IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/oruesi/2005_006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dependence and trust between suppliers and industrial customers

Author

Listed:
  • Sanner, Leif

    (Department of Business, Economics, Statistics and Informatics)

Abstract

Suppliers have experienced unexpected consequences for their businesses due to changing situations for their important customers. Such events may also occur at short notice, at least when it comes to necessary and radical decisions. Often suppliers are not aware of the full extent of these events until it is too late for them to take countermeasures, i.e. develop appropriate strategies. With increasing turbulence in the marketplace, it is clear that firms need to be aware of relationship-oriented marketing strategies. To cope with change the supplier and its customer will need strategies based on jointly understood action. Action, both strategic and operational, is based on each party’s meanings concerning why they do business with one another (enactment). Dependence and trust between the parties are issues in their construction of meaning and will therefore underlie their enactment. The purpose of this paper is to investigate dependence and trust between suppliers and industrial customers, implications for action of dependence and trust, and, finally, draw conclusions about dependence and trust for business strategy. Dependence. A firm can be dependent on a specific other firm due to investments in specific assets geared to that firm. A literature survey identifies five types of specific assets: Personal relations, competence, integration of governance systems, dedicated volume of goods/services, and product/process specialization. Another reason for dependence is the structure of the market, which may lack alternative providers of similar products. Then it becomes difficult or impossible due to large switching costs to substitute one firm with another for the provision of good/services. Trust. A literature survey concerning trust leads to the conclusion that important aspects of trust probably vary between different environments and settings where trust is an issue. Since trust between suppliers and industrial customers is the issue in this study, the notion and implications of trust among strategic decision-makers in that empirical setting would be important. By using the trust literature together with an empirical investigation three types of trust for the study are discerned: Relationship-based, competence-based and moral based trust. Dependence and trust. There is a temporal interplay between trust and dependence. Trust is expectation concerning the future. Dependence differs from trust by being formed in the present time and may therefore become a means to avoid the problems in assessing the future. But when you choose to trust someone, as a consequence you become dependent. Interrelationship between dependence and trust is thus complex and intertwined. It varies with task, situation and persons involved. The order of events in time has an impact. Earlier actions by actors influence later ones. Trust develops stepwise in repeated encounters between the parties. The parties’ actions towards each other and the evolvement of action processes seem to be the key to understanding suppliers’ and customers’ dependence and trust. This interplay is in the paper illustrated with dependence and trust development in two dyads of supplier – industrial customer. In the cases we could discern that meaning construction with dependence and trust, interrelated with action, can lead to improved or deteriorated business relations between the parties. As in the cases patterns of virtuous circles or vicious circles may emerge. Expectations concerning the other party, i.e. trust, could thus change substantially, leading to different types of action than before. Conclusions concerning business strategy. Dependence and trust have different impacts on a firm’s strategy and consequently on strategic change. Dependence indicates preconditions for action and what action is precluded due to the characteristics of business between the parties in terms of specific assets and substitutability. In all, dependence sets limits for strategy, wide or narrow. Trust, on the other hand, can be a driving force shaping strategy, opening up possibilities in markets and products as well as governance systems linking parties. But lack of trust and deteriorating trust may also preclude business that could otherwise have been done. There needs to be trust backing up any viable strategy and strategic change. Furthermore, it is vital that the parties concerned convey in their communication what they consider to be meanings in their business. If they have dissimilar views on dependence, action may become disjointed and not understood by the other party. Likewise, openness concerning trust in one another is needed in order to display mutuality in trust or build mutual trust. On industry level trust in supplier relationships at firm level can be promoted by providing information exchange and arenas for that purpose to support potential business partners to embark upon trust development. Society, in its policy-making, can promote trust on firm level by clear-cut rules of the game, which – among other things – will reduce the risks that parties in an exchange will go to disjointed action due to different interpretations of what society requires from firms in business.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanner, Leif, 2005. "Dependence and trust between suppliers and industrial customers," Working Papers 2005:6, Örebro University, School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:oruesi:2005_006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.oru.se/globalassets/oru-sv/institutioner/hh/workingpapers/workingpapers2005/wp-6-2005.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geyskens, I. & Steenkamp, J.E.B.M. & Scheer, L.K. & Kumar, N., 1996. "The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment : A trans-Atlantic study," Other publications TiSEM ef7c8d6c-963d-4ee7-8576-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Johanson, Jan & Mattsson, Lars-Gunnar, 1987. "Interorganizational relations in industrial systems : a network approach compared with the transaction cost approach," Working Papers 1987:7, Uppsala University, Department of Business Studies.
    3. Erin Anderson & Barton Weitz, 1989. "Determinants of Continuity in Conventional Industrial Channel Dyads," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 310-323.
    4. Nooteboom, B. & Berger, H. & Noorderhaven, N.G., 1997. "Effects of trust and governance on relational risk," Other publications TiSEM 8e83932e-064c-40e8-afe7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Buvik, Arnt & Grønhaug, Kjell, 2000. "Inter-firm dependence, environmental uncertainty and vertical co-ordination in industrial buyer-seller relationships," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 445-454, August.
    6. Jonathan Morris & Rob Imrie, 1992. "Transforming Buyer-Supplier Relations," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-11200-5, December.
    7. Niels Noorderhaven & Bart Nooteboom & Hans Berger, 1998. "Determinants of Perceived Interfirm Dependence in Industrial Supplier Relations," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 2(3), pages 213-232, September.
    8. Sako, Mari & Helper, Susan, 1998. "Determinants of trust in supplier relations: Evidence from the automotive industry in Japan and the United States," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 387-417, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:dgr:rugsom:03g23 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jong, Gjalt de & Nooteboom, Bart, 2003. "A cross cultural comparison of long-term supply relationships," Research Report 03G23, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    3. de Jong, G. & Nooteboom, B., 2001. "The Causality of Supply Relationships," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2001-73-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    4. Kurt, Yusuf & Yamin, Mo & Sinkovics, Noemi & Sinkovics, Rudolf R., 2016. "Spirituality as an antecedent of trust and network commitment: The case of Anatolian Tigers," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 686-700.
    5. Holtgrave, Maximilian & Nienaber, Ann-Marie & Ferreira, Carlos, 2017. "Untangling the trust–control nexus in international buyer–supplier exchange relationships: An investigation of the changing world regarding relationship length," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 523-537.
    6. En Xie & Yuan Li & Zhongfeng Su & Hock-Hai Teo, 2010. "The Determinants of Local Suppliers’ Trust Towards Foreign Buyers," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 50(5), pages 585-611, October.
    7. Roden, Sinéad & Lawson, Benn, 2014. "Developing social capital in buyer–supplier relationships: The contingent effect of relationship-specific adaptations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 89-99.
    8. Nooteboom, B., 2002. "Governance and Competence," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-25-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Vélez, Maria L. & Sánchez, José M. & Álvarez-Dardet, Concha, 2008. "Management control systems as inter-organizational trust builders in evolving relationships: Evidence from a longitudinal case study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 968-994.
    10. Zur, Andrew & Leckie, Civilai & Webster, Cynthia M., 2012. "Cognitive and affective trust between Australian exporters and their overseas buyers," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 73-79.
    11. Li, Weizi & Islam, Aaquib & Johnson, Kevin & Lauchande, Priam & Shang, Xiaopu & Xu, Shen, 2018. "Understanding inter-organizational trust among integrated care service provider networks: A perspective on organizational asymmetries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(12), pages 1356-1363.
    12. Beugelsdijk, S. & Koen, C.I. & Noorderhaven, N.G., 2004. "Organizational Culture and Relationship Skills," Other publications TiSEM 29a52938-acd6-4261-841f-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Yuan, Yang & Feng, Bo & Lai, Fujun & Collins, Brian J., 2018. "The role of trust, commitment, and learning orientation on logistic service effectiveness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 37-50.
    14. Inkpen, Andrew C. & Currall, Steven C., 1998. "The nature, antecedents, and consequences of joint venture trust," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, July.
    15. Griessmair, Michele & Hussain, Dildar & Windsperger, Josef, 2014. "Trust and the tendency towards multi-unit franchising: A relational governance view," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2337-2345.
    16. Muhammad Khan & Hee Yong Lee & Jung Han Bae, 2019. "The Role of Transparency in Humanitarian Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-27, April.
    17. Aaquib Islam & Weizi Li & Kevin Johnson & Priam Lauchande, 0. "How far has the integrated care come? Applying an asymmetric lens to inter-organisation trust amongst health and social care organisations," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-26.
    18. Richard Glavee-Geo & Per Engelseth & Arnt Buvik, 2022. "Power Imbalance and the Dark Side of the Captive Agri-food Supplier–Buyer Relationship," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 609-628, July.
    19. Roland Helm & Martin Kloyer & Christin Aust, 2018. "R&D Collaboration Between Firms: Hard And Soft Antecedents Of Supplier Knowledge Sharing," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(01), pages 1-42, December.
    20. Liu, Yi & Li, Yuan & Zhang, Leinan, 2010. "Control mechanisms across a buyer-supplier relationship quality matrix," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 3-12, January.
    21. Meer-Kooistra, J. van der & Vosselman, E.G.J., 1999. "Management control of interfirm transactional relationships: the case of industrial renovation and maintenance," Research Report 99A28, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    supply chain; strategy; business relationship;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:oruesi:2005_006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieoruse.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.