Annals of Business Administrative Science 18 (2019) 237–249 http://doi.org/10.7880/abas.0191025a Received: October 25, 2019; accepted: November 26, 2019 Published in advance on J-STAGE: December 6, 2019

Strategic Divergence of Keiretsu: Suppliers and Suppliers

Seungkee MINa)

Abstract: Does keiretsu in the Japanese vary by company in terms of firm performance and strategic behavior? This paper classifies parts-supply keiretsu into (1) Toyota suppliers and non-Toyota suppliers and (2) Nissan suppliers and non-Nissan suppliers and then conducts a comparative analysis of the suppliers to test differences in (a) firm performance, (b) customer scope, and (c) product diversity. The following results emerge from the analysis: (a) in regard to “firm performance (return on sales),” Toyota suppliers outperformed non-Toyota suppliers, but there was no difference between Nissan suppliers and non-Nissan suppliers; (b) with respect to “customer scope,” both Toyota suppliers and Nissan suppliers outperformed non-Toyota suppliers and non-Nissan suppliers, respectively; (c) as for “product diversity,” Toyota suppliers have less product diversity than non-Toyota suppliers, but there was no difference between Nissan suppliers and non-Nissan suppliers. These results indicate that the strategic behavior of Toyota suppliers differs from that of Nissan suppliers in that Toyota suppliers achieve high profitability by broadening customer scope and simultaneously narrowing product a) Graduate School of Economics, University of , 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan, [email protected] A version of this paper was presented at the ABAS Conference 2019 Autumn (Min, 2019). © 2019 Seungkee Min. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 237

Min

diversity. While prior research on keiretsu has not focused attention on the differences among keiretsu, the finding of this paper provides suggestive evidence that strategic behavior may vary across keiretsu member firms.

Keywords: keiretsu, product diversity, customer scope, strategic behavior, Toyota, Nissan

Introduction

Why has the Japanese automotive industry achieved sustainable competitive advantage for more than half a century? Since the 1990s, researchers have attempted to figure out the source of the Japanese automotive industry’s competitive advantage by focusing on interfirm relations and interfirm networks in regard to this point (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Helper & Sako, 1995; Lincoln, Gerlach, & Takahashi, 1992).1 Particularly, research on keiretsu has provided a meaningful perspective to explicitly explain the above phenomenon (Asanuma, 1985; Dyer, 1996; Lincoln, Gerlach, & Ahmadjian, 1996; McGuire & Dow, 2009). These studies have demonstrated that the source of the competitive advantage results from the long-term, cooperative assembler-supplier relationship and the keiretsu system that is closely intertwined.2 Yet, prior studies on keiretsu have provided detailed analyses such as research on the Toyota keiretsu or the network structures

1 For the detailed arguments on this point, see Kobayashi (2014), which reviews the relational view. For the arguments on the competitive advantage of Toyota, see Fujimoto (2012) and Suh (2017). 2 In fact, empirical research has contended that cooperative relations between Japanese automotive assemblers and parts suppliers have led to efficient and effective product development because such relationships could promote information sharing between assemblers and suppliers (a major study is Dyer & Chu, 2003). 238

Strategic divergence of keiretsu

(Brouthers, Gao, & Napshin, 2014; Dyer, 1996; Lincoln et al., 1996; Peng, Lee, & Tan, 2001) but have not paid attention to the differences in strategic behavior among keiretsu, i.e., comparisons between Toyota suppliers and non-Toyota suppliers or between the Toyota keiretsu and the other keiretsu networks (an exception is Takeishi & Noro, 2017). There are two main directions of strategic behavior, which industrial firms within a single industry can take to increase their profits: one direction is to expand product diversity and the other is to expand customer scope (Ansoff, 1957). First of all, as the result of analyzing the data of PIMS database, Kekre and Srinivasan (1990) found that the broader the product line that a firm has, the higher the firm profitability it can achieve. However, when it comes to the relationship between product diversity and profitability, other empirical studies have also shown somewhat different findings. For instance, Li and Greenwood (2004) reported that no significant relationship exists between product diversity and profitability, while Hashai (2015) found an S-shaped relationship between product categories and profitability. Second, with respect to the relationship between customer scope and profitability, Nobeoka, Dyer, and Madhok (2002) empirically demonstrated that superior suppliers with higher profitability have a broad customer scope, rather than transacting only with a single customer.3 It is argued that suppliers with multiple customers take advantage such as by having more learning opportunities and reducing transaction cost (Dyer, 1997; Nishiguchi, 1994; Nobeoka et al., 2002). Recently, Takeishi and Noro (2017) point out diverging behaviors

3 However, according to Min and Song (2017), which are a follow-up work to Nobeoka et al. (2002), analyses for the year 1985 and 1995 both came up with similar findings that having a broader customer scope positively affects firm performance; however, the analysis of 2005 did not show a significant relationship between the two factors. 239

Min within keiretsu with an analysis of the Japanese automotive industry. Observing that the Toyota keiretsu involves not only Toyota but also other customers that are not included in the Toyota group, they refer to this as “open keiretsu.” It means that the strategic behavior of keiretsu may differ for achieving growth and maximizing profits. Thus, this paper classifies Japanese automotive parts suppliers into (1) Toyota suppliers and non-Toyota suppliers and (2) Nissan suppliers and non-Nissan suppliers, conducting a comparative analysis to test the differences in performance and strategic behavior among keiretsu member firms.

Research Method

The sample in this study consists of auto parts suppliers in the Japanese automotive industry. Prior studies identified keiretsu based on the classifications of Industrial Groupings in Japan (IGJ), issued by Dodwell Marketing Consultants (Brouthers et al., 2014; Kim, Hoskisson, & Wan, 2004; Lincoln et al., 1996; Sambharya & Banerji, 2006). However, scholars such as McGuire and Dow (2009) or Miwa and Ramseyer (2002) see the classification of IGJ as a problem since it uses only the equity ownership ratio to identify keiretsu. In fact, it is conceivable that there are many cases in which companies are benefiting from keiretsu-type alliance even if there is no equity ownership between a supplier and its customer. Therefore, this study identifies keiretsu based on information about whether a supplier transacts with a customer. The data for the analysis were gathered from the Japanese Automotive Parts Industry Association (JAPIA) database for the year 1995 and 2005. The criterion of the sample is based on suppliers that have more than 50% of total sales to auto assemblers, following Nobeoka et al. (2002), in order to limit the sample only to auto parts 240

Strategic divergence of keiretsu manufacturers. This study screened the data to exclude auto parts makers for which data on sales, profits, and supply ratio were missing from the database but left in those firms for which the number of products was unavailable. The sample used in this research consists of 115 firms from the 1995 data and 96 firms from the 2005 data. Note that the data on sales, profits, supply ratio, and the number of products are from each fiscal period for 1994 and 2004. The variables used in this study are as follows.

(a) Return on sales, which denotes firm performance, is measured by the profit-sales ratio (percent) dividing each firm’s ordinary income by its sales. (b) Customer scope is measured by the number of customers (automotive assemblers) with which the supplier is transacting among the seven Japanese automotive assemblers.4 (c) Product diversity is defined by the number of product categories that each supplier is manufacturing. The data are based on JAPIA database classifying the products made by Japan’s auto parts makers into 148 product categories. Product diversity is measured by the natural logarithm of the number of product categories to eliminate statistical outliers from the normal distribution.

Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation, minimum value,

4 The seven auto makers are the Toyota Group, , , , , , and . The Toyota Group includes Toyota Motor, Toyota Auto Body, , Hino, and Kanto Auto Works. The Nissan Group includes Nissan Motor, , Nissan Diesel Motor, Fuji Heavy Industries, and Aichi Machine Industry. These group classifications are consistent with those of Nobeoka et al. (2002). Note that Nissan Diesel changed its name to UD in 2010. Toyota became the largest shareholder in Fuji Heavy Industries in October 2005 as Toyota took an 8.7% stake. Fuji Heavy Industries changed its name to in April 2017. 241

Min

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables

N Mean S.D. Min Max (a) (b) (c) (a) Return on Sales 211 3.111 2.554 -2.576 10.890 ―

(b) Customer Scope 211 2.569 1.676 1.000 7.000 .15 * ―

(c) Product Diversity 193 1.067 0.737 0.000 3.332 -.07 .15 * ―

Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 maximum value, and correlation for each variable. 5 While a statistically significant positive correlation exists between (a) return on sales and (b) customer scope at the 5% significance level, there was no correlation between (a) return on sales and (c) product diversity. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between (b) customer scope and (c) product diversity with a significance level of 5%.

Analysis and Results

Classifying suppliers into (1) Toyota suppliers and non-Toyota suppliers and (2) Nissan suppliers and non-Nissan suppliers, this study conducted a comparative analysis (t-test). The reason for which the analysis does not compare Toyota suppliers and Nissan suppliers directly is that, as shown in Table 2 under “Toyota and Nissan,” some firms provide products to both Toyota and Nissan.6 The t-tests were applied using a pooled sample of 1995 and 2005

5 Product diversity before changing to a natural logarithm is a mean of 3.8, a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 28. 6 For the other three categories in Table 2, “Toyota (not Nissan)” denotes suppliers that supply Toyota but do not supply Nissan, “Nissan (not Toyota)” denotes suppliers that supply Nissan but do not supply Toyota, and “Neither of them” denotes suppliers that supply neither Toyota nor Nissan (suppliers that are supplying other auto makers). 242

Strategic divergence of keiretsu

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the sample

1995 2005 Total Supplied to N % N % N % Toyota (not Nissan) 35 30.4% 23 24.0% 58 27.5% Nissan (not Toyota) 27 23.5% 20 20.8% 47 22.3% Toyota and Nissan 23 20.0% 29 30.2% 52 24.6% Neither of them 30 26.1% 24 25.0% 54 25.6%

Total 115 100.0% 96 100.0% 211 100.0% data from the JAPIA database and the results of the analyses are reported in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3, which compares Toyota suppliers and non-Toyota suppliers, shows the results of differences in profitability and strategic behaviors. First of all, (a) performance (return on sales) of Toyota suppliers with 3.625% is significantly higher than that of non-Toyota suppliers with 2.55% (p < 0.01). Second, (b) customer scope of Toyota suppliers with 3.227 was significantly higher than that of non-Toyota suppliers with 1.851 (p < 0.01). Third, on the other hand, as for (c) product diversity, Toyota suppliers with 0.968 were significantly lower than non-Toyota suppliers with 1.178 (p < 0.05). Figure 1 provides an overview of the relationships. Meanwhile, the findings in Table 4 and Figure 2, which compare Nissan suppliers and non-Nissan suppliers, are somewhat different from the results of Toyota. Similar to Toyota suppliers, (b) customer scope of Nissan suppliers has a significantly higher mean of 3.626 than that of non-Nissan suppliers with a mean of 1.634 (p < 0.01). However, with regard to (a) return on sales and (c) product diversity, there were no statistically significant differences between Nissan suppliers and non-Nissan suppliers.

243

Min

Table 3. Comparisons between Toyota suppliers and non-Toyota suppliers N Mean S.D. t -value

Toyota suppliers 110 3.625 .026 (a) Return on Sales 3.118 ** Non-Toyota suppliers 101 2.550 .024

Toyota suppliers 110 3.227 1.875 (b) Customer Scope 6.670 ** Non-Toyota suppliers 101 1.851 1.033

Toyota suppliers 102 .968 .757 (c) Product Diversity -1.986 * Non-Toyota suppliers 91 1.178 .702

Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; †p < 0.10

4.0

3.5 3.625 3.0 3.227

2.5 2.550

2.0 1.851 1.5 1.178 1.0 .968 .5

.0 Return on Sales (%) Customer Scope Product Diversity (No. of Customer) (No. of Product in log)

Toyota suppliers Non-Toyota suppliers

Figure 1. Differences of the mean (Toyota vs. Non-Toyota)

244

Strategic divergence of keiretsu

Table 4. Comparisons between Nissan suppliers and non-Nissan suppliers N Mean S.D. t -value

Nissan suppliers 99 3.117 .024 (a) Return on Sales .037 Non-Nissan suppliers 112 3.105 .027

Nissan suppliers 99 3.626 1.682 (b) Customer Scope 10.367 ** Non-Nissan suppliers 112 1.634 .968

Nissan suppliers 93 1.139 .768 (c) Product Diversity 1.313 Non-Nissan suppliers 100 1.000 .704

Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; †p < 0.10

4.0 3.626 3.5 3.117 3.0 3.105

2.5

2.0 1.634 1.5 1.139 1.0 1.000

.5

.0 Return on Sales (%) Customer Scope Product Diversity (No. of Customer) (No. of Product in log)

Nissan suppliers Non-Nissan suppliers

Figure 2. Differences of the mean (Nissan vs. Non-Nissan)

245

Min

Conclusion

Considering the above analyses, the findings indicate that the strategic behavior is different between Toyota suppliers and Nissan suppliers although prior studies on keiretsu have not focused on the heterogeneity among keiretsu. Toyota suppliers achieve high profitability by broadening their customer scope but relatively limiting product diversity. The behavior adopted by Toyota suppliers can be an effective strategy for industrial firms to achieve higher profitability and the finding of this research provides suggestive evidence that the strategic behavior may vary by keiretsu. The empirical results are consistent with those of Hashai (2015), which demonstrated that broader product diversity could lead to an increase in adjustment costs and coordination costs, which may exceed the benefits gained from synergy effect and economies of scope.7 In fact, it is conceivable that Toyota suppliers achieve high profitability with a relatively narrow product diversity, which leads to a decrease in adjustment costs and coordination costs, and with a broader customer scope by emphasizing a selling point that they provide products to Toyota.8 The study has a limitation in that the identification of keiretsu is only based on supply relationships. Following prior studies identifying keiretsu by investment ratio on the basis of the data from Industrial Groupings in Japan (Brouthers et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2004; Lincoln et al., 1996; Sambharya & Banerji, 2006) or by

7 Prior studies have not come up with any consistent conclusion regarding the relationship between product diversity and profitability. Kekre and Srinivasan (1990), for instance, concluded that having a broad product diversity could lead to higher firm profitability. 8 Analyzing Japanese automotive suppliers, Konno (2017) found that the business model of supplying new customers with existing products yielded the most longstanding business relationships and the highest probability of continuing business. 246

Strategic divergence of keiretsu membership of suppliers’ associations such as the Kyohokai, the name of Toyota’s supplier association (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000; Sako, 1996), a future study should examine the effect of the heterogeneous behavior on firm performance to obtain the same empirical results by identifying keiretsu according to the instruments employed by prior research suggested above.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Research Activity Start-up, Grant Number JP19K20895 and JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Publication of Scientific Research Results, Grant Number JP16HP2004.

References

Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, 35(5), 113–124. Asanuma, B. (1985). The organization of parts purchases in the Japanese automotive industry. Japanese Economic Studies, 13(4), 32–53. Brouthers, L. E., Gao, Y., & Napshin, S. (2014). Keiretsu centrality—profits and profit stability: A power dependence perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2603–2610. Dyer, J. H. (1996). Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive advantage. Organization Science, 7(6), 649–666. Dyer, J. H. (1997). Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 535–556. Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14(1), 57–68. Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a 247

Min

high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345–367. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. Fujimoto, T. (2012). Evolution theory of production systems. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 11, 25–44. doi: 10.7880/abas.11.25 Hashai, N. (2015). Within-industry diversification and firm performance: An S-shaped hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1378– 1400. Helper, S. R., & Sako, M. (1995). Supplier relations in Japan and the United States: Are they converging? MIT Sloan Management Review, 36(3), 77–84. Kekre, S., & Srinivasan, K. (1990). Broader product line: A necessity to achieve success? Management Science, 36(10), 1216–1232. Kim, H., Hoskisson, R. E., & Wan, W. P. (2004). Power dependence, diversification strategy, and performance in keiretsu member firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25(7), 613–636. Kobayashi, M. (2014). Relational view: Four prerequisites of competitive advantage. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 13, 77–90. doi: 10.7880/abas.13.77 Konno, Y. (2017). Impact of “product scope” and “customer scope”: Suppliers’ diversification strategy and performance. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 16(1), 15–28. doi: 10.7880/abas.0161202a Li, S. X., & Greenwood, R. (2004). The effect of within-industry diversification on firm performance: Synergy creation, multi-market contact and market structuration. Strategic Management Journal, 25(12), 1131–1153. Lincoln, J. R., Gerlach, M. L., & Ahmadjian, C. L. (1996). Keiretsu networks and corporate performance in Japan. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 67–88. Lincoln, J. R., Gerlach, M. L., & Takahashi, P. (1992). Keiretsu networks in the Japanese economy: A dyad analysis of intercorporate ties. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 561–585.

248

Strategic divergence of keiretsu

McGuire, J., & Dow, S. (2009). Japanese keiretsu: Past, present, future. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(2), 333–351. Min, S. (2019, October). Strategic divergences and firm profitability. Paper presented at ABAS Conference 2019 Autumn, University of Tokyo, Japan. Min, S., & Song, W. (2017). Customer scope and supplier performance: The Japanese automotive industry. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 16, 165–176. doi: 10.7880/abas.0170426a Miwa, Y., & Ramseyer, J. M. (2002). The fable of the keiretsu. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 11(2), 169–224. Nishiguchi, T. (1994). Strategic industrial sourcing: The Japanese advantage. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nobeoka, K., Dyer, J. H., & Madhok, A. (2002). The influence of customer scope on supplier learning and performance in the Japanese automobile industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(4), 717–736. Peng, M. W., Lee, S.-H., & Tan, J. J. (2001). The keiretsu in Asia: Implications for multilevel theories of competitive advantage. Journal of International Management, 7(4), 253–276. Sako, M. (1996). Suppliers’ associations in the Japanese automobile industry: Collective action for technology diffusion. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 20(6), 651–671. Sambharya, R. B., & Banerji, K. (2006). The effect of keiretsu affiliation and resource dependencies on supplier firm performance in the Japanese automobile industry. Management International Review, 46(1), 7–37. Suh, Y. (2017). Knowledge network of Toyota: Creation, diffusion, and standardization of knowledge. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 16, 91–102. doi: 10.7880/abas.0170126a Takeishi, A., & Noro, Y. (2017). Nihon no jidoushasangyou ni okeru keiretsu torihikikankei no bunka: Aratana kenkyu kadai [Diverging keiretsu in the Japanese automotive industry: A research agenda]. Keizaikei: Kanto Gakuin Daigaku Keizaigakkai Kenkyuronshu,

270, 13–28 (in Japanese).

249