertainties arising from
management’s failure to support a firm’s operational activities (Hoskisson et al., 2017; Singh
and Kumar, 2020). During procurement processes, for instance, management support is key;
thus, a lack of such support could expose the entire process to risks. As such, managers need
to embrace risks, often in uncertain activities associated with procurement processes (Tarei
et al., 2020). Continuous exposure to managerial risk could affect the effectiveness and
efficiency of procurement processes; in turn, affecting procurement performance. Clearly,
absence of managerial support could delay procurement processes and this could
consequently inhibit procurement performance. The agency theory suggests that top
managers should be actively involved in business activities to achieve better business results.
Hoskisson et al. (2017) and Singh and Singh (2019) asserted that eliminating managerial risk
mostly in uncertain business environments is a vital element of strategic management
including procurement performance. Therefore, hypothesis 5 is given as:
H5. The higher the managerial risk, the lower the procurement performance of
manufacturing firms.
2.5.6 Contract management risk and performance. The fundamental concept of the contract
theory, according to Hoskisson et al. (2017) is that there should be a good perception of the
principal’s needs (entities) and the capacity of the agent (suppliers) to satisfy those needs
competently. Contract management relates with managing contract agreements from its
initiation stage through to its execution and termination stage (Abutabenjeh et al., 2021). It is
an essential element in every procurement process with can never be overemphasised.
Procurement contract management ensures economic transaction scaffold and reduction of
litigation, as long as the agreement terms are clear for the contract parties’ rights involved
(Ahimbisibwe et al., 2012; Oluka and Basheka, 2014; Tarei et al., 2020). Unexpected
disruptions occurring as a consequence of the original contract’s discrepancies, errors and
omissions discovered at the time of execution could lead to low procurement performance
(Ntayi et al., 2010). Therefore, hypothesis 6 states as:
H6. The higher contact management risk, the lower the procurement performance of
manufacturing firms.

3. Research methodology
3.1 Research philosophy/approach/design
This paper’s research objectives were achieved through the positivism philosophy and
quantitative approach. Also, extensive literature search was conducted to obtain relevant
BIJ information to support or disapprove this research’s findings. The positivist philosophy is
appropriate for obtaining facts about an event through hypothesis testing (Mingers,
2019). This philosophy plays crucial roles in determining truth about an event or situation
while promoting generalisation of findings. It also permits the use of rigorous analytical
tools to obtain concrete findings and draw evidence-based conclusions, generalisable
over a population (Aliyu et al., 2014; Ryan, 2018). Based on Baskerville and Pries-Heje
(2010) and Ryan (2018), the quantitative approach and explanatory design were
adopted to gather a set of data from a relatively large population of manufacturing
firms without compromising its quality to investigate how procurement processes (i.e.
predictor variable) causes a change in manufacturing firms’ operational performance
(i.e. endogenous variable).

3.2 Sampling strategy

This study relied on the census technique; wherein every member within the target population
participated in the data collection exercise. With this strategy, the researchers ensured that data
was obtained from every representative of the manufacturing firms in Ghana, a West African
country. The study’s target population of 235 Ghanaian manufacturing firms was obtained from
the 2020 report of Association of Ghana Industries. Data was obtained from a representative of
each of the 235 manufacturing firms using the census technique.

3.3 Survey instrument

This research adopted a two-stage technique used in survey-based studies to structure
its questionnaire. First, the questionnaire was structured based on extensive empirical
reviews on procurement risks and firm performance within the framework of
manufacturing industries in developing economies. The structured questionnaire was
adopted to collect primary data from 235 key respondents (i.e. procurement managers,
production/operations mangers, risk managers, supply chain managers) of manufacturing
firms in Ghana. With these manufacturing firms exhibiting similar characteristics or
features with those within the other West African countries, gathering data from firms in
Ghana, the gateway to Africa, was relevant. The structured questionnaire relied on a
Likert-like scale (five points) where 1 represented “weak agreement” and 5 represented
“highest agreement”. The questionnaire was structured under three sections: section A
had question items related to procurement process risks; section B contained questions
that measured procurement performance and finally, section C obtained the business
profile of the manufacturing firms.
All the question items were adapted from previous studies; for example questions (six
items) on procurement planning and preparation risk were obtained from Willy and Njeru
(2014) and Ezeanyim et al. (2020), product/service identification risk questions (six items)
were obtained from Apiyo and Mburu (2014) and Rendon and Rendon (2015), requisition
review risk questions (six items) were retrieved from Nzimande and Padayachee (2017) and
Maulina and Natakusumah (2020) and supplier selection risk questions (six items) were
gathered from Kumar et al. (2019) and Laosirihongthong et al. (2019). Also, questions (six
items) on managerial risk were obtained from Hoskisson et al. (2017) and Singh and Kumar
(2020), contract management risk questions (six items) were adapted from Oluka and
Basheka (2014) and Tarei et al. (2020) and finally, questions (ten items) on procurement
performance were obtained from Jones and Kaluarachchi (2008) and Tripathi and
Gupta (2019).
The questionnaire was drafted with the active involvements of team members with adequate
knowledge in research. After drafting it, the instrument was reviewed by four practitioners to
ensure relevance of each question item to the manufacturing firms. Based on these practitioners’
suggestions, all irrelevant question items were either modified or removed entirely from the Procurement
instrument. The instrument was then authenticated by three research experts based on process risk
Dillman’s (2011) directive. Also, all the necessary changes were made based on the experts’
suggestions and the final questionnaire was returned to them for final review. The approved
and firm
instrument was then pre-tested to check for validity and reliability. performance
Pretesting is a way of checking for the validity and reliability of an instrument prior to its
actual usage. This technique ensures that every question item is relevant and could be
understood by respondents who are likely to respond to them. It is a vital stage in developing
scales by identifying and addressing possible problems associated with the scales’ items. In
view of this, the study carried out pre-testing using 40 manufacturing firms within the Central
region of Ghana. This was done to check for validity and reliability of the instrument. In terms
of validity, for instance, some respondents revealed minor problems such as grammatical
errors, ambiguous statements and unclear questions which were duly addressed. Reliability
was also tested and the Cronbach’s alpha (α) (CA) scores were reported. The rule of thumb is
that the α values should be > 0.70 (Bolarinwa, 2015; Beins and McCarthy, 2017). Per the pre-
test outcome, no major changes were made to the questionnaire. From Table 1, all the
constructs had α values > 0.70; suggesting reliability of the instrument.

3.4 Data collection

Data was collected from the respondents through the online approach. With this approach,
emails containing invitation letters and online links to the questionnaire were sent to the
235 respondents of the manufacturing firms in Ghana. A period of two weeks was allocated
for this exercise and 156 of the questionnaires were completed and returned. The duration
was extended by three days where several follow-ups were done, obtaining additional
21 completed questionnaires. All the 175 questions were completely filled since the
Google form-based questionnaire had settings that did not make room for incomplete
questionnaires. The respondents’ demographic features and the firms’ profile were
presented in Table 2.

3.5 Common method variance (CMV)

Common method bias focuses on the possible measurement errors (occurs when variations in
responses are caused by the instrument instead of the respondents’ actual predispositions
that the instruments aim at uncovering) (Podsakoff et al., 2003; MacKenzie and Podsakoff,
2012). To address common method bias, this study followed the acceptable approaches of
Podsakoff et al. (2003) and Tehseen et al. (2017). After the data collection exercise, the data
obtained from the respondents were scrutinised to ensure that any data which had the
unrelated questions answered were deemed inappropriate and subsequently removed. Next,
the only valid and relevant data were subsequently processed and analysed to minimise the

Construct/Item Cronbach’s alpha

Planning and preparation risk 0.817

Product/service identification risk 0.866
Requisition review risk 0.826
Suppliers selection risk 0.873
Managerial risk 0.841
Contract management risk 0.784 Table 1.
Procurement performance 0.884 Reliability (pre-test)
BIJ Details Respondents Frequency Percent

Designation Risk manager 68 38.9

Production/operational manager 35 20.0
Procurement manager 52 29.7
Supply chain manager 20 11.4
Experience (years) Below 10 31 17.7
10–20 64 36.6
Above 20 80 45.7
Firm type Food and beverage processing 67 38.3
Plastic/rubber processing 36 20.6
Aluminium/metal smelting 28 16.0
Chemical/pharmaceutical 13 7.4
Table 2. Paper processing 31 17.7
Respondents’ Age of firm (year) Below 10 24 13.7
demographic details 10–20 54 30.9
and firm profile Above 20 97 55.4

presence of common method bias. Kock (2015) also suggested the use of variance inflation
factor (VIF) values to report for common method bias in partial least square-structural
equation modelling (PLS-SEM) studies. He proposed that VIF values > 3.5 suggest
pathological collinearity which are also indications that the model could be contaminated as a
result of common method bias. As such, the model could be free from common method bias if
the VIF values are <3.5. These are clear indications that the study’s model was free from
common method bias with all the VIF values (i.e. 1.018–1.123) lower than 3.5, as seen in
Table 6.

3.6 Non-response bias

The primary data was collected in two periods: in period one, 156 completed questionnaires
were received from the respondents without follow-ups and 21 questionnaires were obtained
after doing follow-ups during period two. To avoid non-response bias, the data retrieved
during these two periods were compared using Levene’s test as suggested by Armstrong and
Overton (1977) and Pearl and Fairley (1985). The test aimed at checking whether non-
response bias occurred as a result of gathering the data from two different periods. The data
obtained was processed using the IBM SPSS software and the mean values were compared.
Finally, the Levene’s score in the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was obtained and all
the values were not significant, suggesting absence of non-response bias since the data
obtained from the two periods had no differences.

3.7 Analytical tool

This study adopts the structural equation modelling (SEM) analytical tool to test the
hypotheses. It specifically develops a reflective mode of measurement because its first-order
dimensions are reflective (Ringle et al., 2012). According to Chin (2010), a model is reflective if
a causality’s theoretical dimensions come from constructs to items. More precisely, the
measurement indicators adopted in this research are manifestations of variables, that is,
variations in the variables could lead to variations in the indicators. The study specifically
analyses the model using the PLS path modelling. Wetzels et al. (2009) suggested the PLS
offers better theoretical parsimony with minimal complexities. The PLS was also employed
because of its relevance to the study’s objectives which focuses on developing and testing a
theoretical model through predictions. Prior to data analysis using the PLS technique, the
demographic features of the respondents were presented in Table 2.
4. Data analysis and results Procurement
4.1 Measurement model process risk
To test hypothesis, Hair et al. (2014) suggested the use of the SEM technique. Analysis of
moment structures (AMOS), PLS and linear structural relations (LISREL) are popular SEM
and firm
tools for studies of this nature (Hair et al., 2019; Lowry and Gaskin, 2014); however, PLS performance
produces accurate and better results over the other tools. It is mostly preferred when the
sample size is relatively small (Ong and Puteh, 2017). PLS also provides more rigorous
statistical processes capable of dealing with complex models. It is capable of producing more
robust outcomes than LISREL and AMOS by maximising the variances of all the endogenous
variables. Ringle et al. (2020) suggested that PLS-SEM places less emphasis on residual
distribution, sample size, measurement scales while allowing for multiple exogenous
variables. To rely on its results, the following assumptions should be met: indicator
reliability, convergent validity, construct reliability (CR), discriminant validity and
multicollinearity using VIF (Hair et al., 2014, 2019; Ringle et al., 2020). These model
assessment tools are reported to obtain adequate reliability and validity in order to make
sense out of the structural model outcomes (Hair et al., 2017; Risher and Hair, 2017). The
ensuing section presents the results of the model assessment output.

4.2 Measurement model assessment

The model measures and assesses six exogenous variables and one endogenous variable. The
exogenous variables are: planning and preparation risk (PaPRisk), product/service
identification risk (P/SIRisk), requisition review risk (RRRisk), supplier selection risk
(SRisk), managerial risk (MRisk) and contract management risk (CRisk) (Figure 1). PaPRisk
had seven indicators (PPRISK1–PPRISK7), P/SIRisk had nine indicators (PSIRISK1–
PSIRISK9), RRRisk had eight indicators (RRRISK1–RRRISK8), SRisk had five indicators
(SRISK1–SRISK5), MRisk had eight indicators (MRISK1–MRISK8) and CRisk had eight
indicators (CRISK1–CRISK8). The endogenous variable was procurement performance
(ProcPerf) which had eight indicators (PP1–PP8) (Figure 1).
The indicators measuring the constructs in the initial model was assessed based on the
criteria of several previous studies (Hair et al., 2017). These studies have suggested 0.5 as a
cut-off for acceptable loadings criteria (Hair et al., 2014, 2017). After careful assessment of the
initial model against these criteria, all loadings below the criteria were removed. This was
because, indicators <0.05 did not truly measure the constructs within the study area. Thus,
those indicators were not quality measures for their specific constructs (Hair et al., 2019).
Therefore, items >0.05 were maintained since they were assumed quality measures of
procurement risks and performance in West Africa manufacturing firms. Figure 2 shows the
final model extracted.
From Figure 2, it could be deduced that all loadings <0.05 were duly removed as
suggested by Hair et al. (2017). Thus, further analysis was based on the following indicators:
PaPRisk (PaPRisk5 and PaPRisk 6); P/SRisk (PSRisk4, PSRisk5 and PSRisk6); RRRisk
(RRRisk7 and RRRisk8), CRisk (CRisk4, CRisk5 and CRisk6), SRisk (SRisk1, SRisk3 and
SRisk4), MRisk (MRisk5 and MRisk6) and finally, ProcPerf (PP1, PP2, PP4, PP5, PP6
and PP7).

4.3 Outer model assessment

The outer model’s constructs measures were evaluated for reliability and validity. The
researcher can be certain that the structures that form the foundation for assessing the inner
model relationships are correctly calculated and interpreted when the outer models are
evaluated. In assessing the model’s internal consistency reliability, most often Werts et al.
(1978) CR is preferred to Cronbach and Meehl’s (1955) CA. Unlike CA, CR does not presume
BIJ MRISK1
PPRISK2
PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 PP6 PP7 PP8
MRISK2
PPRISK3
0.027 0.483
MRISK3
0.611 0.774 0.667 0.735 0.754 0.373
PPRISK4 0.006 0.677 0.719 0.162
0.143 0.550
MRISK4
PPRISK5 0.781 0.439
0.883 –0.342 –0.147 0.616
MRISK5
0.559 0.842
PPRISK6 0.457
PaPRisk 0.537
0.010 MRisk MRISK6
PPRISK7 0.433
PSIRISK1 ProcPerf MRISK7
PPRISK1 –0.131
SRISK1
PSIRISK2 MRISK8
–0.101
0.482 SRISK2
–0.122
PSIRISK3
–0.166
–0.249
0.869 SRISK3
PSIRISK4 –0.260 –0.113
0.818
0.714
0.311 SRISK4
PSIRISK5 0.535 CRISK1 SRisk
0.492
–0.468 SRISK5
PSIRISK6 0.186 CRISK2
0.262 P/SIRisk
0.558
PSIRISK7 CRISK3
–0.285 0.558
0.625
PSIRISK8 CRISK4
0.569
RRRISK1 0.683
PSIRISK9 CRISK5
0.721
RRRISK2 0.426
CRISK6 CRisk
0.109 0.341
RRRISK3
0.134
CRISK7
0.127
RRRISK4
0.108 CRISK8
0.117
RRRISK5
0.001
0.769
RRRISK6 RRRisk
0.844

Figure 1. RRRISK7
Initial model with all
indicator loadings RRRISK8

that all indicator loadings in the population are equal (J€oreskog, 1971). This is consistent with
the PLS-SEM algorithm’s working theory, which prioritises indicators based on their
reliabilities during model estimation. CA is often sensitive to the number of items on the scale,
and it often underestimates internal quality reliability.
Table 3 shows that in exploratory testing, values of 0.60–0.70 are acceptable, and in more
advanced stages of research, values of 0.70–0.90 are satisfactory (Orme and Combs-Orme,
2009; Diamantopoulos et al., 2012). Composite reliability for the outer model ranged from
0.70–0.90, inferring that the internal consistency of the constructs was ensured. Also, the
validity of the outer model was assessed by noting a construct’s convergent validity and
discriminant validity. The degree to which a construct converges to describe the variance of
its products is known as convergent validity (Hair et al., 2019). When the average variance
extracted (AVE) for each construct is 0.50 or higher, convergent validity is supported. The
AVE (Hair et al., 2014) is the grand mean value of the squared loadings of a group of indicators
and is equal to a construct’s communality. Simply put, an AVE of 0.50 indicates that the
construct accounts for more than half of the variance in its indicators. Thus, from Table 3,
 PP1 PP2 PP4 PP5 PP6 PP7 Procurement
process risk
0.668 0.739
0.796 0.657 0.757 0.767 and firm
0.802
PPRISK5
0.900 0.630
MRISK5 performance
–0.345
PPRISK6 –0.166 0.945
0.519 MRISK6
PaPRisk

MRisk

ProcPerf
–0.151
–0.083

PSIRISK4 SRISK1
0.503
0.876 0.883 SRISK3
PSIRISK5 –0.146
0.802 0.809
0.741
PSIRISK6 SRISK4
SRisk

P/SIRisk –0.425

CRISK4
0.522
0.807
CRISK5
0.832

CRISK6 CRisk

RRRISK7
0.786
0.860
RRRISK8 Figure 2.
Final model extracted
RRRisk

AVE for the various constructs was all above the 0.50 threshold, hence convergent validity
was ensured.
In the structural model, discriminant validity refers to the degree to which metrics of
different constructs are distinct from one another; in other words, the construct tests what it
claims to measure. The Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion is one tool for determining
whether discriminant validity exists. The construct shares more variance with its indicators
than any other construct, according to this approach. To verify this, each construct’s AVE
must be greater than the highest squared correlation with any other construct. Table 4 shows
the results on the Fornell–Larcker criterion.
The AVE of each construct is higher than the highest squared correlation with every other
construct, as shown in Table 4. This result suggests absence of discriminant validity; thus,
each constructs’ indicators are truly distinct from each other. However, current research
indicates that the Fornell–Larcker criterion is unsuitable for assessing discriminant validity.
According to Ringle et al. (2020), the Fornell–Larcker criterion performs poorly when the
indicator loadings on a construct differ only slightly. As a result, Voorhees et al. (2016)
suggested the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) correlation ratio. The HTMT is calculated as a
percentage of the (geometric) mean of average correlations for the same construct as the mean
value of item correlations across constructs. Henseler et al. (2015) suggested a 0.90 threshold
value for structural models with conceptually identical constructs. The construct’s HTMT
values are shown in Table 3.
BIJ From Table 5, it could also be argued that there was absence of discriminant validity since
each construct’s value is below the HTMT0.90 threshold. This suggests that all the constructs’
indicators are truly distinct from each other. Finally, the variance inflation factor was used to
determine multicollinearity problems (VIF). The rule of thumb is that VIF values of 5 or
higher imply important indicator collinearity issues (Hair et al., 2014). Collinearity problems
can occur at lower VIF values of 3–5, according to Mason and Perreault (1991) and Becker
et al. (2015); thus, VIF values should be close to 3 or lower. The VIF values of the model
evaluation are shown in Table 6.
From Table 6, it can be seen that all the constructs’ VIF values are far below the threshold
of 3, suggesting absence of multicollinearity among the constructs’ indicators.

4.4 Assessment of structural model (inner model assessment)

When the measurement model is satisfactory, the structural model is assessed as the next
step in assessing the data (Hair et al., 2017). The coefficient of determination (R2), the
blindfolding-based cross-validated redundancy test (Q2), effect size (f2) and the statistical
significance of the path coefficients are all normal evaluation parameters. R2 is a measure of
the model’s explanatory capacity since it calculates the variance explained in each of the
endogenous constructs (Shmueli and Koppius, 2011). It has a range of 0–1, with higher values
implying greater explanatory capacity. As a general rule, Hair et al. (2014) and Henseler et al.
(2015) provide R2 values of 0.75, 0.50 and 0.25 which relate to substantial, moderate and weak
capacity of the model, respectively. Table 7 presented the results of the standard
assessment tools.
Table 7 shows the R2 value of 0.519 for the model; implying that 51.9% of the endogenous
variable is described by the exogenous variables. In effect, procurement risk amounts to
51.9% of manufacturing firms’ performance; thus, poor management of procurement risk
including compliance issues, delay in delivery of product/service and transparency issues,
among others could lead to 51.9% decline in procurement performance. Hence, there is a need
for firms in the manufacturing industry to develop risk response strategies to reduce the

Cronbach’s alpha rho_A Composite reliability Average variance extracted

CRisk 0.575 0.638 0.772 0.539

MRisk 0.510 0.768 0.778 0.645
P/SIRisk 0.755 0.855 0.849 0.653
RRRisk 0.530 0.542 0.808 0.679
Table 3. PaPRisk 0.631 0.673 0.841 0.726
Construct reliability ProcPerf 0.827 0.838 0.873 0.536
and validity SRisk 0.578 0.643 0.786 0.562

CRisk MRisk P/SIRisk RRRisk PaPRisk ProcPerf SRisk

CRisk 0.734
MRisk 0.269 0.803
P/SIRisk 0.040 0.062 0.808
RRRisk 0.075 0.152 0.035 0.824
Table 4. PaPRisk 0.084 0.017 0.096 0.206 0.852
Fornell–Larcker ProcPerf 0.235 0.249 0.127 0.542 0.491 0.732
criterion SRisk 0.084 0.146 0.086 0.047 0.232 0.222 0.750
effect of these risks. Calculating the Q2 value is another way to evaluate the predictive Procurement
accuracy of the PLS path model (Geisser, 1975; Stone, 1974). This metric is based on a process risk
blindfolding technique that extracts individual points from a data matrix, imputes the
removed points with the mean and estimates model parameters (Sarstedt et al., 2014). As a
and firm
result, the Q2 is not a measure of out-of-sample prediction, but rather of in-sample performance
explanatory power and out-of-sample prediction (Rigdon, 2014; Sarstedt et al., 2014). Q2
values greater than zero for an endogenous construct suggest the structural model’s
predictive accuracy, according to Hair et al. (2019). Small, medium and large predictive
relevance of the PLS path model are indicated by Q2 values greater than 0.00, 0.25 and 0.50,
respectively. Table 7 yielded a Q2 of 0.255, indicating a medium predictive significance. The f2
also evaluates how the removal of a specific predictor construct influences the R2 value of an
endogenous construct. When comparing the size of the path coefficients and the f2 effect sizes,
the rank order of the predictor constructs’ importance in describing a dependent construct in
the structural model is often the same. Small, medium and large f2 effect sizes are represented
by values greater than 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35, respectively (Cohen, 1988). From Table 7, it can be
seen that some exogenous variables (MRisk, SRisk and CRisk) had small effect while PaPRisk
and PPRisk each had large effect on the endogenous variable independently.

CRisk MRisk P/SIRisk RRRisk PaPRisk ProcPerf SRisk

CRisk 0.502
MRisk 0.253 0.206
P/SIRisk 0.152 0.344 0.210
RRRisk 0.127 0.175 0.137 0.345 Table 5.
PaPRisk 0.344 0.351 0.182 0.808 0.651 Heterotrait–Monotrait
ProcPerf 0.322 0.337 0.197 0.234 0.393 0.344 ratio (HTMT)

ProcPerf

CRisk 1.092
MRisk 1.123
P/SIRisk 1.018
RRRisk 1.071
PaPRisk 1.117
ProcPerf Table 6.
SRisk 1.091 VIF

R2 Q2 f2

CRisk 0.040
MRisk 0.051
P/SIRisk 0.014
RRRisk 0.350
PaPRisk 0.222 Table 7.
ProcPerf 0.519 0.255 Explanatory power of
SRisk 0.044 exogenous variables
BIJ 5. Discussion
Following the evaluation of the measurement model to ensure the PLS-SEM technique’s
accuracy, the path coefficient which represents the hypothesised relationships were
subsequently assessed. Table 8 shows the six different relationships and their
significance. Risk occurring in the procurement process, namely planning and preparation
risk (PaPRisk), product/service information risk (P/SIRisk), requisition review risk (RRRisk),
supplier risk (SRisk), managerial risk (MRisk) and contract risk (CRisk) were assessed to test
their effects on procurement performance (ProcPerf). Table 8 presents the results of the path
co-efficient.
From Table 8, five out of the six procurement risks were found to significantly affect
procurement performance negatively. More precisely, the study hypothesised (H1) that
planning and preparation risk significantly influence the procurement performance of
manufacturing firms negatively. This study failed to reject this hypothesis by finding
planning and preparation risk to significantly and negatively affect procurement
performance (β 5 0.345; t 5 4.907; p < 0.05). This implies that when planning and
preparation risk increases, procurement performance decreases by 34.5%. Hence, planning
and preparing for procurement is a critical issue in procurement performance. Studies by
Eberhard et al. (2014) and Apiyo and Mburu (2014) affirm this finding. They opined that for
the success of any procurement project, the planning and preparation considerations are
necessary because violating any step in this process could adversely affect procurement
contracts and operational performance of the procuring firms. This finding supports the TOC
by revealing planning and preparation risk as a constraint associated with any procurement
process in the manufacturing sector; thus, the need for manufacturing firms to develop
relevant strategies that aim at managing planning and preparation risk during procurement.
Planning and preparation are key stages in any procurement process; thus, manufacturing
firms could experience poor procurement performance if they fail to manage any risk
associated with this stage effectively. Practically the study’s outcome implies that the
procurement processes of manufacturing firms in developing economies such as Ghana are
exposed to planning and preparation risks which could consequently affect procurement
performance by 34.5% if not identified and properly managed.
Contrary to the previous findings (Hong et al., 2009; Noor et al., 2013; Zubairu et al., 2021), the
second hypothesis that product/service information risk significantly influences procurement
performance was not supported. This is because the result had a t-stat value of 1.150 which was
less than the expected 1.96 (β 5 0.083; p > 0.05). This means that a unit increase in product/
service information risk by 8.3% will not cause any significant change in procurement
performance of the firms studied. This implies that information on product/service-related risk
thresholds do not significantly affect procurement performance of manufacturing firms
operating in developing economies. Although product/service information risk is known to be a
constraint in procurement process of manufacturing firms, in practice, the study’s outcome
implies that the threshold of product/service information risk does not significantly affect their
procurement performance of manufacturing firms in a developing economy.

Original sample Sample mean t-statistics p values Decision

PaPRisk → ProcPerf 0.345 0.346 4.907 0.000 Accepted

P/SIRisk → ProcPerf 0.083 0.087 1.150 0.251 Rejected
RRRisk → ProcPerf 0.425 0.418 4.363 0.000 Accepted
SRisk → ProcPerf 0.151 0.155 2.050 0.041 Accepted
Table 8. MRisk → ProcPerf 0.166 0.160 2.160 0.031 Accepted
Path co-efficient CRisk → ProcPerf 0.146 0.159 2.123 0.034 Accepted
 On the other hand, requisition review risk was seen to have a significant negative effect Procurement
(β 5 0.425; t 5 4.363 p ≤ 0.000) on procurement performance. Thus, an increase in risk in the process risk
procurement process decreases procurement performance by 42.5%. This implies that the steps
taken to issue tender, source for suppliers and follow procurement guidelines should be done
and firm
with the notion that if risk is not manage effectively, performance will be highly affected. The performance
outcome also supports the TOC by revealing that requisition review risk is among the notable
limiting factors that are inevitable in procurement processes and their presence could affect
procurement performance negatively. This finding has been supported by previous empirical
studies (Van Weele and Van Raaij, 2014; Torabi et al., 2018; Anane et al., 2019) which concluded
that exposure to procurement process risk leads to project failure and performance issues arising
from poor product specifications, poor supplier selection and procurement delays.
Supplier risk also had a significant negative effect (β 5 0.151; t 5 2.050, p ≤ 0.05) on
procurement performance, suggesting that an increase in supplier risk will lead to a decrease
in procurement performance by 15.1%. This finding has been empirically supported by
previous studies (Siakas and Balstrup, 2006; van der Westhuizen and Ntshingila, 2020) who
posited that supplier selection risk is synonymous with performance issues, which, in turn,
affects the overall performance of supply chains. The result practically implies that poor
supplier capacity, high supplier complacency and insufficient suppliers-related risks have
negative effects on the procurement performance of manufacturing firms in developing
economies. Hence, manufacturing firms could consider supplier risks such as supply delays,
supply quality issues and supply shortages arising from supplier selection risks as part of the
constraints that lead to negative procurement performance outcomes of manufacturing firms
in developing economies.
From Table 8, the path coefficient between managerial risk and procurement performance
(β 5 0.166) was significant at 5% level with a t-stat of 2.160 > 1.96 (p 5 0.031 < 0.05). The
study, therefore failed to reject H5, indicating that a unit increase in managerial risk will cause
a decrease in procurement performance by 16.6%. This implies that managerial aspects of the
procurement process such as the staff in charge of procurement records keeping, contract
management and supplier selection help firms to enhance their procurement performance.
Malik et al. (2020) noted that exposure to managerial risks lead to poor operational outcomes
such as poor procurement processes, faulty products and production delays; consequently,
affecting customer value. Practically, the result also implies that manufacturing firms in
developing economies are likely to experience declining procurement performance by 16.6%
in the absence of top management support and managerial incompetence as evidence of
managerial risks. This outcome is consistent with the TOC by revealing that managerial risk
is a constraint that significantly affects procurement performance. The theory clearly
proposes that manufacturing firms could be exposed to any risk or limiting factor including
managerial risk that could have devastating effects on performance outcomes.
Finally, contract risk was found to have a significant negative effect on procurement
performance (β 5 0.146; t 5 2.123; p 5 0.034 < 0.05). This is because, the t-stat of 2.123 was
larger than 1.96. As such, the direction of the result was in line with the hypothesis. This implies
that failing to manage issues such as errors/omissions in contracts, refusal of key contract terms,
among others concerning contract management reduces procurement performance of
manufacturing firms by about 3.4%. This finding also implies that manufacturing firms
could be exposed to contract risk in during procurement and this could affect their performance
outcomes. Contract risk should, therefore, be seen as an inevitable procurement process risk and
as such, proper measures or strategies could be implemented to minimise its adverse effects as
suggested by the TOC. The study’s outcome also supports the TOC by revealing that
managerial risk is one of the limiting factors in any procurement process that could negatively
impact procurement performance if not well managed. Related studies have argued that contract
management is a key element in every procurement process; thus, its exposure to risks could
BIJ have rippling effects on the overall procurement system and invariably procurement
performance (Rendon and Rendon, 2015; Abutabenjeh et al., 2021).

6. Conclusions
This model offers managers of manufacturing firms an in-depth correlation between
procurement process risks and procurement performance to manage the occurrence of
possible risks that could affect the procurement and overall business processes. The model
specifically offers the directions for identifying, developing and implementing relevant
policies and strategies in order to easily detect and manage risks that could occur during
procurement; thereby, promoting procurement and overall firm performance. The study’s
outcomes, for instance, show that manufacturing industries within West Africa notably
Ghana are exposed to various risks during procurement processes. These risks comprising
contract risks, managerial risks and procurement planning and preparation risks play
differing roles in affecting the procurement performance of these firms. In investigating the
true and significant effects of these key procurement risks on procurement performance,
findings show that five out of the six procurement risks had significant negative effects on
procurement performance. Thus, manufacturing firms’ exposure to any of those risks could
have negative rippling effects on their procurement performance. More precisely, planning
and preparation risk, requisition review risk, supplier selection risk, managerial risk and
contract management risk exhibited significant negative effects on procurement
performance. These findings indicated that manufacturing firms within the West Africa
are likely to experience poor procurement performance if they are exposed to any of these five
significant procurement risks during operation. In contrast, product or service identification
risk was found to have no significant effect on procurement performance; suggesting that
these firms would exhibit constant procurement performance in the face of product or service
identification risk. Among the various procurement risks, risks associated with requisition
review, procurement planning and preparation and managerial aspect of the procurement
process had the highest effects respectively. These key findings, therefore, provide vital
information to key policy makers for policy formulation and review purposes. For instance,
the findings reveal that procurement risks generally affect procurement performance; thus,
procurement practitioners including management of the firms’ studied should view
procurement risks as inevitable in any procurement process. In this regard, management
of manufacturing firms should strategise to respond to any of these possible risks during any
procurement process. During the implementation stage of the procurement process, more
attention should be paid to requisition review risks, supplier selection risks and managerial
risks since they undermine the procurement performance in manufacturing sector in West
Africa. The study further suggests that procurement managers should adopt a risk
management strategy to identify risks at each stage of the procurement process. This will
help to easily detect possible risk at any particular stage; thus, prevent such risk from
transferring to another stage; thereby improving procurement performance and
proactiveness of the procurement department. Per the study’s outcomes, the researchers
recommended that procurement managers should develop collaborative relationships with
risk managers and key suppliers to frequently redesign or re-evaluate the procurement
process to help eliminate possible risk at any stage; thereby, achieving better procurement
performance and competitiveness.

7. Limitations and future research direction

While this paper has some drawbacks, it still generates new ideas for further research. First,
data for the quantitative analysis was gathered from manufacturing firms in Ghana, a
country in West Africa; thus, the paper’s findings relied on the opinions and suggestions of Procurement
key personnel of firms in this country. This limitation also implies that the results can only process risk
reflect risks associated with procurement processes of manufacturing firms in Ghana but not
all firms in the region. Thus, broad-based research can be conducted by including
and firm
manufacturing firms in other areas within the West African region. Also, the study’s findings performance
were limited to the use of structured questionnaires which restricted extensive opinions from
respondents. Finally, the paper is purely quantitative in nature; thus, future research can
adopt the interpretivism philosophy and mixed approach which involves both quantitative
and qualitative analysis to improve current findings.

References
Abutabenjeh, S., Dayarathna, V.L., Jaradat, R., Nagahi, M. and Gordon, S.B. (2021), “The perceived
value of public procurement and contract management certification”, International Journal of
Procurement Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 62-92.
Adeniyi, O., Ojo, L.D., Idowu, O.A. and Kolawole, S.B. (2020), “Compliance with the stipulated
procurement process in local governments: a case from a developing nation”, International
Journal of Procurement Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 678-700.
Adom, P.K. and Kwakwa, P.A. (2014), “Effects of changing trade structure and technical
characteristics of the manufacturing sector on energy intensity in Ghana”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 475-483.
Ahimbisibwe, A., Muhwezi, M. and Nangoli, S. (2012), “Outsourced contracts, buyer-supplier trust,
supplier opportunistic behavior and supplier performance in Ugandan public procuring and
disposing entities (PDEs)”, Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 435-470, doi: 10.
1108/JOPP-12-04-2012-B001.
Alabdullah, T.T.Y. (2021), “Ownership structure and the failure or success of firm performance:
evidence from emerging market: cross-sectional analysis”, International Journal of Business and
Management Invention, Vol. 10 No. 8, pp. 1-16.
Aliyu, A.A., Bello, M.U., Kasim, R. and Martin, D. (2014), “Positivist and non-positivist paradigm in
social science research: conflicting paradigms or perfect partners”, Journal of Management and
Sustainability, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 79-94.
Ambekar, S.S., Deshmukh, U. and Hudnurkar, M. (2020), “Impact of purchasing practices, supplier
relationships and use of information technology on firm performance”, International Journal of
Innovation Science, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 118-130, doi: 10.1108/IJIS-10-2020-0182.
Anane, A., Adoma, V. and Awuah, G. (2019), “The effect of procurement practices on service delivery:
a case study of VRA, Ghana”, Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, Vol. 3
No. 3, pp. 1-23.
Apiyo, R.O. and Mburu, D.K. (2014), “Factors affecting procurement planning in county governments
in Kenya: a case study of Nairobi City County”, International Journal of Economics, Commerce
and Management, Vol. 2 No. 11, pp. 1-34.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Bag, S., Wood, L.C., Mangla, S.K. and Luthra, S. (2020), “Procurement 4.0 and its implications on
business process performance in a circular economy”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Vol. 152, p. 104502.
Bag, S., Gupta, S. and Kumar, S. (2021), “Industry 4.0 adoption and 10R advance manufacturing
capabilities for sustainable development”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 231 No. 1, pp. 107-134.
Baird, I.S. and Thomas, H. (1990), “What is risk anyway? Using and measuring risk in strategic
management”, Risk, Strategy, and Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 21-54.
BIJ Bardhan, A.K., Nag, B., Mishra, C.S. and Tarei, P.K. (2021), “An integrated framework for analysing
performance indicators of Indian microfinance institutions: a multi-stakeholder perspective”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 2711-2740, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-09-
2020-0470.
Barragan, S., Cappellino, C., Dempsey, N. and Rothenberg, S. (2003), “A framework for sourcing
product development services”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 271-280, doi: 10.1108/13598540310484663.
Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. (2010), “Explanatory design theory”, Business and Information
Systems Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 271-282.
Becker, J.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and V€olckner, F. (2015), “How collinearity affects mixture
regression results”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 643-659.
Beins, B.C. and McCarthy, M.A. (2017), Research Methods and Statistics, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Bolarinwa, O.A. (2015), “Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires
used in social and health science researches”, Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 195-212.
Brahim, F.J., Abada, O. and Muhindo, A. (2014), “Implementation of procurement planning in
parastatal organizations: a case study of Tanzania Postal Bank Head Quarters in Dar-es-
salaam”, International Journal of Academic Research in Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 226-232.
Chakraborty, A., Gao, L.S. and Sheikh, S. (2019), “Managerial risk taking incentives, corporate social
responsibility and firm risk”, Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 58-72.
Changalima, I.A., Mushi, G.O. and Mwaiseje, S.S. (2020), “Procurement planning as a strategic tool for
public procurement effectiveness: experience from selected public procuring entities in Dodoma
city, Tanzania”, Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 37-52, doi: 10.1108/JOPP-05-
2020-0047.
Chepkesis, K.M., Keitany, P. and Kiplel, M. (2018), “Effect of procurement planning on supplier’s
performance in public institution: a case of Moi University”, Europeans Journal of Logistics,
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, Handbook of Partial Least Squares,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 655-690.
Chopra, S. and Sodhi, M. (2014), “Reducing the risk of supply chain disruptions”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 72-80.
Cohen, J. (1988), “Set correlation and contingency tables”, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 425-434.
Cox, J.F., III (2021), “Using the theory of constraints to create a paradigm shift in organisation
performance at a large primary care provider practice”, Health Systems, pp. 1-34.
Cox, J.F. III and Boyd, L.H. (2020), “Using the theory of constraints’ processes of ongoing improvement
to address the provider appointment scheduling system design problem”, Health Systems, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 124-158.
Cronbach, L.J. and Meehl, P.E. (1955), “Construct validity in psychological tests”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 281-297.
Dellana, S., Rowe, W.J. and Liao, Y. (2021), “A scale for measuring organizational risk management maturity
in the supply chain”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print,
doi: 10.1108/BIJ-11-2020-0578.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P. and Kaiser, S. (2012), “Guidelines for
choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive
validity perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 434-449.
Dillman, D.A. (2011), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method–2007 Update With New
Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Eberhard, A., Leigland, J. and Kolker, J. (2014), South Africa’s Renewable Energy IPP Procurement Procurement
Program, World Bank Publications, Geneva.
process risk
El Baz, J. and Ruel, S. (2021), “Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the disruption
impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? Evidence from an empirical survey in a
and firm
COVID-19 outbreak era”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 233 No. 4, performance
pp. 107-132.
Ezeanyim, E.E., Uchenu, C.A. and Ezeanolue, E.T. (2020), “Procurement practices and public sector
performance: a study of public tertiary institutions in Anambra State, Nigeria”, International
Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 127-138.
Fan, Y. and Stevenson, M. (2018), “A review of supply chain risk management: definition, theory, and
research agenda”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 205-230, doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2017-0043.
Fazekas, M., Toth, I.J. and King, L.P. (2016), “An objective corruption risk index using public
procurement data”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 369-397.
Florio, C. and Leoni, G. (2017), “Enterprise risk management and firm performance: the Italian case”,
The British Accounting Review, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 56-74.
Foerstl, K., Schleper, M.C. and Henke, M. (2017), “Purchasing and supply management: from efficiency
to effectiveness in an integrated supply chain”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 32-49.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Algebra and Statistics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1177/
002224378101800313.
Frederico, G.F., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Kumar, A. and Kumar, V. (2020), “Performance measurement for
supply chains in the Industry 4.0 era: a balanced scorecard approach”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 789-807, doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-08-
2019-0400.
Geisser, S. (1975), “The predictive sample reuse method with applications”, Journal of the American
Statistical Association, Vol. 70 No. 350, pp. 320-328.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modelling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121, doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Gudergan, S.P. (2017), Advanced Issues in Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modelling, Sage Publications, New York, NY.
Goldratt, E.M. (1990), Theory of Constraints, North River Press, Croton-on-Hudson, NY.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 598-605.
Hallikas, J. and Lintukangas, K. (2016), “Purchasing and supply: an investigation of risk management
performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 171 No. 1, pp. 487-494.
Harland, C., Brenchley, R. and Walker, H. (2003), “Risk in supply networks”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 51-62.
Henao, R., Sarache, W. and Gomez, I. (2019), “Lean manufacturing and sustainable performance:
trends and future challenges”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 208 No. 2, pp. 99-116.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modelling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yildiz, H. and Talluri, S. (2015), “Supply chain risk management: a literature
review”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 16, pp. 5031-5069.
BIJ Hong, P. and Kwon, H.B. (2012), “Emerging issues of procurement management: a review and
prospect”, International Journal of Procurement Management, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 452-469.
Hong, Y., Liu, Y. and Wang, S. (2009), “Granger causality in risk and detection of extreme risk
spillover between financial markets”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 150 No. 2, pp. 271-287.
Hoskisson, R.E., Chirico, F., Zyung, J. and Gambeta, E. (2017), “Managerial risk taking: a
multitheoretical review and future research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 1,
pp. 137-169.
Igarashi, M., de Boer, L. and Fet, A.M. (2013), “What is required for greener supplier selection? A
literature review and conceptual model development”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 247-263.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Sharma, A. (2014), “Lean manufacturing implementation using value stream
mapping as a tool: a case study from auto components industry”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 89-116, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-04-2012-0002.
J€oreskog, K.G. (1971), “Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 109-133.
Jonathan, E.C., Mafini, C. and Bhadury, J. (2019), “Supply chain risk mitigation in South Africa: a case
study of Eskom”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 1105-1125, doi: 10.
1108/BIJ-06-2019-0261.
Jones, K. and Kaluarachchi, Y. (2008), “Performance measurement and benchmarking of a major
innovation programme”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 124-136,
doi: 10.1108/14635770810864848.
uttner, U., Peck, H. and Christopher, M. (2003), “Supply chain risk management: outlining an agenda
J€
for future research”, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 197-210.
Kamble, S.S. and Gunasekaran, A. (2020), “Big data-driven supply chain performance measurement
system: a review and framework for implementation”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 65-86.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A., Ghadge, A. and Raut, R. (2020), “A performance measurement system
for industry 4.0 enabled smart manufacturing system in SMMEs- a review and empirical
investigation”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 229, p. 107853.
Kihara, R. and Ngugi, G. (2013), “Role of procurement planning on performance: a case at Nyayo Tea
Zones development corporation”, International Journal of Social Sciences and Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 714-727.
Kleindorfer, P.R. and Saad, G.H. (2005), “Managing disruption risks in supply chains”, Production and
Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Knemeyer, A.M., Zinn, W. and Eroglu, C. (2009), “Proactive planning for catastrophic events in supply
chains”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 141-153.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Kumar, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Mangla, S.K., Agrawal, V., Sharma, K. and Gupta, D. (2019), “When risks
need attention: adoption of green supply chain initiatives in the pharmaceutical industry”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 No. 11, pp. 3554-3576.
Lacerda, A.P., Xambre, A.R. and Alvelos, H.M. (2016), “Applying Value Stream Mapping to eliminate
waste: a case study of an original equipment manufacturer for the automotive industry”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 1708-1720.
Laosirihongthong, T., Samaranayake, P. and Nagalingam, S. (2019), “A holistic approach to supplier
evaluation and order allocation towards sustainable procurement”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 2543-2573, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-11-2018-0360.
Lawrence, R.Z. (2020), “China, like the US, faces challenges in achieving inclusive growth through Procurement
manufacturing”, China and World Economy, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 3-17.
process risk
Lockamy, A. III (2019), “Benchmarking supplier external risk factors in electronic equipment industry
supply chains”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 176-204, doi: 10.1108/
and firm
BIJ-01-2018-0004. performance
Lowry, P.B. and Gaskin, J. (2014), “Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for
building and testing behavioural causal theory: when to choose it and how to use it”, IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 123-146.
Lysons, K. (2020), Procurement and Supply Chain Management, Pearson, London.
Mabin, V.J. and Balderstone, S.J. (2020), The World of the Theory of Constraints: A Review of the
International Literature, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Machado, M.C., Telles, R., Sampaio, P., Queiroz, M.M. and Fernandes, A.C. (2019), “Performance
measurement for supply chain management and quality management integration: a systematic
literature review”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 2130-2147, doi: 10.
1108/BIJ-11-2018-0365.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012), “Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms,
and procedural remedies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 542-555.
Malesios, C., Dey, P.K. and Abdelaziz, F.B. (2020), “Supply chain sustainability performance
measurement of small and medium sized enterprises using structural equation modelling”,
Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 294 No. 1, pp. 623-653.
Malik, M.F., Zaman, M. and Buckby, S. (2020), “Enterprise risk management and firm performance:
role of the risk committee”, Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 100-128.
Malviya, R.K. and Kant, R. (2019), “Developing integrated framework to measure performance of
green supply chain management: a comparative case analysis”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 634-665, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-01-2019-0016.
Marodin, G.A., Frank, A.G., Tortorella, G.L. and Fetterman, D.C. (2019), “Lean production and
operational performance in the Brazilian automotive supply chain”, Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, Vol. 30 Nos 3-4, pp. 370-385.
Masi, D., Micheli, G.J. and Cagno, E. (2013), “A meta-model for choosing a supplier selection technique
within an EPC company”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 5-15.
Mason, C.H. and Perreault, W.D. Jr (1991), “Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple
regression analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 268-280.
Maulina, E. and Natakusumah, K. (2020), “Determinants of supply chain operational performance”,
Uncertain Supply Chain Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 117-130.
McElwee, N. (2007), “From risk to at-risk”, Child and Youth Services, Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 29-56.
Micheli, G.J., Cagno, E. and Di Giulio, A. (2009), “Reducing the total cost of supply through risk-
efficiency-based supplier selection in the EPC industry”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 166-177.
Mijiyawa, A.G. (2017), “Drivers of structural transformation: the case of the manufacturing sector in
Africa”, World Development, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 141-159.
Mingers, J. (2019), Systems Thinking, Critical Realism and Philosophy: A Confluence of Ideas,
Routledge, London.
Mishra, A.K. (2020), “Implication of theory of constraints in project management”, International
Journal of Advanced Trends in Engineering and Technology (IJATET), Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Munir, M., Jajja, M.S.S., Chatha, K.A. and Farooq, S. (2020), “Supply chain risk management and
operational performance: the enabling role of supply chain integration”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 227 No. 1, pp. 107-137.
BIJ Noor, M.A., Khalfan, M.M. and Maqsood, T. (2013), “The role of procurement practices in effective
implementation of infrastructure projects in Pakistan”, International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 802-826, doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-03-2012-0005.
Nooraie, S.V. and Parast, M.M. (2016), “Mitigating supply chain disruptions through the assessment of
trade-offs among risks, costs and investments in capabilities”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 171 No. 1, pp. 8-21.
Ntayi, J.M., Namugenyi, I. and Eyaa, S. (2010), “Supplier delivery performance in Ugandan public
procurement contracts”, Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 479-511, doi: 10.1108/
JOPP-10-04-2010-B001.
Nyaga, J.N. and Kihara, D. (2017), “Factors influencing implementation of procurement plans in public
hospitals in Kenya: a case of Kenyatta National Hospital”, The Strategic Journal of Business and
Change Management, Vol. 4 No. 26, pp. 445-460.
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, doi: 10.1108/MD-01-
2016-0049.
Nzimande, N. and Padayachee, P. (2017), “Evaluation of the current procurement planning process in a
district municipality”, International Journal of Public Policy and Administration Research, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 19-34.
Oluka, P.N. and Basheka, B.C. (2014), “Determinants and constraints to effective procurement contract
management in Uganda: a practitioner’s perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Systems
and Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 104-124.
Ong, M.H.A. and Puteh, F. (2017), “Quantitative data analysis: choosing between SPSS, PLS, and
AMOS in social science research”, International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific Research,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 14-25.
Orme, J.G. and Combs-Orme, T. (2009), Multiple Regression with Discrete Dependent Variables, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Parast, M.M. and Subramanian, N. (2021), “An examination of the effect of supply chain disruption risk
drivers on organizational performance: evidence from Chinese supply chains”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 548-562, doi: 10.1108/SCM-07-2020-0313.
Pearl, D.K. and Fairley, D. (1985), “Testing for the potential for nonresponse bias in sample surveys”,
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 553-560.
Pinto, L. (2020), “Green supply chain practices and company performance in Portuguese
manufacturing sector”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1832-1849.
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. 879-892.
Raj, A., Agrahari, A. and Srivastava, S.K. (2020), “Do pressures foster sustainable public procurement?
An empirical investigation comparing developed and developing economies”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 266, p. 122055.
Rajesh, R. and Ravi, V. (2015), “Supplier selection in resilient supply chains: a grey relational analysis
approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 86, pp. 343-359.
Ramesh, K.T. and Sarmah, S.P. (2020), “Impact of supply risk management on firm performance: a
case of the Indian electronics industry”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 70 No. 6, pp. 1419-1445, doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-04-2019-0205.
Rane, S.B., Potdar, P.R. and Rane, S. (2019), “Development of project risk management framework
based on industry 4.0 technologies”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 1451-1481, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-03-2019-0123.
Rendon, R.G. and Rendon, J.M. (2015), “Auditability in public procurement: an analysis of internal
controls and fraud vulnerability”, International Journal of Procurement Management, Vol. 8
No. 6, pp. 710-730.
Rigdon, E.E. (2014), Structural Equation Modelling: Non-traditional Alternatives, John Wiley and Sons, Procurement
New York.
process risk
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R. and Gudergan, S.P. (2020), “Partial least squares structural
equation modelling in HRM research”, The International Journal of Human Resource
and firm
Management, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 1617-1643. performance
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012), “Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of
PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly”, MIS Quarterly, pp. 3-14.
Risher, J. and Hair, J.F. Jr (2017), “The robustness of PLS across disciplines”, Academy of Business
Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 47-55.
Romero, L.F. and Arce, A. (2017), “Applying value stream mapping in manufacturing: a systematic
literature review”, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1075-1086.
Ryals, L.J. and Rogers, B. (2006), “Holding up the mirror: the impact of strategic procurement practices
on account management”, Business Horizons, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 41-50.
Ryan, G. (2018), “Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory”, Nurse Researcher,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 41-49.
Saini, S. and Singh, D. (2020), “Impact of implementing lean practices on firm performance: a study of
Northern India SMEs”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 1005-1034,
doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-06-2019-0069.
Sajan, M.P., Shalij, P.R. and Ramesh, A. (2017), “Lean manufacturing practices in Indian
manufacturing SMEs and their effect on sustainability performance”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 772-793, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-12-
2016-0188.
Salim, A. and Kitheka, S. (2019), “Effect of procurement planning on procurement performance of state
corporations in Mombasa County, Kenya”, The Strategic Journal of Business and Change
Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 816-833.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Henseler, J. and Hair, J.F. (2014), “On the emancipation of PLS-SEM: a
commentary on Rigdon (2012)”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 154-160.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R. (2014), “Measuring and managing sustainability performance of supply
chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 232-241, doi: 10.
1108/SCM-02-2014-0061.
Shmueli, G. and Koppius, O.R. (2011), “Predictive analytics in information systems research”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 553-572.
Siakas, K.V. and Balstrup, B. (2006), “Software outsourcing quality achieved by global virtual
collaboration”, Software Process: Improvement and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 319-328.
Şimşit, Z.T., G€ € (2014), “Theory of constraints: a literature review”, Procedia-
unay, N.S. and Vayvay, O.
Social and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 150 No. 3, pp. 930-936.
Singh, R.K. and Kumar, R. (2020), “Strategic issues in supply chain management of Indian SMEs due
to globalization: an empirical study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 913-932, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-09-2019-0429.
Singh, N.P. and Singh, S. (2019), “Building supply chain risk resilience: role of big data analytics in
supply chain disruption mitigation”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7,
pp. 2318-2342, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-10-2018-0346.
S€onnichsen, S.D. and Clement, J. (2020), “Review of green and sustainable public procurement:
towards circular public procurement”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 245, p. 118901.

c, A. and Ivetic, M. (2016), “Public health risk analysis through evaluation of drinking water
Soti
safety”, Vojnosanitetski Pregled, Vol. 73 No. 9, pp. 885-887.
Spekman, R.E. and Davis, E.W. (2004), “Risky business: expanding the discussion on risk and the
extended enterprise”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 414-433, doi: 10.1108/09600030410545454.
BIJ Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-133.
Tan, K.C. (2001), “A framework of supply chain management literature”, European Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Tang, O. and Musa, S.N. (2011), “Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain
risk management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Tang, C.S., Yang, S.A. and Wu, J. (2018), “Sourcing from suppliers with financial constraints and
performance risk”, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 70-84.
Taouab, O. and Issor, Z. (2019), “Firm performance: definition and measurement models”, European
Scientific Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 93-106.
Tarei, P.K., Thakkar, J.J. and Nag, B. (2020), “Benchmarking the relationship between supply chain
risk mitigation strategies and practices: an integrated approach”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 1683-1715, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-12-2019-0523.
Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T. and Sajilan, S. (2017), “Testing and controlling for common method
variance: a review of available methods”, Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp.
142-168.
Torabi, S.A., Shokr, I., Tofighi, S. and Heydari, J. (2018), “Integrated relief pre-positioning and
procurement planning in humanitarian supply chains”, Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 123-146.
Tran, N.M., Nonneman, W. and Jorissen, A. (2015), “Privatization of Vietnamese firms and its effects
on firm performance”, Asian Economic and Financial Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 202-220.
Tripathi, S. and Gupta, M. (2019), “A current review of supply chain performance measurement
systems”, Advances in Industrial and Production Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Trkman, P., De Oliveira, M.P.V. and McCormack, K. (2016), “Value-oriented supply chain risk
management: you get what you expect”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116
No. 5, pp. 1061-1083, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0368.
van der Westhuizen, J. and Ntshingila, L. (2020), “The effect of supplier selection, supplier
development and information sharing on SME’s business performance in Sedibeng”,
International Journal of Economics and Finance Studies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 153-167.
Van Weele, A.J. and Van Raaij, E.M. (2014), “The future of purchasing and supply management research:
about relevance and rigor”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Voorhees, C.M., Brady, M.K., Calantone, R. and Ramirez, E. (2016), “Discriminant validity testing in
marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 119-134.
Werts, C.E., Rock, D.R., Linn, R.L. and J€oreskog, K.G. (1978), “A general method of estimating the
reliability of a composite”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 933-938.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schr€oder, G. and Van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”, MIS Quarterly,
pp. 177-195.
Wiengarten, F., Humphreys, P., Gimenez, C. and McIvor, R. (2016), “Risk, risk management practices,
and the success of supply chain integration”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 171 No. 1, pp. 361-370.
Willy, K. and Njeru, A. (2014), “Effects of procurement planning on procurement performance: a case
study of agricultural development corporation, Nairobi”, International Journal of Business and
Commerce, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 58-68.
Wu, C. and Barnes, D. (2011), “A literature review of decision-making models and approaches for
partner selection in agile supply chains”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 256-274.
Zou, P.X., Zhang, G. and Wang, J. (2007), “Understanding the key risks in construction projects in Procurement
China”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 601-614.
process risk
Zsidisin, G.A. (2003), “A grounded definition of supply risk”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 9 Nos 5-6, pp. 217-224.
and firm
Zubairu, N., Dinwoodie, J., Govindan, K., Hunter, L. and Roh, S. (2021), “Supply chain strategies as
performance
drivers of financial performance in liquefied natural gas networks”, Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 579-591, doi: 10.1108/SCM-08-2020-0389.

Further reading
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A. and Lado, A.A. (2004), “Strategic purchasing, supply management, and firm
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 505-523.
Foerstl, K., Reuter, C., Hartmann, E. and Blome, C. (2010), “Managing supplier sustainability risks in a
dynamically changing environment: sustainable supplier management in the chemical
industry”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 118-130.
Huma, S., Ahmed, W. and Najmi, A. (2020), “Understanding the impact of supply-side decisions and
practices on supply risk management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 1769-1792, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-06-2019-0272.
Humphries, A.S. and Wilding, R.D. (2004), “Long term collaborative business relationships: the impact
of trust and C3 behaviour”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20 Nos 9-10, pp. 1107-1122.
Jonsson, P. and Mattsson, S.A. (2008), “Inventory management practices and their implications on
perceived planning performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 7,
pp. 1787-1812.
Matook, S., Lasch, R. and Tamaschke, R. (2009), “Supplier development with benchmarking as part of
a comprehensive supplier risk management framework”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 241-267, doi: 10.1108/01443570910938989.
Rose, J. and Johnson, C.W. (2020), “Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative research:
toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research”, Journal of
Leisure Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 432-451.
Snider, K.F. and Rendon, R.G. (2012), “Public procurement: public administration and public service
perspectives”, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 327-348.
Soni, U., Jain, V. and Kumar, S. (2014), “Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic
modelling approach”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 11-25.
Zsidisin, G.A., Ellram, L.M., Carter, J.R. and Cavinato, J.L. (2004), “An analysis of supply risk
assessment techniques”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 397-413, doi: 10.1108/09600030410545445.

Corresponding author
Edmond Yeboah Nyamah 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]

View publication stats