Search results

Industry practice shows that buyer-supplier partnerships are negatively influenced by zero-sum pie-sharing competition. Interfirm rivalry vis-à-vis a fair financial distribution of the mutually generated partnership pie is a growing source of concern for firms because fairness has a direct effect on the competitiveness of a partnership. This study aims to examine the consequences of fairness in pie-sharing within buyer-supplier new product development (NPD) partnerships on product-innovation, product-quality and product-cost, as well as the mediating role of opportunism.

The empirical analyses are grounded on data from 147 NPD partnerships between Tier-1 suppliers and automotive manufacturers, using structural equation modeling with SPSS AMOS.

Findings indicate that pie-sharing fairness significantly influences the partnership’s ability to increase NPD effectiveness and efficiency. Moreover, unfairness in sharing the mutual pie showed to promote harmful opportunism, which negatively mediates the relationship between pie-sharing fairness and NPD performance. To control partners’ fairness perception in the first place, the analysis revealed three factors that affect pie-sharing fairness significantly, i.e. relationship induced financial performance, behavioral tension and interfirm dependency.

Exchange relationships are built on economic and social components, both of which can be combined within the construct of pie-sharing fairness. Firms must take an interest in their exchange partner’s equitable share of the mutually generated partnership pie, as pie-sharing fairness can be used to promote determinants of effectiveness and efficiency of their mutual NPD project. In a two-sided mutually contingent exchange behavior, the firm’s own welfare must be regarded as an interorganizational overlap with the partner’s, which can be optimized only by mutual efforts.

Value appropriation and value creation are two sides of the same coin. How B2B seller’s value appropriation impacts customer relationship performance still remains an under-researched topic. This paper aims to probe into this question in the context of Chinese B2B markets.

This study identifies two kinds of value appropriation, namely, competitive and non-competitive and then examines their impacts upon customer relationship performance, as well as the moderating roles of distributive fairness and procedural fairness, based on questionnaire survey among 273 Chinese B2B firms.

The authors find that seller’s competitive value appropriation has negative impact upon customer relationship performance, and this link is positively moderated by customer-perceived distributive fairness. Besides, non-competitive value appropriation by the seller has significant and positive impact upon customer relationship performance, and this link is positively moderated by customer-perceived procedural fairness.

The paper contributes greatly to literature of value management and industrial buyer–seller relationship. Managerial implications are provided for B2B companies operating in Chinese market to tackle with the tradeoff between appropriating sufficient value and retaining harmonious relationship with customers.

This study aims to investigate the effects of perceived tangible and intangible resource inequity and the moderating effect of long‐term orientation on future collaboration.

Outcome and moderating measures were developed using structural equation modeling. Data were collected at the project level of customer‐supplier relationships via survey among German and Swiss firms. The results were generated with regression and subgroup analyses.

The higher the negative tangible inequity or intangible inequity, the lower the customers' willingness to collaborate on future projects with suppliers. However, negative intangible inequity showed a stronger negative effect than negative tangible inequity. When long‐term orientation is in the model, the effects of inequity are stronger in short‐term relationships.

The study extends equity theory and provides a fruitful basis for future research at the project level of the customer‐supplier relationships. Specifically, since the effects of negative intangible inequity are stronger than the effects of negative tangible inequity, intangible resources may be more important than tangible resources to the future of customer‐supplier relationships. Since prior research does not delineate between tangible and intangible inequity, this is a unique finding and an important contribution to the application of equity theory in business. Cultural homogeneity is a limitation of the study. Furthermore, a longitudinal study could add insight.

This research offers a distinction between the effects of tangible and intangible resource inequity; it disaggregates the concepts of tangible and intangible resource inequity and tests the effects of either “positive inequity” (i.e. receiving more than deserved) or “negative inequity” (i.e. receiving less than deserved); and it separates short‐term from long‐term oriented companies to allow for a more discrete analysis, than prior approaches, of the effects of inequity on the propensity for future collaboration.

Companies involved in collaborative channel relationships aim at creating in sum a higher value than each channel partner could achieve on its own. There is relatively little empirical insight into what determines the sharing of the “value pie”. Therefore this paper aims to investigate determinants of value sharing in channel relationships.

Data for testing the hypotheses were collected through a telephone survey of managers from large industrial firms in the automotive, food, engineering and chemicals industries in Germany. Complete information on the study's questions was received from 142 firms, accounting for a response rate of 40.1 percent.

The results show that customer companies frequently receive larger shares of the value pie, while in most cases the value pie is shared equally. Furthermore, relationship quality, supplier motivation approaches, the goals of the channel relationship as well as the applied sharing principle are all influential in determining how value is shared in corporate practice.

Because all companies in the sample were selected from only four industries, all are among the largest companies in their specific industry, and all are headquartered in Germany, the generalizability of the results is unquestionably limited to similar firms.

Customer as well as supplier firms should incorporate the identified determinants in their partnering and sharing decisions, since they have an impact on the long‐term benefit of channel relationships.

The underlying determinants of the sharing process and the value allocation to the channel partners have so far received little research attention. This paper addresses this situation.

The existing literature is fragmented across disciplines and does not provide a holistic, comprehensive view on how value is created, deployed and captured. This paper aims to provide a structured view of the current literature and facilitates a theoretical understanding of value creation and capture in buyer–supplier relationships.

A systematic literature review was conducted on 195 articles published in 21 leading journals in marketing, operations management and strategy disciplines.

An integrated, generalizable and expandable framework is proposed based on the causal or interactive relationship among four components, namely, dimensions of value creation; processes and interactions by which buyers and suppliers enable value creation; relationship characteristics that affect these components; and value capture. Two new areas for future studies are also suggested.

The findings are based on papers published in peer-reviewed academic literature. Future studies could include more heterogeneous publications in languages other than English and/or professional journals to compare scholars' and managers' perspectives.

This study offers simple, practical guidelines that managers can apply in their real-world situations to increase the value they gain from their relationships.

The framework does not pretend to be exhaustive because such an attempt would be impractical. Rather, this study provides practical examples for each component, and shows how additional concepts and constructs can be incorporated to make it inclusive and generalizable. Two new manners of value capture other than price negotiations are presented (volume and collaborative benefits).

This study aims to investigate whether higher value creation leads to higher value appropriation and to identify the boundary conditions in a buyer–supplier relationship that can explain why a particular supplier can appropriate higher value than others.

The study uses questionnaire surveys. The sample of the survey has 150 publicly-listed supplier firms in Taiwan. The unit of analysis is the buyer–supplier relationship.

In the buyer–supplier relationship, suppliers’ bargaining power, partnership and a supplier’s original brand manufacturing (OBM) business can strengthen the positive relationship between value creation and value appropriation.

This study adopts the unilateral viewpoint of suppliers; however, some constructs might require dyadic evaluation. This study only explores the spillover effect of OBM business on the relationship between value creation and appropriation.

The spillover effect of a supplier’s OBM business in a buyer–supplier relationship allows the buyer to share more common benefits and the supplier to capture more private benefits as compensation. By broadening its customer base, a supplier can increase its bargaining power. A supplier can also maintain a strategic partnership with each essential buyer.

To avoid the dark-side effect of partnership, the model provides the contingency that a supplier can capture more value from a buyer–supplier relationship.

This study aims to investigate how and to what extent structural network properties affect dyadic negotiation behavior in tourism destination ecosystems. Specifically, this study addresses negotiation behavior in terms of problem-solving and contending, because these two key strategies reflect the integrative and distributive aspects of dyadic interactions.

This study relies on network data and dyadic survey data from nine mountain tourism destinations in Southeastern Norway. The structural network properties the authors research are triadic closure – the extent to which a dyad has common ties to other actors – and structural equivalence – the similarities in networking patterns that capture firms’ competition for similar resources. In addition, the authors also study a possible effect of relationship duration on negotiation behavior.

Triadic closure and relationship duration have positive effects on problem-solving, and structural equivalence tends to decrease problem-solving, although the effect is inconsistent; none of these three independent variables was found to affect contending negotiation behavior.

This study shows that a dyad’s structural network embeddedness has implications for negotiation behavior. Further research is encouraged to develop this theoretical perspective.

This study is a pioneering investigation of how structural network properties affect dyadic negotiation behavior in ongoing coproducing relationships in real-world destination ecosystems.

Businesses have always competed on knowledge, whether executives explicitly have said so or not. So, what’s new? What’s new is that technology now permits us to acquire, organize, manage and leverage vast amounts of knowledge much more efficiently and purposefully than ever before, and in ways that were almost unimaginable even a decade ago. It has become increasingly clear that the ability to use knowledge more effectively than competition represents the only basis for sustained competitive advantage in today’s rapidly changing world, particularly at a time when most traditional forms of competitive advantage are soon matched or surpassed by others. Look how quickly costs and quality are equaled. Excellence in these areas is merely the price of admission to the competitive game. And the new game is technology enabled and knowledge‐driven.

Hyperconnectivity and supercooperation among partners within the mobile value chain are crucial factors for sustainable growth of the mobile ecosystem. This study aims to identify the complex structure of hyperconnectivity and supercooperation underlying revenue sharing practices and the actions and reactions of Chinese mobile video triads.

This study uses the causal loop diagram and system dynamics simulation to demonstrate the feedback causal structure wherein the revenue sharing (RS) rule adjustments trigger interactions among participants (e.g., MNOs, SPs and CPs) in mobile video service triads, leading to fluctuations in the number of mobile video users and total revenue in the mobile video value chain.

Change of RS rules among value chain participants is an incentive for achieving the sustainability of the mobile ecosystem, as examined using a system dynamics (SD) simulation. However, from the perspective of a tri-partite mobile value chain, the “accidental adversary” system archetype caused by adjustment of RS rules has an unintended negative impact on counterparts in the mobile ecosystem value chain.

This study analyzes a complex feedback causal structure based on structural interdependencies among growth, limiting and relaxing loops in the Chinese mobile video ecosystem. The result of SD simulation suggests strategic alternatives such as the “growth and underinvestment” systems archetype to overcome “limits to growth”. Moreover, this study explores the accidental adversary archetype in complex and complicated mobile service triads as an impediment to achieving sustainability of the mobile ecosystem.

Inter‐firm knowledge sharing and learning constitute one of the main avenues to improve supply chains' performance in today's business environment. This paper aims to examine how effective different governance mechanisms are in promoting knowledge transfer, learning and performance in supply chains.

Following on from the literature in inter‐organizational learning, transaction costs economics, business‐to‐business relational marketing, and supply chain management, a model is presented and tested using structural equations modeling. Data were collected from 219 Colombian apparel manufacturers.

This paper finds that from more influential to less, social mechanisms of governance, hostages and behavioral control favor knowledge sharing, learning and performance in supply chains. Output control exerts a negative influence on learning in supply chains.

Governance has a key role in promoting transparency and learning in supply chains. Future research should analyze whether it impacts on the firms' learning intent.

Knowledge sharing and learning have a positive influence on the supply chain's performance. Results of the study suggest that the supply chain's competitiveness lies in the adequate governance of the interfirm relationships, i.e. by using trust, hostages and behavioral control to support knowledge exchange.

Compared with studies that limit their analysis to the impact of one specific type of governance mechanism, generally trust, the paper for the first time jointly examines the role of several types of governance on knowledge‐sharing in supply chains, on learning and on performance. This allows a comparison of the different mechanisms in terms of their safeguarding and coordination role.