A Case Study of Apple Inc.

and Samsung 1

THE EFFICACY OF BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT IN

MULTINATIONAL COOPERATION AS SUPPLIERS AND COMPETITORS: CASE

STUDY OF APPLE INC. AND SAMSUNG

By [Name]

Course

Professor’s name

Institution

Location of Institution

Date
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 2

Abstract

Focusing on business relationship management, diverse aspects need to be addressed. The

research considered a qualitative case study through the utilisation of a systematic review of

ten identified studies with the main target of exploring the efficacy of multinational

corporations operating as suppliers and competitors at the same time. This was through the

consideration of the case of Apple Inc. and Samsung. The study noted that despite the

existence of challenges affecting each business, competition and supply chain are two

different business spheres that ought to be handled with care, with each company being keen

not to affect the relationship in each sector. As noted from the two main themes involving

supply chain and competition aspect and internal processes and stakeholder influence

perspective, Apple and Samsung were reported to have diverse strategies considered effective

in maintaining an effective relationship along with their business transactions. As

recommended further by research, processes such as cooperation in development, strategic

competitiveness without an influence on supply, and relevant mitigation and stabilising risk

management strategies ranked the most effective among others. Regardless of the efficacy of

the study, the main challenge noted was a lack of substantive information and comparative

studies that could have a role in promoting insights into the study. Hence, the study

recommended consideration of this study in multiple perspectives and similar instances, thus

promoting information availability.

 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 3

The Efficacy of Business Relationship Management in Multinational Cooperation as

Suppliers and Competitors: Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung

1 Introduction

When considering multinational corporations, the critical aspect reflecting mainly

focuses on large globalised organisations producing products and services for consumers

(Forsgren, 2017). Regardless, there also exists a very crucial relationship between these

organisations. For instance, consider the case of Apple and Samsung; these are companies

that have been operating in the same industry, electronics and information technology

(Winter, 2020; Han, 2016). It is also novel to note that despite this, they are both international

organisations with varied relationships, including suppliers, where Apple depends on

Samsung for the supply of OLED displays for Apple’s smartphones (Dong et al., 2021).

Despite these, they are also competitors in the same industry, mainly in smartphone sales

globally.

1.1 Purpose of the study

Despite the evident nature of the companies, there is a considerable lack of

information regarding the relationship between these companies. This can be noted based on

their efficacy in managing relationships. As acknowledged by Forkmann et al. (2016), Apple

and Samsung are among the most influential companies in relationship management in the

supply chain, which has enabled global expansion. It is also effective to note that there are

other aspects related to stakeholders and internal processes related to each organisation in

relationship management. As such, the study focuses explicitly on documenting the

relationships between these aspects and how they play a role in an effective relationship

pointed out in the global operations of both companies despite being competitors.
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 4

1.2 Research questions

 How do Apple Inc. and Samsung Group effectively manage supply chain terms in times

of global competition rivalry?

 How do internal processes and stakeholders’ choices affect and influence the supply chain

terms in Samsung and Apple inc. for an effective relationship in the agreements?

2 Literature Review

The conceptual model considers the relevance of institutional theory and its

significance in addressing the understanding of the efficacy of the two organisations in

ensuring a sustainable supply chain while also working as competitors within the

environment they operate. As cited by Dubey et al. (2019), institutional theory mainly

considers the implications of the social context within which a firm operates on the behaviors

of and in the organisations, thus a shift in similarity in structure and practices. Yuga and Anas

(2020) further added that in institution theory, non-economic perspectives in organisational

behaviors and strategies always have a considerable role, organisations considering rules as a

basis of productivity, exchange, and distribution along with the regulation of their economic

activities. This can be regarded as in the case of supply chain management. As per a study by

Kauppi (2013), as per institutional theory, the implementation of various business practices

enhances the legitimacy of the business. Furthermore, the author adds that as per institution

theory and the considerations in supply chain management practices, insights are offered in

adopting tools and techniques that enhance operations and supply chain management.

Given the consideration of institutional theory in advancing the success of operations

in businesses, as introduced before, Samsung is among the leading suppliers of components

for Apple Inc. and further among the key competitors in the market. This means that diverse

influences lead to the adoption of this theory. Considering the conceptual framework

developed by Dubey et al. (2018) as of figure 1, there are a variety of several social
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 5

influences which have a considerable role in promoting and advancing the relationship

between these two companies. Dubey et al. (2018) noted that among the key results include

coercive pressure, normative pressure, and mimetic pressure, which directly influence the

commitment of the top management in both organisations. As per this study, these aspects

considered directly impact the top management in both organisations. As defined by Latif et

al. (2020), coercive pressure is regarded as external influences stakeholders put on an

organisation, thus the implementation of regulation and standards; normative pressure, which

comes from suppliers and customers, among others; and mimetic pressure, which considers

competition and organisations seeking superiority. These have a direct influence on

companies, and further, it is significant to consider other key aspects such as the size of the

companies and further the absorptive capacity that Makhloufi et al. (2021) note is the ability

of a company to value, assimilate, and apply new knowledge thus improving the capacity of

the companies. Other considerable influences included considered by Dubey et al. (2018) as

control variables include the market share of these organisations, given that they both operate

in electronics and information technology and share the consumer market. Additionally, the

competitiveness of both companies is also a considerable influence that affects the supply

relationship.

As such, in relationship management, through the consideration of the institutional

theory, as recommended by different authors, and further research on its influence on the

decisions by companies on operations and supply chain management aspect, the study will

address through the method considered in the next section in addressing the efficacy of the

relationship, especially considering that both companies are multinational corporations and

operating in a similar industry. These considerations in the conceptual framework guide

mainly the themes to be considered in the research and outline specific relationships between

the themes through the discussion.

 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 6

Theoretical framework by Dubey et al. (2018).

3 Methodology

Considering the significance of the study, various aspects were considered before

delving further into the research. These are explained further in the next paragraph entailing

the key considerations. The research is a case study that Ellinger and McWhorter (2016)

noted is a distinctive form of empirical inquiry. As such, the study considered a qualitative

research methodology that Espinales and Moreno (2021) noted involves collecting and

analysing non-numerical data to understand the concept. Furthermore, an empirical inquiry

mainly through a systematic approach was considered in gathering data, and a thematic

analysis that Clarke et al. (2015) stated is a data analysis method that considers searching

through a range of data to identify and report on repeated patterns. The primary sources of

information were collected from documents and archival records relating to the organisations

and similar cases hence aiding in the justification of the studies. Some of the databases

considered included EBSCO, ScienceDirect, and ResearchGate, with additional publications

searched from Google and Google Scholar.

Considering the data collection, various circumstances led to the utilisation of this

mode of data collection. The first and most considerable is the issue of constraints of time.

The case considered two prominent companies that are competitors and one a supplier to

another. As such, the availability of information is vast on the internet, considering the
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 7

relationship between the two companies. Additionally, the primary constraint related to time

was the issue that an interview with the management and other essential information

providers for the case study was not promised, given that this would have taken a long time

and needed procedural requests that would have affected the finalisation of the research.

Lastly, even though considering interviews would be relevant, Paasivaara et al. (2018) noted

that one challenge associated with this method in case studies is that information might not be

adequate, given that these organisations might not be fully willing to provide information

regarding their relationships.

4 Results

As guided by the methodology, the study considered the relevance of a systematic

review based on themes and further through the consideration of the case of Apple and

Samsung. There were a number of challenges experienced in the data collection, and as

guided further by the methodology, the most considerable method was a systematic review

based on its efficacy in addressing the needs of the research. From the review focusing on the

collected data from different databases and further mainly considering a manual search, the

study identified ten studies that played a role in addressing the research questions. These

studies were primarily excluded based on the availability and significance of the studies to

the current research, and further other studies were excluded based on duplications. The

studies included were done by Pun and Ghamat (2016), Smith (2017), Park (2022),

DuHadway et al. (2019), Son & Kim (2022), Jain et al. (2019), Enderwick and Buckley

(2019), Niu et al. (2019), Kwok and Lee (2015), and Haslam et al. (2013). Furthermore, it is

crucial to acknowledge the significance of institutional theory in the studies identification.

From the theoretical framework, various aspects were identified to influence the supplier

management relationship, and as per institutional theory, the issues identified were mainly

social aspects. These aspects shaped how the literature were searched, and quoted texts and
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 8

themes were placed based on the context of this study. These themes mainly considered the

supply chain and competition aspect between Apple and Samsung, which share both these

aspects and are based on internal processes and stakeholders and how they influence the

company’s decisions in addressing the efficacy of the supply chain relationship shared by

these companies. Further analysis of these studies based on the themes identified will be done

later in the chapter.

Figure 1: PRISMA diagram of studies’ screening and selection.

 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 9

Table 1. below summarises some of the key findings that were identified from the

study and their relation to this research. Five studies were identified based on Apple and

Samsung's supply chain and competition aspects. Studies by Pun and Ghamat (2016), Smith

(2017), Park (2022), DuHadway et al. (2019), and Son & Kim (2022) summarised some of

the key findings related to the first central theme. These studies were further sub-sectioned

into different sub-themes related to the study and further related to the conceptual framework

and included the concepts of market share, competitiveness, firm size of both companies, and

absorptive capacity, which was observed mainly in the cooperation between these companies

and how they emanated their processes to ensure efficacy. The second aspect of internal

processes and stakeholder influence included studies by Jain et al. (2019), Enderwick and

Buckley (2019), Niu et al. (2019), and Kwok and Lee (2015). These studies were mainly

based on the key sub-themes, including coercive pressure, normative pressure, mimetic

pressure, and top management commitment. The last study by Haslam et al. (2013) was a

reflective piece mainly summarising the efficacy of the relationship between these

companies.

Table 1: Summary of study findings.

AUTHOR(S) STUDY TITLE STUDY FINDINGS

Pun and Ghamat The value of partnership under “Many considerations come into play when
(2016) competition: When competitors outsourcing to a competitor. Since both
may be R&D joint-venture and competing products require the critical
supply-chain partners for a component, one of the main decisions
critical component. concerns whether or not to form an R&D
joint venture (RJV) with the competing
manufacturer to develop the common
component. RJVs between competing
manufacturers have become a common
practice in the industry, as joint research
efforts avoid duplication of R&D activities
and allow learning through sharing of
knowledge, in turn reducing R&D costs
through shared investment” (p.2).
“We find that regardless of how the
formation of an RJV partnership affects the
degree of competition, forming a supply-
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 10

chain relationship is always more valuable

to the supplier, while an RJV partnership is
more profitable to the outsourcer” (p.25).
Smith (2017) Integrating intellectual “Apple was unwilling to take legal action
property and the smartphone against Samsung due to the company’s role
patent wars: a case study of in supplying chips and components that
conflicts of supplier partnering. made up 26% of the manufacturing cost of
the iPhone. In August 2010, the late Steve
Jobs and Tim Cook contacted Samsung to
discuss their concerns about the company’s
use of the Android operating system, which
they believed violated a number of Apple
software patents. Specifically, Apple was
worried about the Samsung Galaxy S
smartphone, a product that was extremely
similar to the iPhone in appearance and
function” (p.33).
“Apple claimed that Samsung had copied
the look and feel of the iPhone and other
design features such as the retail packaging
and icons. Samsung responded by claiming
that the iPhone had borrowed a lot from
Samsung’s own innovations for
transmission optimisation and 3G
technologies. Samsung also argued that
many of the iPhone’s design features were
obvious, and the majority of Apple’s
patents should not have been granted. In the
same lawsuit, Samsung counterclaimed for
infringement of its patent based on Apple’s
unlicensed use of its technology” (p.33).
Park (2022) Different determinants Apple entered the smartphone market in
affecting first-mover advantage 2007 with iPhone original as the first
and late-mover advantage in a mover. Apple’s market share increased fast
smartphone market: a until 2012 and sustained by 15% until 2018
comparative analysis of Apple Samsung entered the smartphone market in
iPhone and Samsung Galaxy. 2009 with Galaxy S1 as a later mover.
Samsung’s market share increased fast until
2013 and sustained by 22% until 2019
DuHadway et al. Understanding risk Considering the lawsuit, the authors noted
(2019) management for intentional that despite the risks of the lawsuit by
supply chain disruptions: Risk Apple Inc., effective risk management
detection, risk mitigation, and through mitigation and recovery by these
risk recovery. companies was effective, leading to an
effective supply chain partnership.
Son & Kim Supply Chain Management Companies have established an effective
(2022) Strategy and Capital Structure relationship model, the authors pointing out
of Global Information and that among them is a reduced debt ratio,
Communications Technology which noting from the analysis, Apple, and
Companies. Samsung, based on company size, have
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 11

minimum chances of going into debts that

would have a significant influence on their
relationship.
Jain et al. (2019) Excess procurement strategies Samsung being the supplier of OLED to
by a dominant buyer under Apple, there are considerations of how
constrained supply. these companies operate influencing each
other. Of crucial concern is the aspect of
regulations geared at promoting intellectual
property.
Enderwick and Beyond supply and assembly Foxconn being a major assembler f Apple,
Buckley (2019) relations: Collaborative there are strategic aspects proving the
innovation in global factory commitment of the management as quoted
systems. from the study, the authors noting that “the
lower level of risk and significant
commitment is reflected in Foxconn's
willingness to invest in new and additional
facilities in China and its attempts also to
encourage its suppliers, such as Samsung, to
produce in China, closer to the point of
assembly” (p.552).
Niu et al. (2019) Strategic analysis of dual Based on normative pressure, as can be
sourcing and dual-channel with noted from the case provided by the
an unreliable alternative authors, Apple opted for the most effective
supplier and reliable supplier, Samsung, for OLED
based on the unavailability of a reliable
supplier and further quality standards
expected by the organisation. This is despite
the competitive pressure between both
organisations.
Kwok and Lee Coopetitive supply chain The authors noted that both Samsung and
(2015) relationship model: Apple operate in smartphone production,
Application to the smartphone which has recently been associated with
manufacturing network. high competition, but despite these, the
companies effectively cooperate in supply
chain needs. Further, the authors
acknowledge that competition is among the
issues that led to Apple considering quality
components from Samsung despite their
other competitive relationships.
Haslam et al. Apple's financial success: The As quoted from the study, “Samsung is one
(2013) precariousness of power of Apple’s largest suppliers by value ($8
exercised in global value billion in 2012). Yet Samsung has also
chains. become one of Apple’s main direct
competitors in the smartphone market and,
in recent times, Apple has filed a series of
patent infringement litigations against
Samsung” (p.270). regardless of these
issues, it is evident that effective
management in the competitive and supply
chain management aspects is evident.
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 12

4.1 Supply Chain and Competition

Having been noted to both have a role in the supply management and further to be key

competitors in the smartphone production industry, there are relevant factors that ought to be

considered. Based on market share and company size, as noted by Son & Kim (2022), both

companies are multinational companies operating globally, and this means that no debt will

influence the supply chain cooperation given the stability. Secondly, based on absorptive

capacity, most studies acknowledge the innovativeness considered by both companies, Pun

and Ghamat (2016) stating that among the considerable aspect is the issue of joint research

and development (R&D) and Research Joint Venture (RJV). Furthermore, Park (2022) noted

that these companies have a massive global market share, with Samsung being among the key

players in the market with a massive market share surpassing that of Samsung. This has led to

challenges arising in the supply chain aspect based on rivalry in competitiveness-wise. As

quoted from Smith’s (2017) study, Apple at one time contacted Samsung regarding a

software patent which is an issue that arose from more similarities. Later on, Apple filed a

lawsuit against Samsung, its supplier, based on device similarities, Apple stating that

Samsung, one of its key competitors, produced a product similar to it. These issues would

have brought about challenges in the supply chain, but these organisations, at the end of the

cases and challenges and strains involved in the supply chain and competitiveness aspects,

managed to manage their relationships, thus enabling a continuation in the supply chain.

4.2 Internal Processes and Stakeholder Influence

As noted from the institution theory, external influences always have a considerable

implication for an organisation. These issues, regardless of being social issues, always affect

the productivity of organisations by shaping how decisions in internal processes are managed,

thus enabling stable productivity. This definition, further guided by the conceptual

framework, influenced the guiding understanding and explaining the effectiveness of the

supply chain relationship still remains stable between Apple and Samsung. Studies by Jain et
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 13

al. (2019), Enderwick and Buckley (2019), Niu et al. (2019), and Kwok and Lee (2015)

mainly focused on particular aspects mainly relating to the influence that stakeholders shape

the internal processes and further how these internal processes have an influence on the

relationship between the companies. Coercive pressure, as noted before, mainly considers the

aspects of regulations. As noted by Jain et al. (2019), having experienced some issues within

the cooperation, Apple devised some effective policies and regulations that were considered

relevant in promoting the relationship between the companies, including patent protection.

Additionally, based on the normative aspect, consumers, in most cases, always consider the

quality of production. Additionally, competitors also influence this aspect. As stated by

Haslam et al. (2013), this was an issue considered; thus, Apple considering an odd decision to

use its crucial competitor as a supplier. Additionally, based on mimetic pressure, Kwok and

Lee (2015) noted that regardless of the competition, these companies have devised effective

means to continue the business operations based on supply apart from other business

proceedings. The normative pressure considered by Niu et al. (2019) also further explains the

reliability aspect considering the nonexistence of quality suppliers. All of these had an

influence on the commitment of the management, which Enderwick and Buckley (2019)

acknowledges in consideration of efforts by Apple to commit to the enabling of the

cooperation, thus productivity by both companies.

5 Discussion

As noted and explicitly explained from the results, it is crucial to consider the role of

different aspects noted, including competitiveness and supplier relationship, and further the

influences of internal processes and stakeholders in sustaining the supply chain. The primary

consideration of the research was addressing how multinational corporations, with a specific

focus on the case of Apple and Samsung, strive to manage an effective relationship despite

operating as competitors and further a supplier to another. This, in a logical perspective, is a

 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 14

challenging aspect given that in the case of any dispute between the involved organisations,

then the reputation and further the relationship will be significantly affected, thus disrupting

the relationship. As can be noted from a study by Bhardwaj and Ketokivi (2021), most

disputes in the supply chain always lead to the termination of contracts between parties.

Additionally, Tran et al. (2016) noted that it is always challenging to operate as a supplier and

a competitor, given that this will always lead to disputes within the supply chain, thus

affecting the operations of both companies. Regardless, as analysed, having been influenced

and guided by institution theory, it has been substantiated that in their operations, Apple and

Samsung, two multinational corporations who are competitors in the smartphone industry, are

suppliers and have been able to manage their relationship as suppliers and competitors

differently thus promoting a long-term managed relationship. This leads to the question of

what are the most numerous strategies considered by these organisations. Additionally, it also

promotes answering the question through a comparison of literature and how these

organisations, through their practice, have an implication on theory.

Focusing on supply chain and competition, different external influences have been

identified to promote a strong relationship between the involved parties. Among the most

crucial is competitiveness. Doan (2020) and further supported by Gunasekaran et al. (2017)

in their study, noted that among the many drivers of competitiveness is a stable and stronger

supply chain. Additionally, among other influences include the market share of a company

and the firm’s size, which has an implication on the productivity in meeting the demands of

consumers (Husna and Satria, 2019). As noted from the findings, mainly focusing on the

aspect of competitiveness and the supply chain, the authors pointed out that in striving to

address and mitigate any challenges that may be encountered along with the progress, Apple

and Samsung consider a research joint venture (RJV) in R&D which Paparoidamis et al.

(2019) noted has an impact on loyalty and trust. These are aspects that lead to a stable
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 15

supplier relationship. Additionally, through risk management considering mitigation and

recovery strategies, the companies, as pointed out by Park (2022), effectively manage their

cooperation through working under terms enabling the sustainability of both businesses as

competitors and further managing the supplier aspects.

Another significant consideration is the implications of internal organisational

processes and stakeholders on the relationship between these two companies. As noted

before, based on the definition of coercive, normative, and mimetic pressure, Latif et al.

(2020) noted that these aspects mainly are from an external aspect and how they influence the

decisions considered by organisations. As noted from the case, Apple considers the influence

of other competitors, suppliers, and further market demands in ensuring that the production is

done effectively to meet their needs. Additionally, on the side of Samsung, in striving to

address the customer’s (Apple in this case) needs, the company strives to maintain effective

internal processes. Additionally, the company considers the needs of key shareholders, and

this promotes the stability in the supply chain between the two companies, thus striving to

meet a conducive relationship that enables both organisations to address not only their own

needs but also those of the external influence. This is noted through cooperation and effective

practices geared towards a stable business operation.

Conclusively, considering the implications that this case study informed theory, it has

a significance in promoting the understanding and further the development of more largescale

advancing literature on the consideration of cases of competition and supply in two or more

businesses. The study further promotes more studies on a comparative basis that will have an

influence in informing theory and enabling understanding of these concepts of the existence

of competition and supply chain in two specific businesses operating in similar industries.
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 16

6 Conclusion and Recommendation

Conclusively, the case study focused on an empirical study targeting understanding

the main aspects related to the relationship between multinational corporations with

considerations of the case of Apple and Samsung, operating as competitors while on the other

hand, Samsung being a supplier to Apple. From the systematic review, ten studies were

identified, and based on the findings and discussions made; the companies were noted to have

considerations of the efficacy of influences such as the internal aspects related to the

companies and processes involved in managing their decisions. Additionally, based on

competitiveness and supply, the key issues guiding the relationship revolve around the

influence of stakeholders and processes considered in promoting consistency in meeting the

needs of each through strategic cooperation.

The study had a considerable impact on theory and practice. Based on theory, the case

study first promoted efficacy in understanding some of the rare occurrences, given that in the

current world with revolving technology and further the availability of alternative suppliers,

and further suppliers saturation in the market, it is a rare occurrence to note companies

operating in the same industry and further being main competitors of each other having a

relationship based on supply chain aspects. As such, the case study promotes advancing into

more research considering this aspect which has lacked more research and availability of

information. On the other hand, it can also be noted that the research had significance in

addressing and advancing practice in different companies. Despite being an evident issue,

competitors working as suppliers is an issue that, although few companies can be noted, there

exist various companies exhibiting such traits. As such, the research has significance in

understanding the relationship between the companies and proposes some of the strategies

that these companies can adopt

 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 17

Regardless of the efficacy of the case study in gaining insights into the key research

question and further promoting knowledge supply chain and competitiveness in companies

sharing more than one relationship in their business operations, it is also crucial to consider

the utilisation of a qualitative study, mainly meta-analysis which will have a significant

influence in relating the concepts. Alternatively, by using actual data from the companies

involved, mainly through interviews, questionnaires, and focus group discussions, more

substantive research can be completed, thus having more significance and reliability in the

field of relationship management and procurement.

Lastly are the aspects of opportunities and limitations. From the research, the critical

limitation experienced was a significant lack of comparative studies, with very few studies

considering the relationship between companies operating as suppliers while at the same time

being competitors. As such, most studies need to be done, considering cases of companies

having similar relationships. This can be through focusing on specific aspects or broader

aspects by considering multiple case studies, thus increasing knowledge in this field.
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 18

References

Clarke, V., Braun, V. and Hayfield, N., 2015. Thematic analysis. Qualitative psychology: A

practical guide to research methods, 222, p.248.

Dong, B., Tang, W., Zhou, C. and Ren, Y., 2021. Should original equipment manufacturer

assist noncompetitive contract manufacturer to expand capacity?. Omega, 103,

p.102420.

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Blome, C. and Papadopoulos, T., 2019. Big data

and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: integrating institutional

theory, resource‐based view and big data culture. British Journal of

Management, 30(2), pp.341-361.

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T. and Helo, P., 2018. Supplier

relationship management for circular economy: influence of external pressures and

top management commitment. Management Decision, 57(4), pp.767-790.

DuHadway, S., Carnovale, S. and Hazen, B., 2019. Understanding risk management for

intentional supply chain disruptions: Risk detection, risk mitigation, and risk

recovery. Annals of Operations Research, 283(1), pp.179-198.

Ellinger, A.D. and McWhorter, R., 2016. Qualitative case study research as empirical

inquiry. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology

(IJAVET), 7(3), pp.1-13.

Enderwick, P. and Buckley, P.J., 2019. Beyond supply and assembly relations: Collaborative

innovation in global factory systems. Journal of Business Research, 103, pp.547-556.

Espinales, A.N.V. and Moreno, J.A.V., 2021. Neuro-linguistic programming in the teaching-

learning process of English as a foreign language. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology

of Egypt/Egyptology, 18(4), pp.5566-5576.
 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 19

Forkmann, S., Henneberg, S.C., Naudé, P. and Mitrega, M., 2016. Supplier relationship

management capability: a qualification and extension. Industrial Marketing

Management, 57, pp.185-200.

Forsgren, M., 2017. Theories of the multinational firm: A multidimensional creature in the

global economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Han, Y.W., 2016. Case Note (2): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v Apple Inc. 137 S. Ct.

429 (Dec. 6, 2016)-Overview of the design patent lawsuit between Samsung &

Apple. 동북아법, 10, pp.65-72.

Haslam, C., Tsitsianis, N., Andersson, T. and Yin, Y.P., 2013, December. Apple's financial

success: The precariousness of power exercised in global value chains. In Accounting

Forum (Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 268-279). No longer published by Elsevier.

Jain, T., Hazra, J. and Swaminathan, J.M., 2019. Excess procurement strategies by a

dominant buyer under constrained supply. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 66(3),

pp.272-280.

Kauppi, K., 2013. Extending the use of institutional theory in operations and supply chain

management research: Review and research suggestions. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management.

Kwok, J.J.M. and Lee, D.Y., 2015. Coopetitive supply chain relationship model: Application

to the smartphone manufacturing network. PloS one, 10(7), p.e0132844.

Latif, B., Mahmood, Z., Tze San, O., Mohd Said, R. and Bakhsh, A., 2020. Coercive,

normative and mimetic pressures as drivers of environmental management accounting

adoption. Sustainability, 12(11), p.4506.

Makhloufi, L., Laghouag, A.A., Ali Sahli, A. and Belaid, F., 2021. Impact of entrepreneurial

orientation on innovation capability: The mediating role of absorptive capability and

organizational learning capabilities. Sustainability, 13(10), p.5399.

 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 20

Niu, B., Li, J., Zhang, J., Cheng, H.K. and Tan, Y., 2019. Strategic analysis of dual sourcing

and dual channel with an unreliable alternative supplier. Production and Operations

Management, 28(3), pp.570-587.

Paasivaara, M., Behm, B., Lassenius, C. and Hallikainen, M., 2018. Large-scale agile

transformation at Ericsson: a case study. Empirical Software Engineering, 23(5),

pp.2550-2596.

Park, C., 2022. Different determinants affecting first mover advantage and late mover

advantage in a smartphone market: a comparative analysis of Apple iPhone and

Samsung Galaxy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(3), pp.274-289.

Pun, H. and Ghamat, S., 2016. The value of partnership under competition: When

competitors may be R&D joint-venture and supply-chain partners for a critical

component. International Journal of Production Economics, 177, pp.1-35.

Smith, A.D., 2017. Integrating intellectual property and the smartphone patent wars: case

study of conflicts of supplier partnering.

Son, I. and Kim, S., 2022. Supply Chain Management Strategy and Capital Structure of

Global Information and Communications Technology

Companies. Sustainability, 14(3), p.1844.

Winter, J., 2020. The evolutionary and disruptive potential of Industrie 4.0. Hungarian

Geographical Bulletin, 69(2), pp.83-97.

Yuga, A. and Anas, E.P., 2020. Various Approaches to Institutional Theory in Increasing the

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Organizational Innovation. Available at SSRN

3713886.

Paparoidamis, N.G., Katsikeas, C.S. and Chumpitaz, R., 2019. The role of supplier

performance in building customer trust and loyalty: A cross-country

examination. Industrial marketing management, 78, pp.183-197.

 A Case Study of Apple Inc. and Samsung 21

Bhardwaj, A. and Ketokivi, M., 2021. Bilateral dependency and supplier performance

ambiguity in supply chain contracting: Evidence from the railroad industry. Journal

of Operations Management, 67(1), pp.49-70.

Tran, T.T.H., Childerhouse, P. and Deakins, E., 2016. Supply chain information sharing:

challenges and risk mitigation strategies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management.

Doan, T., 2020. Supply chain management drivers and competitive advantage in

manufacturing industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 8(3), pp.473-480.

Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N. and Papadopoulos, T., 2017. Information technology for

competitive advantage within logistics and supply chains: A review. Transportation

Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 99, pp.14-33.

Husna, A. and Satria, I., 2019. Effects of return on asset, debt to asset ratio, current ratio, firm

size, and dividend payout ratio on firm value. International Journal of Economics and

Financial Issues, 9(5), p.50.