LOGISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICES AND THE PERFORMANCE OF MANUFACTURING FIRMS: ESTABLISHING THE RELATIONSHIP AT PEARL DAIRY FARMS LIMITED, MBARARA, UGANDA

Authors: Aine Brian*, Mr Ogaba Ariyo & Dr Aryatwijuka Wilbroad

ABSTRACT

This article reports findings on the third objective of a wider study that examined the relationship between supply chain management (SCM) practices and the performance of manufacturing firms, using Pearl Dairy Farms Limited (PDFL) in Mbarara, Uganda, as a case study. The specific objective addressed here was to establish the relationship between logistics and distribution practices and firm performance; two prior objectives, on procurement and sourcing management and on inventory management, have been reported elsewhere. Anchored on Systems Theory, the wider study adopted a cross-sectional design combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. A sample of 108 respondents was drawn from a target population of 150 using Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) table, comprising procurement officers, suppliers, distributors, an accountant, and administrative staff. Data were collected using a structured, five-point Likert-scale questionnaire and an interview guide, and analysed using Pearson correlation, multiple linear regression, and thematic analysis. Descriptively, logistics and distribution recorded an average mean of 3.92 (SD = 0.812), with distribution reliability and customer-facing outcomes rated highest and transportation systems rated lowest and most variably. Pearson correlation analysis revealed a strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship between logistics and distribution and firm performance (r = 0.663, n = 108, p = 0.000), and multiple regression analysis, with logistics and distribution entered alongside procurement and sourcing management and inventory management, showed that the three practices jointly explained 68.0% of the variance in firm performance (R² = 0.680, F(3, 104) = 73.69, p = 0.000), with logistics and distribution emerging as the second-strongest independent predictor (B = 0.301, β = 0.329, t = 5.190, p < 0.001), behind inventory management and ahead of procurement and sourcing management. Qualitative findings corroborated these results, with key informants attributing distribution reliability to dedicated cold-chain transport investment while identifying seasonal road conditions as the primary residual constraint. The study concludes that logistics and distribution is a strong, statistically significant, and strategically consequential driver of firm performance at PDFL, and recommends investment in route-optimisation technology and all-weather transport capacity, alongside government investment in rural road infrastructure.

Keywords: Logistics and Distribution, Firm Performance, Systems Theory, Supply Chain Management, Manufacturing Firms, Uganda.

REFERENCES

  1. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  2. Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics and supply chain management (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
  3. Christopher, M. (2018). Managing supply chain complexity and disruption. Supply Chain Management Review, 22(3), 18-25.
  4. Coleman, R. (2017). Balancing cost efficiency and resilience in supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 38(2), 101-116.
  5. Dharmawan, F. (2026, January). Revolutionizing remote logistics: Cargo drones for 3T and disaster-prone regions in Indonesia. In International Conference on Research and Development (ICORAD) (Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 255-274).
  6. Diaz-Madroñero, M. (2026). Reviewing lean manufacturing and Industry 4.0 technologies in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 1-30.
  7. Drack, M., & Pouvreau, D. (2025). On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s “General Systemology,” and on its relationship to cybernetics, part III: Convergences and divergences. International Journal of General Systems, 44(5), 523-571.
  8. Green, K. W., Zelbst, P. J., Meacham, J., & Bhadauria, V. S. (2018). Green supply chain management practices: Impact on performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(3), 290-305.
  9. Jääskeläinen, A. (2018). Comparison of performance measurement in different purchasing and supply management practices. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(8), 1290-1309.
  10. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.
  11. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
  12. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
  13. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  14. Sheffi, Y. (2023). Systems thinking and supply chain resilience. MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics Review, 27(1), 1-14.
  15. Thomas, B. (2026). Evaluating the income effects of contract farming among cattle farmers in northern communal areas of Namibia. Cogent Social Sciences, 12(1), 2631203.
  16. Webber, C. M., & Labaste, P. (2019). Building competitiveness in Africa’s agriculture: A guide to value chain concepts and applications. World Bank Publications.
  17. Yazidi, R. A., & Rana, A. M. (2025). Impact of procurement management practices on project performance: Perspective of project management firms. International Journal of Procurement Management, 23(3), 346-359.