Nicholas, J; Holt, G D and Harris, P T (2000) Suppliers' debt collection and contractor creditworthiness evaluation. Building Research & Information, 28(4), pp. 268-279. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Results of a survey of UK construction materials suppliers' credit control and debt collection procedures are presented. Analyses of respondent data identified methods and trends associated with: contractor creditworthiness evaluation; suppliers' debt collection methods; and the efficiency, or otherwise, of these techniques. Trend observation highlighted a number of results, including: the minimal resources allocated to debtor evaluation; the 'questionable' methods used for establishing credit limits; and the minimal use of insurance and/or factoring for protection against bad debt. A number of questions emanate from these results concerning the efficacy of current practices and the need for future research into contractor creditworthiness evaluation. The paper reinforces that construction contractor creditworthiness evaluation and debt collection procedures have received minimal research to date and, that this situation requires addressing.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction contractors; credit risk; creditworthiness; debtor; materials suppliers; trends; UK |
| Index terms: | construction contractor, insurance, construction material, survey, efficiency |
| Subjects: | performance management, practitioner, data collection methods, economic analysis, building materials |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here