The relational perspective draws attention to the network of firms which forms the unit of analysis (Wieland & Wallenburg, 2013). The theory argues that competitive advantage is achieved through the inter-connections between members from which they draw unique capabilities (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Kumar et al., 2017). These unique capabilities are developed as the network allows firms to: (1) invest in relation-specific assets, (2) develop inter-firm knowledge sharing routines, (3) use effectual governance mechanisms and (4) exploit complementary capabilities (Dyer & Singh, 1998). According to Kumar et al. (2017), this network assists through the development of a culture for teamwork by which planning and sharing activities can function effectively.

In a supply chain, SMEs function collectively to facilitate the provision of product or services to the end-consumer. In order to compete effectively, their supply chain must perform at a level that is above average. In line with the theory of relational view, increased performance can be realised when SMEs engage in networking which provides the benefits aforementioned. As partnership, collaboration and integration characterise networking (Kumar et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2014; Youn et al., 2013), they are therefore prerequisite if SMEs are to improve supply chain performance as implied in the literature of relational view.

The business environment has developed drastically in recent years, and therefore supply chains have become complex. For this reason, the concept of supply chain partnerships has come to be perceived as particularly important (Goffin et al., 2006; Nyaga et al., 2010; Ramanathan & Gunasekaran, 2014). As there is emphasis on quality, cost reduction and, even recently in the extent literature, environmental awareness (Vahabzadeh, Asiaeim, & Zailani, 2015), supply chain partnerships have been seen as pivotal in ensuring that these outcomes are achieved (De Bakker, Fisscher, & Brack, 2002; Klassen & McLaughlin, 1996; Montabon, Sroufe, & Narasimhan, 2007). The scope and size of supply chain partnerships are determined through methodical and organisation-wide efforts that involve exchanges at both strategic and operational levels (Youn et al., 2013).

In earlier studies, Mohr and Speckman (1994) contended that partnership qualities, communication behaviour and tools for conflict resolution have been regarded as important factors of partnership success. Since then, much research on supply chain partnership has been theoretical (Ellram & Hendrick, 1995; Graham, Daugherty, & Dudley, 1994; Mentzer et al., 2000). However, recently, many empirical studies have been undertaken as well (Goffin et al., 2006; Nyaga et al., 2010; Sodhi & Son, 2009). For instance, Ramanathan and Gunasekaran (2014), Chen and Paulraj (2004), Li and Lin (2006) identified that trust plays a crucial role in supply chain relationships. The study defines supply chain partnership according to Youn et al. (2013) as ‘successful long-term relationships amongst trading partners in the supply chain that are enabled by mutual trust, organisational compatibility, top management support, and information sharing’.

In the past three decades, a number of firms have established collaborations with other supply chain members (Ramanathan & Gunasekaran 2014). A number of studies have identified cost reduction, profit, forecast accuracy and inventory control as the benefits that are derived from supply chain collaborations (Aviv, 2007; Gavirneni et al., 1999; Lee et al., 2000). According to Cao and Zhang (2011), realising these benefits requires that supply chain members incorporate the seven dimensions essential to collaborative relationships, that is, information sharing, goal congruence, decision synchronisation, incentive alignment, resource sharing, communication and joint knowledge creation. However, collaborations are characterised by uncertain environments (Langroodi & Amiri, 2016; Qu & Yang, 2015), composite structural relationships (Arkhipov & Ivanov, 2011; Cheng, Chen, & Chen, 2014), inequitable information sharing (Ganesh, Raghunathan, & Rajendran, 2014) and decentralised individual decision-making (Lu, Lau, & Yiu, 2012) amongst others.

Gunasekaran, Patel, and McGaughey (2004) and Danese (2007) therefore stress that it is important that firms assess their own strengths and weaknesses in order to determine the standard of collaboration that is most appropriate. Once a collaborative relationship has been established, trust and commitment will assume a critical role in the relationship’s development (Kumar et al., 2017). Nyaga et al. (2010) also confirmed that there is a correlation between trust, commitment and collaboration. Simatupang and Sridharan (2005) define collaboration as two or more supply chain firms cooperating to build a competitive edge through information sharing, joint decision-making and the sharing the benefits of greater profits resulting from satisfying customer needs. This study however adopts a definition from Kumar and Banerjee (2012) who assert that collaboration is:

In today’s business environment, integration is perceived as a competitive strategy (Li & Chen, 2017). It is conceived that firms approach integration with the aim of acquiring benefits such as improved quality, decrease in production costs, increased supply chain efficiency and strategic advantage over competitors (Investopedia, 2015). As supply chains are judged with respect to value, integration has been accepted as fundamental (Huo et al., 2014). More so, it is viewed in this light given that traditional management practices such as monetary incentives, training and sharing best practices may have partial impact on reducing risk (Srinivasan & Kurey, 2014). Even more so, it is believed that supply chain integration is indispensable for achieving economic and environmental goals as opposed to improving business practices alone.

It is supported in the supply chain integration literature that integration may affect performance outcomes in different ways (Flynn et al., 2010; Zhao, Huo, Sun, & Zhao, 2013). However, despite strengthening the competitive advantage of supply chain partners, it is contended that integration intensifies the competition between the two firms (Li & Chen, 2017). Huo et al. (2014) define supply chain integration as:

For the purpose of this study, supply chain integration is defined as the extent to which a firm strategically collaborates with its supply chain members and collaboratively administers intra- and inter-organisational processes (Flynn et al., 2010).

In recent years, there has been a growing shift for businesses to increase their product and service offerings for the objective of providing more consumer choice and creating more opportunities to outperform competitors (Um et al., 2017). This trend has therefore drawn attention to supply chain performance by both academics and practitioners. Yang and Burns (2003) argue that supply chain partners need to be in unity in order to respond to changes in customer requirements. More so, it is noted in the literature that it is significant to ascertain not only the manner in which supply chain partners are proactive but also the manner in which they strive for sustainability (Schaltegger & Burritt, 2014).

It can be accepted that supply chains are essential for generating value. Value can only be created if there is an improvement in the performance of a supply chain. When there is an increase in supply chain performance, value is created through coordination and organisation on a comprehensive scale (Yeung & Coe, 2015). Contrary to the advantages of an increase in supply chain performance, Salvador, Forza, and Rungtusanatham (2002) and Forza and Salvador (2001) argue that the production and delivery function may be affected because of higher direct labour and material cost, increased manufacturing overheads cost and prolonged delivery lead times as well increased inventory levels. Supply chain performance is defined by Srinivasan, Mukherjee, and Gaur (2011) as the performance of a selection of functions included within the supply chain. For the purpose of this study, supply chain performance will be defined as the ability of a supply chain to cost-effectively carry out its activities while minimising costs, for the main purpose of meeting the ultimate customer’s needs (Green & Inman, 2005).

Deducing from the review of supply chain literature and the theory of relational view, a research model is conceptualised. Hereafter, hypothesised relationships will be developed. With regard to the conceptualised research model, supply chain partnership, supply chain collaboration and supply chain integration are the predictors, whereas supply chain performance is the outcome. The model is developed to explain the relationship between the constructs in the context of SMEs. Three hypotheses are examined. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed conceptual model.

Measures for all constructs, that is, supply chain partnership, supply chain collaboration, supply chain integration and supply chain performance (see Appendix 1), were adopted from Gallear, Ghobadian, and Chen (2012:59), Cao and Zhang (2011:65) and Flynn et al. (2010:354), respectively. They were tailored to suit the study’s context and purpose. All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale. As a general rule to increasing the reliability of a measurement scale with respect to a particular construct, some measurement items have to be eliminated (Bryman & Cramer, 2003). As such, item ‘Our company views our major suppliers as suppliers of capabilities (SCP5)’ which was intended to measure supply chain partnership, had to be eradicated for the purpose of increasing the reliability associated with the construct’s measurement scale. All other respective measurement scales were found to be reliable on the whole.

Of the 700 questionnaires distributed, 271 questionnaires were usable and represented a response rate of 38.7%. Logically, this response rate is inadequate to be deemed representative of the entire sample. However, research argues that it is expected that a study much like the current study, which has employed a self-administered questionnaire as a method of collecting data, will yield a low response because of constrictions (e.g. non-response) (Fatoki & Asah, 2011). It is, however, argued that results obtained from the response rate speak to some extent the influence that partnership, collaboration and integration have on the supply chain performance of 700 SMEs operating in Gauteng, South Africa. Gauteng is a prominent province which contributes significantly to the South African economy. Small and medium enterprises operating strictly within the province were therefore sampled. The primary aim was to extract results which are therefore impelling and, to some extent, speaking the reality of the SME sector embedded in the economy of South Africa.

Results pertaining to the profile of respondents are provided as follows. From the sample of 271 SMEs, 106 SMEs collectively were sole proprietors and close cooperations, while the least (5) were private companies. A hundred responses were from the retail division, while 78 SMEs had a number of employees that is within the range of 26–35.

Structural equation modelling (SEM), applying SmartPLS statistical software (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005), was undertaken to examine the study’s data with respect to its conceptualised research model. A two-stage procedure of SEM that is compulsory was carried out for analysis (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Initially, measurement model assessment was conducted where convergent and discriminant validity was examined. In the second stage, structural modelling was undertaken to evaluate causal relationships. Results from this procedure are explained in detail below. The results from the scale accuracy analysis are exhibited in Table 1.