Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba PDF Free Download
1 / 14/14
100%
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An
empirical analysis based on Alibaba
Miao Feng
1
, Haoran Si
2
*, Yang LiID
2
, Junrui Zhang
2
1Business School, Shandong Management University, Jinan, China, 2Business School, Shandong Normal
University, Jinan, China
*1814059713@qq.com
Abstract
The rapid development of B2B has brought about fierce competition among suppliers, and
how to gain customer attention and improve performance has become a common concern
in academia and industry. This study examined the drivers and mechanisms of B2B perfor-
mance from an enterprise capability perspective. We collected transaction and enterprise
data from 325 suppliers on Alibaba 1688 platform and constructed a structural equation
model (SEM). Results showed that supplier service capability, logistics capability, and pro-
duction capacity all positively impacted B2B performance through the mediating role of cus-
tomer attention. In addition, we found that service and logistics capabilities are more critical
for attracting customer attention for Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) suppliers than
for non-OEM suppliers. The findings contribute to understanding B2B commerce and pro-
vide constructive directions for B2B suppliers to improve their performance.
Introduction
B2B e-commerce is an Internet-based transaction facilitator that meets the transactional needs
of buyers and sellers while providing value-added services [1]. B2B e-commerce has become
the dominant mode of business transactions because it has subverted the traditional multi-
tiered supply chain relationships, made the market more open and accessible, and created con-
siderable economic benefits [2]. In 2015, Amazon began to push into the B2B space, changing
the name of its B2B e-commerce business from Amazon Supply to Amazon Business, with
sales of more than $1 billion in just one year. By 2022, the registered Gross Merchandise Vol-
ume (GMV) has reached $35 billion. Alibaba, the world’s largest B2B platform, now has sup-
pliers from more than 190 countries and more than 100 million active business buyers.
However, B2B e-commerce can be a double-edged sword, increasing transaction efficiency
while intensifying market competition. At the customer acquisition stage, due to factors such
as the complexity of downstream customer types, it is difficult for B2B suppliers to accurately
analyze downstream buyers’ business scenarios and stimulate buyers’ purchasing decisions
through accurate and high-quality information disclosure [3,4]. In B2B business platforms,
when transaction records and business information between enterprises become visible,
potential buyers can scrutinize suppliers’ qualifications and make purchasing decisions based
on this information [5]. Therefore, suppliers’ capabilities demonstrated in previous
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 1 / 14
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Feng M, Si H, Li Y, Zhang J (2024)
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An
empirical analysis based on Alibaba. PLoS ONE
19(7): e0306919. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0306919
Editor: Mohamed Rafik N. Qureshi, King Khalid
University, SAUDI ARABIA
Received: May 15, 2024
Accepted: June 25, 2024
Published: July 12, 2024
Copyright: ©2024 Feng et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the manuscript and its Supporting
Information files.
Funding: This research was funded by National
Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number
72302136, and Natural Science Foundation of
Shandong Province, grant number ZR2023QG093.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
transactions are critical to attracting customers [6]. What exactly are the capabilities that can
attract customer attention to improve business performance?
B2B commerce research has received increasing academic attention, with many scholars
focusing on the factors influencing B2B performance [7]. The existing literature can be divided
into two streams, one of which suggests that B2B performance is affected by upstream and
downstream relationships in the supply chain, with many studies proving that reciprocity [8],
trust [9], and relational commitment [10] contribute to B2B performance. The other stream
posits that in the B2B business environment, enterprises’ business strategy is market-oriented,
and competitive intelligence in the network is an essential basis for deal-making, implying that
B2B performance can be driven by supplier capabilities [5]. It was found that market skills,
competencies, and customer contact capabilities to fulfill customer requirements can improve
B2B performance [11]. In addition to the supplier capabilities listed above, studies have shown
that brand capability [12], innovation capability [13], and organizational capability [14] can
influence B2B performance.
However, there is still a shortage of research addressing the capability perspective of the
B2B supply chain. From the perspective of Porter’s value chain model, most studies focus on
supporting activities, and research on primary activities is far from comprehensive, encom-
passing only marketing capabilities, while the other three essential capabilities, logistics capa-
bilities, service capabilities, and operation capabilities, have been overlooked. In addition,
there are different types of suppliers on B2B platforms, especially OEM suppliers, which are
significantly different from non-OEM suppliers in terms of their capabilities [15]. Since down-
stream buyers may have different initial attitudes to whether a supplier is an OEM, there may
be discrepancies in the capabilities that different suppliers need to disclose to improve B2B
performance. However, existing studies do not distinguish between these two types of suppli-
ers. Addressing this issue could contribute to identifying the boundaries of the impact of sup-
plier capabilities on B2B performance and allow suppliers to allocate their resources more
rationally and efficiently.
Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap in the drivers of B2B performance by comprehen-
sively examining the impact of service, production, and logistics capabilities on B2B perfor-
mance and testing the mediating role of customer attention in the process. Moreover, we
innovatively distinguished the suppliers into OEM and non-OEM manufacturers and explored
the capability diversity required by different types of suppliers to enhance B2B performance.
This study contributes to the theoretical system of B2B performance research by revealing the
impact of supplier capabilities on B2B performance and discovering the mechanisms and theo-
retical boundaries of this impact. The findings will help B2B suppliers deepen their under-
standing of the cooperation mechanism between enterprises and target their capabilities to
achieve efficiency gains.
To advance this line of research, we targeted Alibaba’s 1688 trading platform and collected
transaction data and capability information from 325 suppliers, of which the capability infor-
mation includes service capability, production capacity, and logistics capability, and explored
the impacts of these three capabilities on B2B performance; furthermore, we examined the
mediating role of customer attention in these impacts and the moderating role of OEM certifi-
cation in these impacts. For future research, we suggest that more market factors should be
considered, and mathematical models could be used to investigate the impact of suppliers’
strategic behavior or market competition on B2B performance.
This paper is structured as follows: We first present the theoretical background and the for-
mulation of the hypotheses. Next, we describe the research methodology and the results of the
empirical analyses. Finally, we discuss our main findings, theoretical contributions, managerial
implications, and limitations.
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 2 / 14
Literature review
B2B commerce
B2B electronic commerce refers to the mode of business-to-business transactions centered on
information technology, and its large-scale commercial application can be traced back to elec-
tronic data interchange (EDI) in the 1980s [16]. With the spread of the internet, B2B e-com-
merce has evolved into more open and flexible forms, including online marketplaces, e-
procurement platforms, and supply chain management systems. Using platforms is strategi-
cally vital to buyers because it can help companies break time and space constraints to improve
the efficiency of inter-enterprise transactions and reduce the transaction costs associated with
the supply chain [17]. Low transaction costs have also attracted more sellers and buyers to par-
ticipate in B2B platforms, which have become more efficient because of network externalities
[18]. In addition to reducing transaction costs, the intervention of B2B platforms can also
effectively realize digital marketing at the industry level, acquire good customer word-of-
mouth and customer value, and, thus, increase the number of transactions and business per-
formance [19,20].
In the early stage of the B2B business platform launch, it is critical to design the platform’s
mechanics to engage potential buyers and ensure they stay on the platform for the long term.
Factors affecting B2B customer adoption can be categorized into product factors (e.g., product
specificity, product value), degree of market change, and individual factors (frequency of pur-
chases, IT capabilities, and efficiency motives) [21,22]. When customers enter the B2B e-com-
merce platform, the effective operation of the platform becomes a vital issue. Many scholars
have studied the construction of trust and cooperation among participants in B2B e-commerce
platforms. Institutional trust in B2B e-commerce platforms is a prerequisite for promoting
customer inter-organizational trust. Mallapragada et al. [23] investigated the effect of virtual
inter-organizational relationships on user trust and satisfaction regarding interdependence
and relative dependence; they found that relative reliance only significantly impacts new
interuser relationships, and this effect diminishes over time. On the platform, when there is
interdependence and relative dependence in the relationships between old users, their satisfac-
tion increases. Nevertheless, the trust and satisfaction of new users decreases.
Platform governance is a vital research topic in the development of B2B commerce. Unlike
traditional B2B relationships, B2B e-commerce platform governance studies the management
of B2B platform enterprises over bilateral enterprises. When considering the contribution
behaviors performed by multiple participants on a B2B platform, the effects of learning and
competition must be noted [24]. Grewal et al. [25] devised three approaches to the governance
of platform enterprises: monitoring, community building, and autonomous platform partici-
pation; they considered the roles played by the three governance approaches in the context of
platform reputation, pricing approach, and demand uncertainty conditions and found that
monitoring is the best form of platform governance when the platform reputation is high, and
market demand is uncertain. When the pricing model is static rather than dynamic, commu-
nity building is the best mode of platform governance. Self-participation is the best platform
governance approach when the platform’s reputation is high, and pricing is dynamic.
B2B commerce performance
B2B commerce performance is the extent to which an e-marketplace delivers and enhances
value to its owners and how efficiently it performs its tasks and achieves its goals [26]. Many
scholars have used financial metrics, such as transaction volume, to measure good or bad B2B
performance [27]. In addition to financial indicators, Wang et al. (2012) used the number of
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 3 / 14
enterprises participating in the market as a performance measure, arguing that the more enter-
prises participate in the B2B market, the larger the size of the B2B market, the stronger its net-
work externalities, and the greater the market value it can create [28]. Matook (2013), on the
other hand, used 16 indicators to comprehensively measure B2B market performance, includ-
ing transaction volume, customer loyalty, and the number of buyers [29].
How to effectively improve B2B market performance is a hot topic in academia and indus-
try in the B2B field. Many scholars have explored the influences that affect B2B performance
from the perspective of organizational resources and capabilities. Wang et al. suggested that
online marketing, online social networking, product/service quality, and learning capabilities
are essential drivers of B2B performance [28]. Thitimajshima et al. (2017) explored the factors
affecting B2B market performance from multiple perspectives, such as business relationships,
transactions, and marketplace services. They found that e-marketplaces, trusting relationships
between merchants, transaction cost reductions, and website usability can significantly affect
loyalty, website reliability, and relative advantage and that several buyers considerably impact
B2B performance [30]. Previous research has explored the drivers of B2B performance from
the perspectives of relationships and online marketing capabilities but neglected that down-
stream buyers first need to examine and filter the qualifications of upstream suppliers before
concluding B2B transactions. Therefore, the current study fits in to fill this gap by exploring
the impact of suppliers’ capability information on B2B market performance.
Single theory
Signal theory, which was first proposed by Michael Spence, was initially used to address the
problem of information asymmetry in the labor market and mainly consists of the sending of
signals, the interpretation of signals, and the feedback of signals [31]. In a B2B context, the fea-
tures or information displayed on the platform can be regarded as signals from the seller to the
buyer. Buyers view and interpret signals and engage in market behaviors [32]. However, prod-
uct and seller information is not entirely open and transparent, so there is a general problem
of information asymmetry between online buyers and sellers [33].
Most studies have focused on the effect of the type and number of signals on both sides of a
transaction [34]. A survey by Mavlanova et al. (2012) revealed differences in signal selection
between low- and high-quality sellers in the marketplace. The present study revealed that sell-
ers tend not to act on signals in isolation but rather to use a variety of signals in combination.
They identified two signal combination strategies: a combination of high-cost but easily verifi-
able signals and low-cost but difficult-to-verify signals [35]. High-quality sellers are more
inclined to use high-cost signals, including high-quality customer service, product warranties,
or professional certifications. Sellers can communicate their reliability and value to the market-
place by choosing these signals and increasing consumer trust and loyalty. In contrast, low-
quality sellers use less costly, challenging signals to verify, including false advertising, selling at
low prices, and hiding real quality issues. Despite the low cost of these signals, they tend to
hurt the market, reduce consumer trust and may lead to market instability or imbalance. Mav-
lanova et al. (2016) studied the effect of external and internal signals on buyers’ perceived seller
quality and found that external signals had a significant effect on perceived seller quality, while
the impact of internal signals was not substantial. Therefore, to better engage the audience,
sellers are advised to provide more external signals [36]. Our study combines signaling theory
to investigate what kind of signals merchants provide buyers regarding transaction volume,
the return rate, the number of buyers, the number of intended purchases, and the impact on
buyers’ perceptions.
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 4 / 14
Research hypothesis
B2B supplier capabilities and performance
Production capacity is a capability resource that integrates tangible and intangible manufactur-
ing resources; it includes several production and operational metrics, such as production vol-
ume, resource utilization, and flexibility, which can directly impact supplier performance [37].
In a B2B environment, production capacity is an important metric, and downstream enterprises
usually assess the production capacity of their suppliers through data, such as the amount of
equipment, production lines, and factories [38]. The richer a B2B supplier’s capacity informa-
tion is and the stronger the production capability it possesses, the more likely a potential cus-
tomer is to perceive the supplier as having better supply chain stability, flexibility, and
operational capability and as being better able to cope with unknown risks and guarantee on-
time delivery of the product or service and therefore more willing to transact with that supplier.
Transactions in e-commerce contexts are more transparent and visible, and downstream
buyers can observe the performance of upstream suppliers or sellers on the service side, for
example, through online reviews [20]. In a B2B environment, a supplier’s service capability
can directly impact customer satisfaction, financial performance, and the relationship between
the buyer and seller [39]. For B2B suppliers, their service capabilities help increase the attrac-
tiveness of cooperation, reduce the perceived risk to customers, and make downstream compa-
nies more confident in establishing partnerships with them by establishing good
communication channels and providing customized solutions.
Rapid and efficient logistics services are critical for enterprises to gain market share [40]. In
B2B platforms, logistics service quality is mainly reflected in service effectiveness and reliability
[41]. From the timeliness perspective, logistics service quality is primarily reflected in logistics
speed, information transfer quality, order processing time, and other factors. The timeliness of
logistics can accelerate an enterprise’s capital turnover to improve its performance [42]. In
addition, at the logistics service level, downstream customers attach great importance to logis-
tics service reliability, which can be defined as the ability of upstream customers to guarantee
timely delivery more adequately [43]. Therefore, superior logistics capabilities can increase
customer reliability, facilitate transaction closure, and enhance B2B platform performance.
Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1a:Production capabilities of suppliers positively impact B2B performance.
H1b:Service capabilities of suppliers positively impact B2B performance.
H1c:Logistics capabilities of suppliers positively impact B2B performance.
Mediating effects of customer attention
Attention is a vital resource for firms that can impact many factors, including product promo-
tion and market performance [44,45]. However, because of the limited ability of individuals to
pay attention, there is competition among enterprises for customer attention [46]. Many B2B
platforms have developed social network features that allow downstream customers to follow
upstream suppliers. When potential buyers notice that a seller is getting more attention, they
perceive that seller as more reliable and are more willing to enter into a transaction with the
seller [11]. Considering the information asymmetry problem in B2B platforms, potential buy-
ers are often at an information disadvantage because of cognitive limitations or intentional
concealment by sellers. The attention of more buyers can be seen as a signal provided by the
market, which can reduce the perceived risk of buyers and facilitate the finalization of a deal
[47]. Therefore, the current study argues that customer attention mediates supplier capabilities
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 5 / 14
and B2B performance. For example, the stronger the supplier’s capabilities are, the easier it is
to attract buyers’ attention, ultimately boosting B2B performance. Based on the above analyses,
the current study proposes the following hypotheses:
H2a:Customer attention mediates the effect of B2B suppliers’ production capabilities on their
performance.
H2b:Customer attention mediates the effect of B2B suppliers’ service capabilities on their
performance.
H2c:Customer attention mediates the effect of B2B suppliers’ logistics capabilities on their
performance.
Moderating effects of OEM status
The most significant difference between OEMs and non-OEMs is their production capacity. A
superior OEM must have a large enough production capacity to produce and process the prod-
ucts required for brand owners [48]. OEMs are usually responsible for assembly and custom
processing, integrating parts and components into a final product [49]. They are more depen-
dent on external suppliers for standard components and raw materials, with the possibility of
outsourcing production and commissioning specialized manufacturers to produce compo-
nents. This makes the OEM production process more flexible and adaptable to the customiza-
tion needs of its customers [14]. On B2B websites, the OEM status can be seen as the brand
owner’s endorsement of the factory, establishing an initial favorable impression and trust for
potential customers [50]. When OEMs further disclose more information about their produc-
tion capacity, services, and logistics, they can create a confirmation effect that makes custom-
ers more determined to cooperate with them, thus enhancing their performance. From
another perspective, OEM manufacturers are more substantial and usually receive large
orders, and they need to collaborate with brand owners for part of the product development
work, which mainly focuses on the selection/procuring of raw materials and recommending
and confirming processing techniques. However, other potential buyers may be concerned
about whether the OEM manufacturer has sufficient spare capacity to provide services. There-
fore, the OEM supplier needs to demonstrate adequate production, service, and logistics capa-
bilities to convince potential buyers that they have enough production capacity to secure the
completion of production tasks and to realize the timely delivery of products. Therefore, the
following hypotheses were formulated for the current study:
H3a:The impact of production capacity on customer attention is significantly greater for OEM
suppliers than for non-OEM suppliers.
H3b:The impact of service capability on customer attention is significantly greater for OEM sup-
pliers than for non-OEM suppliers.
H3c:The impact of logistics capabilities on customer attention is significantly greater for OEM
suppliers than for non-OEM suppliers.
The conceptual model for this study is summarised in Fig 1.
Methodology
Research data
The data come from Alibaba 1688, which was founded in 1999 and is now the largest inte-
grated B2B trading platform in China, providing matching and online trading services
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 6 / 14
between origin factories, wholesaler sellers, and wholesaler buyers in the areas of apparel and
jewelry, packaging materials, office supplies, home decoration and building materials, and dig-
ital computers. The website has more than 10 million active customers from 190 countries and
regions. The site allows B2B sellers to disclose information, such as company profile and pro-
duction capacity. In addition, the service performance and performance of B2B sellers are pub-
licly visible on this site.
The present study has chosen daily use products as the research object because these prod-
ucts have high sales on the website and are representative. The specific data mainly include
B2B supplier profiles, B2B sales, potential customer attention, supplier response rate, delivery
time, number of devices, business registration time, and breach of trust records.
Variables
The dependent variable in the current study is B2B seller performance, as measured by the
cumulative sales of B2B sellers. The independent variables include B2B supplier service capa-
bility, logistics capability, and production capacity, where service capability is measured by the
customer service response rate, logistics capability is measured by product transit time, and
production capacity is measured by the number of production lines owned by the supplier.
The mediating variable is customer attention, expressed as this supplier’s amount of customer
attention. The control variables in the current study include the enterprise’s age, which is mea-
sured as the duration of the enterprise’s registration. The credit of enterprises is a dummy vari-
able, which is expressed by whether the company has a breach of trust, with 1 being the
presence of a violation of trust and 0 being the absence of a breach of trust. The descriptive sta-
tistics and correlations of the variables are shown in Table 1.
Data analysis and results
Before conducting the hypothesis testing of the structural equation model (SEM), we used the
variance inflation factor (VIF) to check for multicollinearity, and the VIF of each variable was
Fig 1. Conceptual model.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919.g001
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 7 / 14
less than 2, indicating that the model did not have a multicollinearity problem. Next, the
model fit goodness-of-fit metrics are shown in Table 2, and the results all indicate that the
model possesses a good fit.
The importance of validity and significance testing of parameter estimates was emphasized
[37,54], and to achieve practical path analysis, SMART PLS 4.0 software was used; the results
are shown in Table 3. The present study controlled for enterprise age and business credit when
testing for main effects. The main effects analysis showed that B2B suppliers’ service capability,
logistics capability, and production capacity all had a significant positive impact on customer
attention (β= 0.201, p <0.01, β= 0.114, p <0.01, and β= 0.111, p <0.05, respectively), and
hypotheses H1a, H1b, and H1c were supported. These results suggest that information about
suppliers’ capabilities is crucial in B2B commerce platforms; when suppliers’ service, logistics,
and production capabilities are more vital, they can gain more attention. In addition, customer
attention has a significant positive effect on B2B performance (β= 0.739, p <0.01), and the
more attention a B2B supplier receives in the early period, the greater the B2B performance is;
thus, hypothesis H2 is supported. Existing studies have confirmed the critical role of customer
attention in online communities and online marketplaces, and this finding reaffirms the signif-
icance of customers in the B2B business marketplace.
To conduct the mediation effect test, we refer to Rungtusanatham et al. [55] and use bias-
corrected bootstrapping to verify the significance of the indirect effect. The bootstrapping
results are based on 5000 bootstrapping samples. We first test hypothesis H2a, the mediating
role of customer attention in the impact of B2B supplier service capability on B2B perfor-
mance. The indirect effect of service capability on B2B performance was found to be signifi-
cant and positive (β= 0.148, p <0.01), with a bias-corrected 95% confidence interval [0.072,
0.222], and hypothesis H2a was supported. The indirect effect of logistics capability on B2B
performance was significant and positive (β= 0.084, p <0.01), with a bias-corrected 95% con-
fidence interval [0.036, 0.153], and hypothesis H2b was supported. Finally, the indirect effect
of production capacity on B2B performance was significant and positive (β= 0.082, p <0.01),
with a bias-corrected 95% confidence interval [0.016, 0.150], and hypothesis H2c was sup-
ported. These findings further suggest that service, logistics, and production information from
Table 2. The model fit goodness-of-fit metrics.
Model fit index Observed value Threshold value
SRMR 0.033 <0.08
NFI 0.956 >0.9
RMS Theta 0.098 <0.12
Source(s): Hu and Bentler [51]; Bentler and Bonett [52]; Lohmoller [53].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919.t002
Table 1. The descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables.
Variables Measures Mean SD Max. Min.
B2B performance B2B supplier product sales 1817.735 4514.355 38627.000 17.000
Service capability Customer service response rate 0.819 0.087 0.990 0.670
Logistics capability Delivery time (week) 22.298 22.160 160.800 2.400
Production capability The amount of equipment owned by the supplier 51.385 73.990 466.000 1.000
Customer attention Number of potential customers’ attention 155.191 907.420 3175.000 6.000
OEM Dummy variable, 1 for OEM suppliers and 0 for non-OEM suppliers 0.271 0.444 1.000 0.000
Enterprise age Establishment years of B2B suppliers 7.978 4.456 24.000 1.000
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919.t001
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 8 / 14
B2B suppliers can trigger customers’ attention as an essential market signal. Such attention
can help reduce the perceived risk and uncertainty of potential buys and enhance the future
sales performance of B2B suppliers.
Regarding the moderating effect, the moderating effect of OEM on the relationship between
the impact of service capability and B2B performance was significant and positive (β= 0.176,
p<0.01), suggesting that the service capability of OEM suppliers contributes more to cus-
tomer attention than that of non-OEM suppliers, and Hypothesis H3a was verified. The mod-
erating effect of OEM on the relationship between the impact of logistics capability and B2B
performance was significant and positive (β= 0.115, p <0.01), suggesting that the logistics ser-
vice capability of OEM suppliers contributes more to customer attention than that of non-
OEM suppliers, and Hypothesis H3b was verified. However, the moderating effect of OEM on
the relationship between the impact of production capacity and B2B performance was not sig-
nificant (β= 0.101, p <0.05), suggesting that for OEMs and non-OEMs, the paths of the effect
of production capacity on B2B performance are not significantly different.
Discussion
Conclusion
Focusing on B2B performance issues, the current study explored the impact of supplier capa-
bilities, such as B2B upstream suppliers’ service, logistics, and production capabilities. In addi-
tion, based on signaling theory, the current study further tested the mediating role of
downstream customer attention in the impact of supplier capabilities on B2B performance
and the moderating role of the seller’s OEM status. Specifically, we drew the following
conclusions:
First, a B2B supplier’s service, logistics, and production capabilities all positively impact its
performance. This finding is consistent with existing studies that have explored the relation-
ship between service capability and B2B performance. Moreover, we highlighted the impor-
tance of the production capacity and logistics capability of B2B upstream suppliers, in addition
Table 3. The results of the path analysis derived from Smart PLS 4.0.
Hypotheses Path βt value Results
Direct Path
H1a Service capability!Customer attention 0.201 4.449*** Supported
H1b Logistics capability!Customer attention 0.114 3.012*** Supported
H1c Production capability!Customer attention 0.111 2.236** Supported
H2 Customer attention!B2B performance 0.739 8.429*** Supported
Mediation Path
H2a Service capability!Customer attention!B2B performance 0.148 3.886*** Supported
H2b Logistics capability!Customer attention!B2B performance 0.084 2.698*** Supported
H2c Production capability!Customer attention!B2B performance 0.082 2.414** Supported
Moderation Path
H3a OEM*Service capability!Customer attention 0.238 3.619*** Supported
H3b OEM*Logistics capability!Customer attention 0.155 2.670** Supported
H3c OEM*Production capability!Customer attention 0.136 1.837*Not Supported
Notes
*p<0.1
**p<0.05
***p<0.01.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919.t003
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 9 / 14
to their service capability. With the rise of new business formats, such as live-streaming e-com-
merce, downstream customers have a greater demand for quick responses from upstream sup-
pliers. Customers need to be sure that suppliers have sufficient production capacity before
entering into a transaction and can guarantee the timely arrival of goods.
Second, we found that the attention of potential buyers mediated the relationship between
supplier capability and B2B performance. The visibility of B2B platforms allows buyers to
observe each other’s behavior. The information cascade or herd effect that is prevalent in indi-
vidual social networks also exists in B2B networks: The more robust the supplier’s service, pro-
duction, and logistical capabilities are, the more it can attract the attention of more potential
downstream customers, and this high level of attention also leads to faster cooperation with
the supplier and higher levels of performance.
Third, OEM suppliers work with specific brands or enterprises to produce products accord-
ing to their specifications and designs, hence having high production standards in the produc-
tion chain. However, our research further revealed that improving their service and logistics
capabilities is equally crucial for OEM suppliers to attract customers and increase sales.
Theoretical contributions
The present study makes two critical theoretical contributions. First, we provide a new research
perspective for the study of B2B seller performance, as existing studies have focused mainly on
the impact of corporate service capability and B2B network structure on B2B performance.
Based on B2B supplier capability, the current study extended the value performance of B2B per-
formance to logistics capability and production capability, proving that suppliers can improve
their corporate reputation and attract consumers to buy by spreading the three significant sig-
nals of their own service capability, logistics capability, and production capability, which are
ultimately manifested in B2B performance. Second, the current study enriches the theoretical
system of B2B performance research and further reveals the mechanisms and boundaries of the
influence of supplier capability on supplier performance. Although most of the existing research
on B2B supply chains has been conducted from a trust and relationship perspective, we provide
a new perspective on customer focus that offers a new direction for future research.
Practical implications
The current study offers valuable insights into the management practices of B2B enterprises.
In the contemporary digital landscape, enterprises can integrate the enhancement of critical
capabilities, such as service, logistics, and production capabilities. B2B platforms should lever-
age these insights to design features highlighting supplier capabilities and fostering customer
attention. Many B2B platforms encourage enterprises to establish a matrix of integrated service
offerings, including store construction, marketing, trading, customer management, and after-
sales consulting, to provide enterprises with business-critical operational support and to
achieve the core objectives of improving transaction efficiency and driving traffic conversion.
Moreover, by leveraging AI and big data technology, the enterprise could empower transaction
parties with digital intelligence across dimensions, such as business analysis, marketing cus-
tomer acquisition, and resource matching. These initiatives can accelerate enterprise digital
transformation and upgrading, enhance industrial-end business quality, and aid platforms in
bolstering brand power to attract a broader customer base. Finally, we recommend that OEMs
adopt a differentiation strategy in terms of service and logistics, strengthening their business
level and combining it with word-of-mouth promotion to increase user attention. In terms of
production, they should continuously improve their flexible manufacturing capabilities to
guarantee high production levels.
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 10 / 14
Limitations and future research
Our work has some inevitable limitations, but all of these points point to directions for future
research. First, the current study adopted specific independent variables (service, logistics, and
production capability) for the analysis; however, other vital factors that may impact B2B sell-
ers’ performance, such as market competition and supplier behavior. Due to the limitations of
the research methodology, these factors cannot be effectively identified and examined through
empirical analysis. We suggest that future research could build on existing studies and use
mathematical models to investigate the impact of supply chain competitive relationships and
dynamic supplier behavior on B2B performance [56,57]. Second, although whether the sup-
plier is an OEM is introduced as a moderating factor, the differential impact on firms of differ-
ent industries and sizes has not been analyzed in depth. Further research could extend our
study by exploring the underlying mechanisms of how OEM certification affects customer
attention and B2B performance and by examining additional industry and firm
characteristics.
Supporting information
S1 Data.
(CSV)
S1 File.
(DOCX)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Miao Feng, Yang Li.
Formal analysis: Haoran Si.
Investigation: Miao Feng, Haoran Si.
Methodology: Yang Li.
Validation: Junrui Zhang.
Writing – original draft: Miao Feng, Haoran Si.
Writing – review & editing: Junrui Zhang.
References
1. Hadaya P. "Determinants of the future level of use of electronic marketplaces: The case of Canadian
firms, " Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 6, pp. 173–185, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-
006-6956-y.
2. Nambisan S. and Baron R. A., "On the costs of digital entrepreneurship: Role conflict, stress, and ven-
ture performance in digital platform-based ecosystems," Journal of Business Research, vol. 125, pp.
520–532, Mar. 2021.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.037.
3. Adida E. and Perakis G., "The effect of supplier capacity on the supply chain profit," Annals of Opera-
tions Research, vol. 223, pp. 1–52, May. 2014.http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0380.
4. Cao G. and Weerawardena J., "Strategic use of social media in marketing and financial performance:
The B2B SME context," Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 111, pp. 41–54, Mar. 2023.http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2023.03.007.
5. Itani O. S., Agnihotri R., and Dingus R., "Social media use in B2b sales and its impact on competitive
intelligence collection and adaptive selling: Examining the role of learning orientation as an enabler,"
Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 66, pp. 64–79, Jun. 2017.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2017.06.012.
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 11 / 14
6. Kohli A. K. and Jaworski B. J., "Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial
implications," Journal of Marketing, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 1–18, Apr. 1990. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224299005400201.
7. Fang S. R., Chang E., Ou C. C, and Chou C. H., "Internal market orientation, market capabilities, and
learning orientation," European Journal of Marketing, vol. 48, no. 1/2, pp. 170–192, Feb. 2014. https://
doi.org/10.1108/EJM-06-2010-0353.
8. Liu Y. H. S., Deligonul S., Cavusgil E., and Chiou J. S., "Always trust in old friends? Effects of reciprocity
in bilateral asset specificity on trust in international B2B partnerships," Journal of Business Research,
vol. 90, pp. 171–185, Sep. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.012.
9. Mangus S. M., Jones E., Folse J. A. G., and Sridhar S., "The interplay between business and personal
trust on relationship performance in conditions of market turbulence," Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, vol. 48, pp. 1138–1155, May. 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00722-6.
10. Chang Y., Wang X., Su L., and Cui A. P., "B2B brand orientation, relationship commitment, and buyer-
supplier relational performance," Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 324–
336, Feb. 2021.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2019-0454.
11. Dellarocas C., "The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mecha-
nisms," Management Science, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 1407–1424, Oct. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.49.10.1407.17308.
12. Liao J. and Wang D., "When does an online brand community backfire? An empirical study," Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 413–430, Nov. 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JRIM-07-2019-0115.
13. Merrilees B., Rundle-Thiele S., and Lye A., "Marketing capabilities: Antecedents and implications for
B2B SME performance," Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 368–375, Apr. 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.08.005.
14. Wang S., Mao J. Y., and Archer N., "On the performance of B2B e-markets: An analysis of organiza-
tional capabilities and market opportunities," Electronic commerce Research and applications, vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 59–74, Feb. 2012.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2011.07.001.
15. Srivastava M., Narayanamurthy G., Moser R., Pereira V., and Paille P., "Supplier’s response to institu-
tional pressure in uncertain environment: Implications for cleaner production," Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, vol. 286, p. 124954, Mar. 2021.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.124954.
16. Lucking-Reiley D. and Spulber D. F., "Business-to-business electronic commerce," Journal of Eco-
nomic Perspectives, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 55–68, 2001.
17. Dou W. and Chou D. C., "A structural analysis of business-to-business digital markets," Industrial Mar-
keting Management, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 165–176, Feb. 2002.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)
00177-8.
18. Malone T. W., Yates J., and Benjamin R. I., "Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies," Communi-
cations of the ACM, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 484–497, Jun. 1987. https://doi.org/10.1145/214762.214766.
19. Zhou L., Mao H., Zhao T., Wang V. L., Wang X., and Zuo P., "How B2B platform improves Buyers’ per-
formance: Insights into platform’s substitution effect," Journal of Business Research, vol. 143, pp. 72–
80, Apr. 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2022.01.060.
20. Mai E. S. and Liao Y., "The interplay of word-of-mouth and customer value on B2B sales performance
in a digital platform: an expectancy value theory perspective," Journal of Business & Industrial Market-
ing, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1389–1401, Oct. 2021.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-05-2021-0269.
21. Choudhury V., Hartzel K. S., and Konsynski B. R., "Uses and consequences of electronic markets: An
empirical investigation in the aircraft parts industry," MIS Quarterly, pp. 471–507, Dec. 1998. https://doi.
org/10.2307/249552.
22. Grewal R., Comer J. M., and Mehta R., "An investigation into the antecedents of organizational partici-
pation in business-to-business electronic markets," Journal of Marketing, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 17–33, Jul.
2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.3.17.18331.
23. Mallapragada G., Grewal R., Mehta R., and Dharwadkar R., "Virtual interorganizational relationships in
business-to-business electronic markets: Heterogeneity in the effects of organizational interdepen-
dence on relational outcomes," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 43, pp. 610–628,
Oct. 2015.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0411-8.
24. Koh T. K. and Fichman M., "Multihoming users’ preferences for two-sided exchange networks," MIS
Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 977–996, Dec. 2014. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2014/38.4.02.
25. Grewal R., Chakravarty A., and Saini A., "Governance mechanisms in business-to-business electronic
markets," Journal of Marketing, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 45–62, Jul. 2010.http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.4.
045.
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 12 / 14
26. O’Reilly P and Finnegan P, "Evaluating the performance of electronic marketplaces: An exploration of
the ownership impact," Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 163–
174, Dec.2009.
27. Laseter T. M. and Bodily S. E., "Strategic indicators of B2B e-marketplace financial performance," Elec-
tronic Markets, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 322–332, Dec. 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10196780412331311766.
28. Wang S. and Cavusoglu H., "Small and medium sized manufacturer performance on third party B2B
electronic marketplaces: The role of enabling and IT capabilities," Decision Support Systems, vol.
79, pp. 184–194, Nov. 2015.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.08.006.
29. Matook S., "Measuring the performance of electronic marketplaces: An external goal approach study,"
Decision Support Systems, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 1065–1075, Jan. 2013.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.
2012.10.032.
30. Thitimajshima W., Esichaikul V., and Krairit D., "A framework to identify factors affecting the perfor-
mance of third-party B2B e-marketplaces: A seller’s perspective," Electronic Markets, vol. 28, pp. 129–
147, May. 2018.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-0256-3.
31. Spence M., "Job market signaling,"Uncertainty in economics, 1978, pp. 281–306.
32. Connelly B. L., Certo S. T., Ireland R. D., and Reutzel C. R., "Signaling theory: A review and assess-
ment," Journal of Management, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 39–67, Jan. 2011.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0149206310388419.
33. Wells J. D., Valacich J. S., and Hess T. J., "What signal are you sending? How website quality influ-
ences perceptions of product quality and purchase intentions," MIS Quarterly, pp. 373–396, Jun. 2011.
https://doi.org/10.2307/23044048.
34. Ghose A., "Internet exchanges for used goods: An empirical analysis of trade patterns and adverse
selection," MIS Quarterly, pp. 263–291, Jun. 2009. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650292.
35. Mavlanova T., Benbunan-Fich R., and Koufaris M., "Signaling theory and information asymmetry in
online commerce," Information & Management, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 240–247, 2012.http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.im.2012.05.004.
36. Mavlanova T., Benbunan-Fich R., and Lang G., "The role of external and internal signals in E-com-
merce," Decision Support Systems, vol. 87, pp. 59–68, Jul. 2016.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.
04.009.
37. Adel M., Khader M. M., Babatin M. M., and Youssef M.Z., "Numerical investigation for the fractional
model of pollution for a system of lakes using the SCM based on the Appell type Changhee polynomi-
als," AIMS Math, vol. 8, no.12, pp.31104–31117, Nov. 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/math.20231592.
38. Sarkar A. and Mohapatra P. K., "Evaluation of supplier capability and performance: A method for supply
base reduction," Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 148–163, May.
2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2006.08.003.
39. Stanley L. L. and Wisner J. D., "Service quality along the supply chain: implications for purchasing,"
Journal of Operations Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 287–306, 2001.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0272-6963(00)00052-8.
40. Gil-Saura I. and Ruiz-Molina M. E., "Logistics service quality and buyer–customer relationships: the
moderating role of technology in B2B and B2C contexts," The Service Industries Journal, vol. 31, no.
7, pp. 1109–1123, May. 2011.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642060903100380.
41. Peng D. X. and Lu G., "Exploring the impact of delivery performance on customer transaction volume
and unit price: evidence from an assembly manufacturing supply chain," Production and Operations
Management, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 880–902, May. 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/poms.12682.
42. Wong W. P., Soh K. L., Chong C. L., and Karia N., "Logistics firms performance: efficiency and effec-
tiveness perspectives," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 64,
no. 5, pp. 686–701, Jun. 2015.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2013-0205.
43. Nagurney A., Yu M., Floden J., and Nagurney L. S., "Supply chain network competition in time-sensitive
markets," Transportation Research Part E:Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 70, pp. 112–127,
Oct. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.07.001.
44. Mitchell M. L. and Mulherin J. H., "The impact of public information on the stock market," The Journal of
Finance, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 923–950, Jul. 1994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1994.tb00083.x.
45. Pieters R. and Wedel M., "Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size
effects," Journal of Marketing, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 36–50, Apr. 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.2.
36.27794.
46. Lavie N., "Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention," Journal of Experimental
Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, vol. 21, no. 3, p. 451, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1037//
0096-1523.21.3.451 PMID: 7790827
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 13 / 14
47. Oehmen J., Locatelli G., Wied M., and Willumsen P., "Risk, uncertainty, ignorance and myopia: Their
managerial implications for B2B firms," Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 88, pp. 330–338, Jul.
2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.018.
48. Chen D., Wei W., Hu D., and Muralidharan E., "Survival strategy of OEM companies: A case study of
the Chinese toy industry," International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 36, no.
9, pp. 1065–1088, Sept. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2015-0212.
49. Noori H. and Georgescu D., "Making supply chain design the rational differentiating characteristic of the
OEMs," International Journal of Production Research, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 2765–2783, Mar. 2008.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540601011527.
50. Belkadi F., Messaadia M., Bernard A., and Baudry D., "Collaboration management framework for
OEM–suppliers relationships: a trust-based conceptual approach," Enterprise Information Systems,
vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1018–1042, Nov. 2017.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2016.1250166.
51. Hu L. and Bentler P. M., "Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized
model misspecification," Psychological Methods, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 424, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1037//
1082-989x.3.4.424.
52. Bentler P. M. and Bonett D. G., "Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 88, no. 3, p. 588, Sep. 1980. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-
2909.88.3.588.
53. Lohmoller J. B., "The PLS program system: Latent variables path analysis with partial least squares
estimation," Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 125–127, Jun. 1988. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15327906mbr2301_7 PMID: 26782261
54. Alhawarat A., Mamat M., Rivaie M., and Mohd I. "A new modification of nonlinear conjugate gradient
coefficients with global convergence properties, " International Journal of Mathematical and Computa-
tional Sciences, vol. 8, no.1, pp.54–60, 2015. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1336925.
55. Rungtusanatham M., Miller J. W., and Boyer K. K., "Theorizing, testing, and concluding for mediation in
SCM research: Tutorial and procedural recommendations," Journal of Operations Management, vol.
32, no. 3, pp. 99–113, Jan. 2014.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.01.002.
56. Adel M., Sweilam N. H., Khader M. M., "On the stability analysis for a semi-analytical scheme for solving
the fractional order blood ethanol concentration system using LVIM," Journal of Applied Mathematics
and Computational Mechanics, vol. 23, no.1, pp.7–18, Jan. 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.17512/jamcm.
2024.1.01.
57. Khader M. M., Adel M., Riaz M. B., and Ahmad H., "Theoretical treatment and implementation of the
SCM included Appell-Changhee polynomials for the fractional delayed carbon absorption-emission
model," Results in Physics, vol. 58, pp. 107459, Mar. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107459.
PLOS ONE
Evaluating the drivers of B2B performance: An empirical analysis based on Alibaba
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306919 July 12, 2024 14 / 14
