Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose: The main objective of the study was to examine the relationship between collaborative sourcing strategy and performance of alcoholic beverage manufacturing companies in Kenya. Methodology: The study adopted a positivist research philosophy and explanatory research design. The unit of analysis was 30 alcoholic beverage manufacturing companies in Kenya, while the unit of observation comprised heads of finance, administration, procurement, ICT, operations, marketing and logistics departments. The target population was 210 heads of departments. The study adopted stratified random sampling. Both primary and secondary data were used. Secondary data were obtained from annual company reports, while primary data were collected using semi-structured questionnaires. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, revealing five themes: supplier partnerships and cooperation (30 respondents, 24.4%), information sharing and communication (25 respondents, 20.3%), joint planning and problem-solving (24 respondents, 19.5%), cost reduction and operational efficiency (23 respondents, 18.7%), and trust and supply chain resilience (21 respondents, 17.1%). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation and simple linear regression with SPSS version 25. Findings: The study found a positive and significant relationship between collaborative sourcing strategy and company performance (r = 0.712, p < 0.001). Collaborative sourcing explained 50.7% of the variation in performance (R² = 0.507), with a unit increase associated with a 0.655-unit improvement (B = 0.655). Unique Contribution to Theory, Policy and Practice: The study contributes to procurement knowledge by demonstrating the contribution of collaborative sourcing to organizational performance. The study recommends integrating collaborative sourcing into procurement policies and regularly reviewing decision-making processes to enhance responsiveness and operational agility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Magiri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: