Search results

In complex buyer-supplier relationships (BSRs), contracts are always incomplete and many of the exchanges non-contractual. Because they occur over a long period of time and include unspecified obligations, non-contractual exchanges might be asymmetrical. The purpose of this paper is to examine BSRs with the aim of identifying the mechanisms that lead to asymmetry in exchanges.

The author conducts an analysis, based on social exchange theory (SET), of six buyer-supplier dyads using the main SET constructs. From this multiple-case analysis the author develops a set of propositions explaining the exchange asymmetry in complex buyer-supplier relations.

The results indicate that self-awareness of the determinants of attractiveness, use of power-balancing mechanisms, and primacy can explain the exchange asymmetry in BSRs.

The analysis is limited on the explanations for exchange asymmetry that are based on SET.

The study highlights the importance of firms using the power-balancing mechanism in order to gain value from supply chain partners. The results show that firms can use attractiveness strategically to influence supply chain partners, but the author also observe that firms generally are not well aware of the determinants of their attractiveness in BSRs, which ignorance may pose a major obstacle to using attractiveness strategically.

The paper provides the first systematic and comprehensive insight to social exchange mechanism in complex BSR. In this paper the author makes a major effort to clarify the basic assumptions and scope of the useful concepts and theoretical constructs of SET, and through a multiple-case study the author form a piece of substantive theory of SET in BSRs.

This paper argues that supply chain management sourcing strategies are unlikely to be implemented successfully by many organisations because of a lack of internal buy‐in and non‐conducive external power regime structures. Furthermore, the paper contends that many of those arguing the case for “win‐win” outcomes from buyer and supplier relationship management fail to properly define or conceptualise what the concept of mutuality means. The paper contends that mutuality and the search for value capture (profitability) are not fully commensurable in business relationships, but that, since “win‐win” is not an absolute but a variable concept, business relationships can be aligned even when unequal exchange and tension exists between buyers and suppliers. The paper also demonstrates that under some circumstances “win‐lose” can be a preferable outcome than “win‐win” for buyers and suppliers managing business relationships.

The present study aims to examine the impact of relational communication, operationalized in terms of information sharing, quality and frequency of information, on buyer's trust and relationship satisfaction in a buyer–vendor relationship. The study also tests the mediating role of trust and the moderating role of relationship commitment in relational communication and satisfaction relationship.

The data for the study were collected through a questionnaire survey from 321 managers of the different firms who were directly or indirectly involved in making procurement or purchasing decision in the firm and were familiar with the firm's supplier relationships.

Relational communication was found to be positively related to relational satisfaction and trust partially mediated this relationship. Further, relationship commitment moderated relational communication-satisfaction relationship, such that the positive affect of relational communication on relational satisfaction was accentuated when buyer experienced higher relationship commitment towards the supplier.

Using single source, self-reported questionnaire data and cross-sectional research design are the limitations of this study. Studies in future should consider a dyadic perspective. The study outlines the need to explore investments and strategies in enhancing relational communication in buyer–vendor relationships.

Anchored in theoretical foundations of social exchange theory, the study integrates and tests behavioral aspects of buyer–vendor relationship. Testing an integrated model with direct and indirect effects of relational communication on relationship satisfaction in buyer–vendor is a significant contribution of the research. The study also contributes by examining relational exchanges in buyer-vendor relationships in India, an underrepresented context in buyer–supplier relationship (BSR) literature.

A better understanding of relational interdependency can help a buyer manage an effective level of commitment with a supplier and, consequently, increase successful exchange outcomes. The buyer which successfully manages relational commitment, encourages the supplier to make transaction‐specific investments for the buyer‐supplier working partnership. However, as the supplier makes these non‐redeployable investments, it also increases dependence on the buyer. The caveat is that a supplier which perceives a decline in buyer commitment will likely act to decrease this dependency on the buyer.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the impact of relationship capital (trust and commitment) and the exchange climate (communication, conflict resolution and cooperation) on performance satisfaction in the context of buyer–supplier relationships. The study also examines the influence of national culture on the proposed relationships.

A conceptual model and accompanying research hypotheses are tested on data from a survey of 169 US and 110 Brazilian buyers. Structural equation modeling (AMOS 18.0) is used to test the hypotheses.

Results suggest that performance satisfaction is highly dependent on the level of relationship capital and climate of information exchange between buyer and supplier. Quality communication and conflict resolution have the greatest impact on performance satisfaction while trust’s influence is both direct and mediated by the exchange climate.

The study is limited to a two-country sample in a business-to-business (B2B) context. Also, this study examines only the impact of socio-psychological behaviors on performance outcomes; economic variables are not considered.

Results provide insight into what behavioral attributes are most influential in increasing a buyer’s satisfaction with a supplier’s performance in distinct countries. Based on the findings, suppliers can better formulate strategies to enter overseas markets.

This study extends the strategic alliance literature on performance-relevant behaviors to the context of buyer–supplier relationships. In addition, the study contributes to the extant literature by including a sample from an emerging market.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of buyers' attitudes towards the partial consensus surrounding the benefits of buyer‐supplier cooperation – the relational exchange perspective.

The extent to which buyers display an awareness of, and willingness to respond positively to, supplier needs, wants and preferences – termed supplier empathy – and how this influences their attitude towards buyer‐supplier cooperation and support of relational exchange is empirically assessed. In addition, factors that may influence levels of supplier empathy and the effect of supplier empathy on the incidence of supplier problems are examined. Finally, the extent to which social acceptability bias may mask attitudes in areas where consensus exists is considered. An empirical study utilising survey data from members of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply in the UK was completed. A total of 421 useable responses were received and analysed to evaluate hypotheses. The design also included efforts to identify the presence, and minimise the effects, of social acceptability bias.

The analysis indicates that the partial consensus surrounding the relational exchange approach is not shared by all practitioners. In addition, it is found that the level of supplier empathy exhibited by respondents is significantly influenced by supplier‐dependence aversion, innovation focus, extent of co‐design activity, existence of explicit partnership/cooperation objectives, and support for long‐term trading relationships.

The paper presents evidence that despite a significant but partial cooperation consensus in the academic literature, many large company practitioners appear unconvinced of the benefits of cooperation. Most analyses of buyer attitudes and behaviours are conducted by marketing researchers seeking to assist organisations‐as‐suppliers. This research is intended to help companies improve their performance as buyers. The paper also includes a rare attempt to identify and deal with the effects of social acceptability bias in the operations and supply management field.

The purpose of this paper is to examine an important yet underexplored research question in the literature: What determines the length of contract governing buyer–supplier relationships during market transitions? The length of contract is a solid indicator of the comprehensiveness of a contract. By integrating transaction costs economics, the embeddedness perspective and the institution-based view, the paper develops a model that incorporates specific investments and perceived opportunism, strategies to select suppliers and buyer firms’ confidence in the institutional environment. It further posits how buyer firms’ dependence on suppliers moderates these relationships.

Data were collected nationwide via face-to-face interviews with 328 executives in 164 Chinese firms who shared information pertaining to 774 buyer–supplier contracts. A fine-grained mixed-empirical method was designed to test the proposed hypotheses, to confirm the reliability and to generalize the research findings.

All the proposed factors significantly influence the length of the contract. Results obtained through a moderated mediating model suggest that buyers with supplier-specific investments and that choose market-based selection relative to a relationship-based tend to perceive more opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships, which will lead to shortening the length of the contract. However, the buyer’s perception of opportunism will decrease when buyers perceive higher levels of confidence in their legal institutions.

The study discusses several practical implications for B2B managers who typically involve in interfirm exchanges as well as for emerging economies’ institutions.

Leveraging theoretical insights from transaction cost economics, the institution-based view and buyer–supplier relationships literature, this empirical study adds unique contributions to B2B research in general and emerging economies’ institutional literature in particular.

Power use widely exists in buyer–supplier relationships (BSRs). Different directions of power use (i.e. buyer's power use and supplier's power use) intertwining with different types of power (i.e. coercive and noncoercive power) make it insufficient to regard power use as a single construct when examining its effect on a firm's following response. Besides, interdependence structure characterized by joint dependence and dependence asymmetry may influence the effect of a specific power use by shaping the firm's interpretation and cognition toward the relationship. Specifically, this study examines how four types of power use a buyer facing and an interdependence structure with its supplier affect its specific investments to the supplier.

This study tests the proposed relationships using regression analysis, based on data from 240 manufacturing firms in China on their perceived relationships with their major suppliers.

Results show that buyer's coercive power use (BCP) negatively affects buyer's specific investments while noncoercive power use (BNP) does not play a significant role. Both supplier's coercive power use (SCP) and noncoercive power use (SNP) are positively related to buyer's specific investments. Joint dependence positively moderates the effect of BNP and dependence asymmetry negatively moderates the effects of BCP and SNP on buyer's specific investments.

This study contributes to the literature on power use by identifying different types of power use and their different roles in influencing buyer's specific investments. The study also contributes to the literature on interdependence structure by demonstrating the different roles of joint dependence and dependence asymmetry.

This study aims to examine empirically the existence of four classical and four emerging buyer–supplier relationship (BSR) types and how they differ in terms of behavioral dynamics and performance measures.

This study uses an online survey to collect data from 371 purchasing managers in the USA.

A cluster analysis statistically supports the existence of five of these eight BSR types, including strategic/bilateral partnership, market/discrete, supplier-led collaboration, captive supplier/buyer dominant and captive buyer/supplier dominant BSRs. Further, ANOVA tests show that these five BSRs differ in terms of behavioral outcomes and performance measures.

This study is based on a cross-sectional survey so it cannot examine how these BSR types may evolve over time, and it is not suitable to examine some rare types of BSRs. In addition, this study does not consider contextual factors that may moderate the influence of BSR types on the behavioral dynamics and performance measures.

Managers should consider the potential to be able to develop and enhance a strategic/bilateral relationship with their supply chain partners, which in at least some circumstances can lead to superior performance results. Similar observations can be made with respect to supplier-led and, to a lesser degree, buyer-led collaboration.

Most existing research of the BSR types is largely a product of theoretical classifications, and there is also a lack of research of their performance implications. This study fills these gaps in the literature.

Asset specificity is a focal feature of buyer–supplier exchanges; however, whether unilateral asset specificity encourages opportunistic value expropriation or promotes trust-based value creation remains controversial. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how institutional forces shape the controversial roles of buyer asset specificity in supply chain relationships.

With a survey of 217 matched manufacturer–supplier dyads in China, the study adopts ordinary least squares regression analyses to test hypotheses.

The results show that two key institutional forces, guanxi importance and government intervention, play different roles in shaping the value expropriation and value creation roles of buyer asset specificity. As an informal institutional force, guanxi importance weakens the impact of buyer asset specificity on opportunistic value expropriation and facilitates trust-based value creation. Moreover, as a formal institutional force, government intervention amplifies the effect of buyer asset specificity on opportunism but strengthens its connection with trust.

By incorporating an institutional view to investigate how institutional forces affect this “valuable but vulnerable” dilemma of asset specificity, this study reconciles the controversy concerning value expropriation vs value creation and enriches understanding of the critical roles of institutional parameters in supply chain management.